Which one? I couldn't find anything here that describes what you posted about.

The opposite, perhaps - e.g. GT Equipment Holdings, Inc was indeed incorporated separately to GT Advanced Technology Inc, and GT Sapphire Systems Holding LLC (and others).

Oh, you've seen the terms of the contract, then? Do please share.

Perhaps because of said "bait-and-switch" tactics?

Doubtless Apple assured GT they would definitely buy all that sapphire; why else would they invest so much in producing it? Even though the contract technically allowed them to back out, there was surely very little chance that would actually happen, and a far greater chance of massive revenue from being a key supplier for the next iPhone...

Then it turns out that the product wasn't as shatter-resistant as they'd hoped, and they backed out, or whatever. But who could've guessed that Apple might go back on its (non-binding) commitments? Tim pinky-swore!

Who said the CO2 causes anything?

The article and summary use the words "contributed to", which we know will be true - as a greenhouse gas, any increased CO2 will amplify and contribute to further warming. Doubtless there are other causative factors involved (e.g. Milankovitch cycles), some of which may well have occurred before the CO2 release.

The interesting question is, what triggered the CO2 pulses?

Funny how Xerox didn't see it that way.

Daily Mail articles highlighting a single example should be dismissed, SJW or no.

The Business Week article discusses a series of Gallup polls, which make a better case. But even there, 34% of people had "no preference" - not that different to the 39% that preferred a male boss. I also note these have been steadily converging for the last few decades.

In any case, it's not particularly relevant to a Mars mission - candidates would be selected on their ability to get along, not randomly from the population.

Yep, and followed the "World's (second) Largest Scale Model of the Solar System" (1:38,000,000) as we drove in.

I presume you're referring to the interglacial warm periods, as shown in this graph.

We have a very good idea of what causes those - they align nicely with orbital variations (Milankovitch cycles). And we're not due for another one - we just passed the peak of one a few thousand years back. The temperature had been dropping slowly since then (up until a century ago).

Usual selective reporting from the Daily Mail - claiming a 29% rebound from an all-time record low is somehow "proof" that global warming is overblown. The link is a year old too - this year is actually the sixth lowest in the satellite record.

Worth looking at an actual trend, rather than Daily Mail headlines.

How does the cause of past events have any bearing on the cause of this event? Is it unthinkable for there to be more than one possible cause?

GP's linked studies make a good case about past events. They say nothing about this event, which may have entirely different causes. It's pure speculation to assume either way, at this stage, and accusations of confirmation bias and "bald faced lies" only reflect on the accuser.

So because it's happened for other reasons in the past, that conclusively rules out climate change as a cause in this case? Not seeing the logic there.

Let's not jump to any conclusions here, either pro or against climate change as a cause, until we get a peer-reviewed study concerning this event. TFA is insufficient evidence, as is your link.

You're right, I should apply my critical faculties and take his own words with a big grain of salt. Clearly he's not a reputable source even concerning himself.

And that's good for Commerce, how? And Penn State?

So if I understand your logic:

1. CRU emails cleared ->
2. Climate "hoax" strengthened ->
3. Governments everywhere introduce massive new taxes "just in case" ->
4. Chamber of Commerce gets huge new budget for some reason ->
5. CoC panel members all get their fat bonus payoffs, along with all the other panels that cleared CRU ->
6. Vast global conspiracy involving government departments in most developed countries AND all major universities and scientific institutions AND their member scientists, who have all risked destroying their careers to fake all their studies and somehow share in this tax bounty - and nobody talks, no actual evidence is produced, the poor fossil fuel industry is just an innocent victim, and taxpayers around the world get stuck with a world running on renewable fuels with minimal pollution a few decades early.

Yep, makes perfect sense, far more sense than it being the fossil fuel industry that is doing their very best to deny all the evidence and sabotage any possible price on carbon, because they don't have hundreds of billions in profits and trillions more in potential assets at risk. No incentive there!!!

Citations? What evidence is there that the Department of Commerce has a financial interest in a global warming hoax, or Penn State U? Eagerly awaiting your failure to reply.

Do you have a reference for that? The first link I looked at just said

So there could be various reasons for them to not want to share data (such as too much time & effort required) - but wanting to hide evidence against global warming, is not one of them. The GPs implied accusation that the science was fudged has been thoroughly and repeatedly disproved.