I think what he/she is complaining about is that the files are zipped together when they could have easily been zipped individually or in small groups.

Which proxy data do you think is subjective? Here, I'll provide you with a list.

They are all quantitative and thoroughly tested.

Unfortunately, that's not the case; if it were, this article wouldn't have made the news. In the US there is a large fraction of the population that denies anthropogenic global warming. This in and of itself isn't the worst thing ever, since we can't expect everyone to understand everything. However, the fact that many of these deniers are Congressman and Senators is a significant issue, since these are precisely the people who have the necessary influence to direct our society towards alternative energy sources.

No scientists that I know of suggests that industry should be stopped in order to prevent global warming and climate change. There are likely some environmentalists that do suggest this, but they are quite certainly on the fringe. The scientists that I know are prudent people, and they are technologists. They propose a gradual shift towards carbon neutral energy sources such as nuclear fission, wind, and solar.

Climate change is not a problem of some distant future. Its effects are here with us now. Climate change is also not an all or nothing shift - it is a gradual change. However, greenhouse gas emissions are growing near exponentially, which means the rate of climate change is going to continue accelerating. Seen from a positive light, this means that the sooner and more vigorously we act, the more pronounced the affect will be.

Alternative sources of energy are here, and they are constantly improving. Some of these alternative energy sources already are superior, particularly when taking into account the external costs associated with fossil fuels. Even without including external costs, wind is one of the cheapest energy sources available. The switch to renewable energy sources is inevitable. Eventually they will be the only energy sources that are economical. However, that's not really the issue that I think this article addresses. I think it's really about the anti-scientific sentiment that has become so influential in the US media and political sphere. I think this article is an example of the effort needed from the scientific community to educate the public about the science that affects us all. It's much easier in many ways, as a scientist, to write only for the scientifically literate audience represented by scientific journals, but we need people willing to translate the scientific consensus for the general population - particularly when it comes to topics such as anthropogenic global warming.

In Texas? Compared to what other places?

Exactly what fraction of the subjects scored 5-15% above chance?

Do you see where I'm going with this? Because it should be obvious.

We have a fairly deep understanding of basic physics, but less understanding of psychology. Nonetheless, we do know that psychology is applied biology, chemistry, and fundamentally physics. So if you want to propose some psychic effect like imprinting thoughts on a photographic film, you better provide a reasonable physical (physics-based) mechanism. As far as I am aware, no one has provided any such reasonable mechanism. Until someone does so, I will treat any claims of imprinting thoughts on photographic film as unreasonable.

Note: This line of logic does not apply for all phenomenon, and it is not fool-proof. It is, however, correct for all but 1 case in 10^9.

This is somewhat off topic, but in my experience the SUVs are typically driven by moms, not by men. I don't have any statistics to back it up, but I would bet that the majority of SUV drivers are moms, or at least parents with enough kids to justify it. Of course if our cities weren't built around the suburban model the SUV's wouldn't be necessary, but the relative abundance of land available in the US made the suburban model enticing to the general public (more living space, etc.).

You seem to misunderstand Dawkins goal. Dawkins admits himself that he is not a true atheist, because he admits he cannot definitively prove there is no God. However, he says he is as certain about God not existing as most people are that the tooth fairy doesn't exist - which is to say there is no evidence that either one does. He isn't trying to convert people to atheism - he's trying to convert people away from superstition and belief without evidence (faith).

As far as using the squared error for regressions, there are alternatives that have been suggested over the years that deal better with outliers. However, as long as a sanity check is applied to the data, the squared error is just about as theoretically sound as anything else. The real problem is that raw data often isn't published - likely because it doesn't pass a sanity check. For example, if the range of the data is more spread out than the total domain, you're just fitting noise.

Considering Twitter has yet to make a profit, I'm not so sure your first impression was wrong.

Oh, so we just have to stop refining our food, and we will be able to enjoy the long lifespans the developing world experiences?

You have must have a very different definition of "a limited amount of data" than I do. Either that or you're not aware how much data the LHC generates.

.... tried to change the wording after hitting submit, but only got half-way through. Has hell frozen over yet? I'm still waiting for an edit button.

I'll refer you to James Flynn explain it: http://www.ted.com/talks/james_flynn_why_our_iq_levels_are_higher_than_our_grandparents.html

Inflation has been very low (and even negative at times) post the global financial crisis. Without some form of government intervention, it would have stayed negative, too, because deleveraging would have continued. However, with quantitative easing forcing short-term interest rates to the zero lower bound, private debt has started increasing again. And increasing private debt means increasing consumer spending.

And yet induction continues to be used to generate every single scientific hypothesis, theory and law.