Greenland was never green, and even through the warmest period since the early Middle Age, it wasn't warmer than today.

In the Graenlandinga Saga, Bjarni Herjulfsson travels to Greenland, and the description in the Saga fits today: Mighty glaciers, mightier than those of Iceland, cover much of the land, and only a few green stripes were to be seen at the Western coast. The name Greenland is called bogus and chosen as an euphemism in the saga.

Columbus' travel never was about the world being flat or not. That's a made up story from the late 18th century. There is no evidence in Middle Age scholar's writing that the Earth was considered being flat at all. The only sources are two obscure byzanthine scholars from the 4th and 6th century, but they are never quoted in later writings.

Columbus' travel was about the circumfence of the Earth. While most scholars in the 15th century estimated the circumfence to be about 26,000 miles, quite close to reality, Columbus was convinced it was only 15,000, making a travel westward to India to seem actually feasible and shorter than the Portuguese way around the Cape of Good Hope.

The evidence is so good, that sofar, we don't have any evidence about them ever being in the Americas in the first place.

A 4.5 is similar in intensity to an heavy truck driving along your home.

So cups in the US are 250 ml? I have a selection of cups here which have between 150 ml and 500 ml. Which of them is the "baking cup"? Cup is a quite confusing measuring unit.

1 Guinea = 21 shillings. Prices were often expressed in Guineas, to appear smaller compared to prices in Pounds.

Don't you have write-in candidates?

It's not so much the alternatives becoming cheaper than the extraction of fossil fuels becoming more and more expensive. We extract gold with much more cost per kilogram than coal -- but only because selling the gold will give about $1200 per ounce.

Whether some geological formation is called a deposit for some mineral is depending not only on the characteristics of the local geology, it is at first a question of economics: Does it make sense to extract the mineral here, or will it be cheaper to buy somewhere else and get it shipped? When we are talking about the exhaustion of deposits, we always have to keep the qualifier in mind "under current technological and economical conditions".

Actually, GMO uses a completely natural process, that's called "retro viral infection", and it's often deadly (HIV for instance is a retro virus). In GMO it's called "DNA shuttle". A retro virus puts its own DNA into the host's DNA causing the host to produce copies of the retro virus. For GMO, the retro virus first gets some additional DNA (mostly from a completely unrelated species) to produce the desired proteins, which it then carries into the host and which (hopefully) will integrate into the host's DNA, thus the name DNA shuttle. If the GMO designer is lucky, the host will battle the retro viral DNA and keep the additional DNA.

It has nothing to do with evolution, though the human DNA shows the remainings of several retro virus infections that were kept in the genome, but seems mostly unfunctional right now.

Actually, 33% of renewable energy in Germany comes from wind, about 25% from biomass, 20% from photovoltaic and 15% from hydro. So biomass and hydro. while still large, don't have the biggest share.

There are additional effects: Radiation is not as bad for animals living all the time there. A local wolfpack seems to do just fine. It is rather bad for animals being there only occasionally, like migratory birds. Those animals show much higher level of gene defects. It seems that at least vertebratae can adapt to the higher levels of radiation if they live there all the time. But it's not so easy for those moving in and out all the time.

Local lakes (Tchernobyl borders to a very extensive swamp region, the Pinsk marshes) show very high levels of gene defects in newts and frogs -- not because they got too much radiation, but because migratory predators are missing that normally would eliminate those specimen.

You misunderstand the basic principle of the Moon landing hoax conspiracy. At first, prima causa, is the premise that the Moon landings didn't happen. Everything else has to fit this. There are pictures of the landings? The pictures are fake. There are people working at the Moon landings project? The people are liars. There are contemporary reports of the Moon landings? They are fabricated by a concerted propaganda blitz etc.pp.

The idea that you can topple the prima causa by attacking the conclusions is naive. The premise is all that's about it. The Moon landings have to be fake. Everything else is just a corollary.

Science works without even the existance of ultimate causes and absolute truth. They are nice projections of the expected direction research will go, but there is no reason for them to actually exist. Some famous scientists even voiced amazement about the apparent universal validity of their theories.

We do experiments with the Sun everyday. For instance we put up calendars and models of the movement of Sun and Earth, which predict that Sun and Earth tonight will be in such a position that the day-night-terminator will cross San Francisco, CA at 6.06 pm. It's a valid prediction, which can be tested very easily for people being in San Francisco tonight.

You can by adding a random salt. If the scheme warrants that the spaces of possible private keys of two sources don't overlap, then you can have secure private keys which are not recreatable from the publicly known source, but which still can be attributed to it.