It's no longer "climate change", it's "climate dispruption". The meme changes whenever the previous one becomes discredited by poor science and research fraud.

Firstly, skepticalscience is anything but. It's a shill website, so -1 for referencing it. Secondly, the correlation is almost certainly more complex than the simple-minded one demonstrated there. For example, there's a definite correlation between cosmic rays and stratospheric temperature. Moreover, atmospheric temperature is closely related to sea surface temperature (particularly through El Nino and La Nina), so the correlation is more likely to be something like cosmic rays -> cloud cover -> sea temperature -> atmospheric temperature (the heat capacity of the oceans being 1,000 x greater than that of the atmosphere). As I say, you don't know all of the facts and neither does the propagandist who maintains the skepticalscience website.

Actually now I mention it, it would take only a change in cloud cover of 1-2% to cause the observed recent warming signal. I'm fairly certain those facts aren't known and that there's precious little historical data on this of any accuracy.

You are basing your assumption on all the facts being known. This is a huge mistake, and it's one that the environmental movement and these activist "post-normal" scientists have been making for decades. I would, for example, wait for the CLOUD experiment at CERN to complete before coming to any conclusions.

A Ph.D. will immediately get out a hammer and beat on it to see if any rotten pieces fly off

I think you've missed off something important from your analysis: group-think. That is to say, the Ph.D. is something of a course of indoctrination into a paradigm, moderated by fellow believers. It isn't for nothing they say that science progresses one funeral at a time.

The article is talking about those who completely deny all facts

Yet it starts by talking about Senator Infhoe, who "believes" that doubling CO2 will cause an increase of around ~1C, but that all the other computer model predictions are bollocks. So how is Infhoe an idiot when an eminent scientist like Richard Lindzen and many others hold the same view? The article should be turned around because it's clearly about activist scientists using science to promote a political agenda and how the public are getting wise to this. In reality, scientists themselves are destroying public trust in science by "marketing" their work for personal or professional gain.

Why is this modded "informative"? It should have been modded funny.

You forgot to include the removal of temperature stations from the network, which has also been going on.

There's no easier way of "just getting the game" than downloading it on Steam. I haven't been in a video game store for years. With respect to changing to a more malign TOS, this would be a legal minefield for Valve, so it isn't going to happen.

Why don't they comply by setting up another FB account, with no friends and no posts and simply give that to the employer?

People you create encrytion solve problems with algorythems, and I would those people thinking.
So is the man inside the Chinese Room, manipulating symbols. Is the Chinese Room thinking?

Deep Blue was programmed to do nothing but play chess. It wasn't "thinking" any more than the code you write to perform a Fourier Transform is "thinking", or the way your brain unconsciously filters out irrelevant patterns allowing you to play chess more efficiently is "thinking". Thinking is an intentional, conscious act. Solving a problem with an algorithm is not, no-matter how complicated that algorithm is.

Exactly. This is a giant LOL of a story.

The word "concern" in science basically means they are concerned that they get more funding, rather than concerned about the hole.

Good point, but is this actually available, or is it a "viral" marketing ploy? And even if it is available, are that many people who would otherwise have bought the game going to download and play it? I am looking forward to buying it on steam when it's released.