Yeah ... especially after watching a friend using his stylus on his Galaxy phone and thinking 'plus ca change' ...

Existing tech should have had Whitehouse security standing by (not to mention other layers of the security envelope) but didn't.

The tech was fine, clearly the users of it failed. No measures need to be extended, no new and sweeping permissions are required, no new intrusion tech is required.

What's needed are simply intelligent people paying attention. No bill is going to provide that.

... as this man's actions were hardly a secret, and yet.

The truth is out there in plain sight, no need for super secret privacy invasion.

where 'plastic' = 'polymers'

If you are in a Western 2nd or 1st world country, then pretty much wherever you are, you are surrounded by polymer-based products including, but not limited to: perfumes, paint, wrapping, flooring, clothing (think spandex, spanks, nylon), dyes, glues, lubricants (of all kinds), shatter-proof windows, money, tires, asphalt, roofing shingles, the handles of just about any tool or appliance, eye-glasses, contact lenses, diapers, ink, water bottles, make-up, shoes, boots, baseball caps, computer cases, fans, laptops, cellphones, swimming pool liners, anything with fiberglass, battery casings, beer can holders, non-scratch covers for solar panels (as well as the casing for them).... get the idea?

Not saying it's good, just saying it's the price we pay for more, lighter, cheaper, (often) more durable, stuff ... and there is absolutely no way that will change any time soon.

Everything that is known about climate is in those models ... how can they be wrong?

And don't go "... different planet ... ", it's thermodynamics (and a bunch of 'ologies) so ...

Fact is: there is a long ways to go before current climate models predict anything validly/consitently.

As catastrophic storms brought about by climate change bring the power grid down more and more frequently, the dependence on electric vehicles will be seen for what it is, pie in the sky. And as more people then turn to internal combustion engines, the climate will change more radically bringing with it catastrophic storms ...

Seriously, electric vehicles are coming despite State legislation (read: greed)slowing down the process.

It took all her years of graduate research and effort, and four additional years, and finally someone with the stature Russell agreeing with her, to overturn the consensus that believed her conclusions were wrong.

If her supervisor hadn't have been Russell, it would have taken longer. And it would have taken much much longer if there had been anyone with a strong vested interest in her being wrong, say a political agenda depending on sun composition or many scientists trying to maintain a funding source to study sun composition.

That is the reality of science then, and now.

If everyone must make their data available, then a paper will be judged on the strength of its:

a) academic contribution; and
b) quality/usefulness of the data.

So you might not be the author of the greatest paper, yet your impact might be the quality of the experimentation and resulting data.

Right now, papers appear and the data is just hearsay. In that environment, anybody can publish anything ... and today, there's is a strong incentive to do just that.

Rarely will a biologist, say, coauthor a paper with a statistician and a computer scientist (or better, a programmer).
After all, there are statistics apps and programming isn`t that hard ... right?
And no statistician could understand the intricacies of biology, same for a computer scientist (obviously) ... right?

So like the persons doing their own home renovations, some get it right without a professional, and a lot more don't. The tools are available but they just don't truly understand them nor know how to use them properly.

Ask yourself: how many students went in to psychology, biology, anthropology, etc. because they hated and/or were poor at math? Should you trust their statistics as researchers?

The world of science need cooperation, 'silos of knowledge' belong to the nineteenth century.

... frackin' change. What the hell isn't these days?

And all predictions made with 50% certainty.

Oh, and this has all happened before climate change.

Someone is making money off the 'climate change' mantra, which means pronouncements in that regard are no longer credible. Too much noise in the message. Don't care.

a) Why not a bloodhound, basset, etc.
b) why only one dog? Even in tech you would use more than one test eg. an ensemble of classifiers

Besides curiousity, why was computing power (read: energy) spent on this?

Seriously.

Do you think that errors in a model are cumulative?
Do you think the models used here are similar to, identical to, or components of, the global climate models?
If so, then the global models are not capturing all the processes that influence climate, correct?
If so, then the global models yield answers with a margin of error, correct?
Therefore, find out what the error is on the current climate models used to predict global climate change, because an error of +/- 2 degrees on a prediction of 2 degrees increase (say) is kind of important.

And good luck with that. Because there are no error values reported. And there probably can't be; we don't know what we don't know.

Based on that, how much do you want your governent to act on climate change "predictions"?

... down in the Earth's mantle. Where do you think all our "fossil" fuel deposits came/come from [Deep Hot Biosphere]?

Sorry for the typo folks.

-Google