The novel part is they present data to confirm it, and their analysis is peer-reviewed - that's the difference between a real study and something that "everyone can see".

What I was actually referring to was the models being incomplete, which isn't news to anyone. Fyfe et al 2013 just demonstrate this, and suggest some of the likely missing factors. TFA goes further, and gives data on a new factor (the deep-ocean current).

No model, in any branch of science or engineering, is complete and perfect; that doesn't mean they're useless.

I'm curious to see which fundamental assumptions made by current models you believe to be contradicted by this paper. To me it looks like they're simply pointing out a deep-ocean cycle that could soak up heat from the surface - not unlike the well-known ENSO, PDO and AMO cycles, which most models don't attempt to predict. Unless you think that "incomplete" means "fundamentally assumes that no other factors can exist"?

Your linked study really just shows what everyone could already see - the climate models are missing something. This of course isn't a surprise; they're missing lots of things, many of which are called out in the study (ENSO, AMO, volcanic activity, unexpected stratospheric aerosol variation or solar variation, etc). There's a lot of details we can't predict, but climate models are still useful even when we know they're incomplete, just like every other kind of model.

Still, I appreciate the link, even if (as you say) it doesn't invalidate any "sketchy science".

Do enlighten us - please link to an example of "sketchy science" that has been proved wrong by more solid, peer-reviewed science.

Strangely, all the examples I can find just support the consensus view.

Only if you're in a nuclear family.

It's worth noting that Roger Shawyer (the original inventor) maintains that this effect does not violate Conservation of Momentum.

The verification is crucial though. What happens when two scientists claim they can verify a hypothesis, and two thousand scientists say they cannot?

Either two thousand scientists have screwed up badly, or just two have. Which is more likely? Lacking the skills, time & equipment to verify it yourself, who are you going to believe?

A single person can come up with a major paradigm shift that overturns our old models - but not when their results can't be reliably verified, and certainly not when their claims require simply ignoring decades of observations to the contrary.

Luckily, it's entirely because they have been "taking android back" that they've been able to issue a (closed-source) Play Services response to the threat so quickly, to all Google-using android phones regardless of carrier.

If you have any of Google's apps installed, you'll also have Play Services installed - and this has already been updated to detect attempts to use the specific vulnerable certificates involved. If you only get your apps from the Play Store, you're fine, as they've already all been scanned (and no exploit attempts detected). Even if you sideload, so long as you left the Verify Apps checkbox on (default setting), then Play Services will scan any sideloaded apps too (no exploit attempts have been detected that way either).

While the vulnerability is a serious one, it's not something that will concern the vast majority of Google's Android users. It's probably a lot more significant for companies like Amazon, who will have to develop their own response, and (inevitably) for all those millions of Chinese users of generic non-Google Android derivatives.

The only people claiming the carbon tax wasn't working were Coalition politicians (and their apologists), and the companies who didn't want to have to cover the external costs of their businesses. Fact is, it was starting to work quite well, despite the damping effect of Abbott attacking it with all the FUD he could muster.

And now we have economists scratching their heads as to why a conservative government would attack a market-based climate solution while favouring a big direct-action spending program instead:

I'm curious as to where you read that. My understanding is that book prices rose, by 30-50%.

What part of this can't be done just as well by a human, today? The "follows all the laws" part?

Pretty sure that handovers of stolen goods/drugs/whatever to different vehicles with different drivers already occur.

Sadly for you, the "facts" are on Amazon's side here. Apple was being legally outcompeted, and resorting to illegal collusion needs to be smacked down, regardless of how much they hated seeing their potential marketshare slipping away. Maybe they should have tried to compete by lowering prices further, rather than raising them? Would be a better outcome for consumers.

You'll need a much larger panel than 50cm to charge it that fast. And sunlight. This device should work day & night, regardless of weather.

If 94% of academic economists have fudged things to make their papers look better - what about commercial economists, where they have a stronger financial incentive? What about political economists?

At first I was worried - but then I realised their trust level is already slightly below that of lawyers.