Drunk people fight over stupid shit. Tune in this Sunday for our round-table debate: is this really news for nerds?

I suspect that book is still foundational in most University advertising/marketing progams.

Or a nice game of "Global Thermonuclear War".

Let's be clear here. You cannot infer anything beyond the Nyquist limit. However, if your average resolution limit is 1m years and you are not seeing major changes more rapid that 10m years, there is an extremely low likelihood that there are any processes operating at a lower frequency than that. (I would imagine the samples are somewhat stochastic.)

I do not know what the resolution limits are for this data nor what sort constraints the data provide. My only point is that one must be precise when speaking about these sorts of things. "Rapid changes" and "low resolution" are meaningless terms.

...or "we" (the U.S.) paid for a relatively small fraction of the total cost of the LHC.

Defending one's view presupposes that the view has come under attack. Expressing one's view does not.

Nope. I have no need to. And certainly not in public, on the internet, with a stranger. That sort of activity is, like sex, best done in private and with people I know and trust.

There is a subtle difference between expressing ones views and defending them that you (and others) may have missed.

Why exactly? They are your views. Why do you need to defend them? Either they hold up on their own, or they don't.

In fact, I would argue that the exact opposite is true. The only views worth having are those that need no defense. They are well-supported by established evidence. All views should be treated with a commensurate level of skepticism based on the evidence available to support them.