I'd say that change over time is 100% certain for everything. Nothing has ever been the same since time began. The state of the universe is change.

Lots of mutations consistently happening over a long period of time is not even analogous to "then a miracle occurs", let alone "exactly equivalent".

There is proof that small mutations occur. There is not proof of mutation occurring in real time. I.e. no one has observed a mutation happen under a microscope (we don't have the technique) - we have proof after the fact by comparing changes in DNA.

Nothing happened "just right". It just happened. It is essentially meaningless. You shouldn't care about it.

You might as well start asking "what are the chances that matter is attracted to matter?" or "what are the chances that all the stars in the milky way lined up to make a giant spiral arm?".

Stuff happens, we see it happening, we can model it, we don't know why it exists, that is life, enjoy it while it lasts. :)

The sum total of thousands of tiny changes (adaptations) over a long period of time = evolution.

Evolution is reversible. Evolutionary pressures can act in reverse.

It is best to think of evolution in terms of "has an organism changed". If it has changed, then it has evolved. So even one tiny change, whilst it does not necessarily show any dramatic difference, is evolution.

The world is not a static thing. It is continually slowly changing in every way. It's just the way it is.

Who says they still have it? They had no obligation to hold on to it so they may have deleted it prior to any court ruling to nullify any ruling against them.

My apologies, Anonymous Coward was hidden. Now I see it...

It would be simple minded. Of course I didn't say or imply that, so I'm not sure where you're coming from.

Every time I see someone call somebody else a "denialist" I can't help but think they are treading a very thin line towards Godwin's law.

Attack the argument, not the person.

No, he's correct. Evolution has not been observed happening in real time at a genetic level. We have observed the long term effects of it. I.e. we can compare the DNA of one batch of bacteria in the E. Coli long-term evolution experiment with another batch and see that they have changed, but we don't know which exact bacterium started the change and why or how that change occurred during cell replication. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Or, as in your example, we can compare the DNA or RNA of a virus with a previous generation and we know it has changed. We didn't see it changing. We don't know why it has changed. I.e. we didn't see it evolve, but we observed the effects of the evolution (a changed organism).

Science is almost never settled and is always up for debate (don't be a bigot).

Climate change science has not been settled. Every year better and better models come out superseding the older models. This comes about by climate scientists debating the merits of their existing models.

"Does climate change happen naturally? Yes? Is the current experience of climate change natural? No."

In regards to the second question you posed the answer is yes and no. "Natural" (non-anthropogenic) climate change has not paused while anthropogenic causes increased in effect.

You from Aus?

It's great you mentioned the Serval Project. It is a pity they are restricted by spectrum licences to using wifi.

I wonder if the LTE Direct people had seen the Serval Project.

"they still fall behind more conventional forms of lighting in terms of brightness."

The most advanced consumer LEDs have a higher luminous efficacy than HID, fluorescent, and incandescent lights. They have for several years now.

The luminous flux of LEDs is good as well. Although the total power of LEDs tapers off after around 30W, manufacturers use large arrays of the more efficient low power LEDs and achieve incredibly high luminous flux. E.g. Cree sells a flood light that is 850W and outputs 75000 lumens.

For domestic use, LEDs have higher luminous flux than competing lighting techniques.

The SA price is about 0.40 USD per kW/h (including taxes). That is a conservative number from the cheapest providers. It only goes up from there.

http://www.energymadeeasy.gov....

Compare that to the USA

http://www.eia.gov/electricity...

They average about 0.13 USD per kW/h.

;)

You've done me a favor, I didn't even know Antarctica had volcanic areas. I've now looked it up and there are subglacial volcanoes!!!

"This contributes to the ice loss already occurring due to warmer temperatures."

What will be interesting is the relative ratios of each affect (which I don't see yet quantified).

"In fact probably less than 10% is affected directly by the geothermal heat."

"In fact" and "probably" don't mix.

The paper doesn't support your assertion. If you look at Fig. 3 you'll see that almost the entire glacier has twice the average geothermal flow at 100mW/m^2 or greater (with hot spots up to 200mW/m^2).