You mean the section that says "It is important to note that none of this research suggests that global warming and climate change are not affecting the ice sheets of Antarctica but they do imply that any melting due to global warming is being exacerbated by geothermal heating from beneath the ice cap"? Yes, I read that. I also read that "A survey of the thickness of the Earth's crust in Antarctica found a particularly thin zone under Marie Byrd Land, where the Thwaites Glacier is located, which is consistent with the presence of a 'major volcanic dome'", which indicates that this is a long-term effect and should not affect the net rate of melting - it would be part of the steady state if we had one.

Again, what is increasing is the maximum sea ice extend. The ice mass balance is strictly negative - i.e. there is more ice melting than water freezing year over year. The amount of ice is going down, by about 70 Gt per year (albeit with large uncertainties), and accelerating.

From your source: "Antarctica as a whole has been shrinking in volume by 125 cubic kilometres a year." Do you read those sources, or do you just google for confirmation using bad search terms?

And your point is? Because one non-scientist made an ambiguous claim about a possible outcome, all scientific claims are invalid? We've started commercial shipping through the Arctic, and "Antarctic ice" is shrinking, what is growing slightly is maximum Antarctic sea ice extend.

Actually, the full quote is "...and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean..." (emphasis mine). The source of the claim, Berndt Balchen certainly had an interesting biography, but neither was he trained as a scientist, nor what the statement in a scientific publication.

I'm sorry, but that is simply unscientific nonsense. Human emissions are about 2 orders of magnitude greater than all volcanic emissions combined. None of the major volcanic eruptions of the last decades have left a significant blip in the CO2 curves. See e.g. the USGS on the issue.

Sadly, not.

Well, I can order an iMac from Apple, plug in the keyboard and the mouse, and say "I build a computer". Or I start with a shovel of sand and make my own silicon. I don't know how many computer users understand flip-flops, or nand-gates, or FETs. I think some of that should be in the general understanding of science. And for computer scientists, knowing about things like cache size and organisation, register set, and ALU capabilities does make a significant difference if coding for performance. I was once bitten during the transition from SPARC to Intel when I found out that SPARC's fantastically thought out register windows (meant to sped up function calls) actually slowed down function calls once your calling depth became great enough that you ran through the register file and had to start putting those large register windows on the stack. Register-starved Intel did better in that case. So benchmarking on SPARC indicated "no recursion", while in Intel recursion was actually faster than iteration with a dedicated stack in software.

That particular converter is called an inverter, and is pretty standard today. There are some good reasons for using more DC (in particular high-voltage DC for long-distance transmission).

Methinks you need to take your sarcasmometer back to the shop for readjustment...

While the Dutch people may be on the rich side world-wide (and by median maybe even by US standards), I'm no so sure about the Bangladeshi. But hey, there only 150000000 of them, and most of them are on the brown side...

Absolute certainty is only available in the realm of pure maths and logic. Well-programmed computers come quite close to that, but most systems cannot be perfectly understood even in principle - see The Matrix and Descarte's evil demon. The level of certainty of AGW is much better than the level of certainty we accept to send people to prison (which is supposed to be "beyond reasonable doubt").

We have determined that to a very high level of consensus in the scientific community. The result is politically and economically unwelcome, which is why some people and organisation deny the consensus. You don't need to get the politics out of science, you need to get the science into politics.

That said, the vote very much reminds me of Indiana in 1897 and some thing with square circles ;-).

"They" (both NOAA and Berkley Earth independently) have done that. Berkley Earth found no significant difference when using only the best locations (but then their automated method is designed to compensate spurious jumps in temperature) (here) and NOAA found a slight low bias for badly sited stations (here). IIRC, there also is a similar NASA study coming to the same results, but I don't remember the authors or title.

Anecdotes are not data. You cannot expect perfection - if you have a sufficiently large organisation, someone will fuck up sometimes.The question is if the organisation is doing an ok job overall, and if it there are ways to address errors of judgement.

Also, there is the perennial problem of adequate funding. A decent service of any kind is not free, nor usually cheap. Either we need to pay sufficient taxes, or we must do without certain services provided by the state (and/or live with crappy services). If a CPS worker has to handle 8 cases per day, they can spend a grand total of one hour per case (assuming no overhead -ha!) - and if a team of to spends half a day on one visit, that means the other 15 cases get only about half an hour.

We can whine one way or the other, but whining both ways (less taxes and more/better services) is not a sign of much maturity.

Here is a question: Does it matter if I know the strategy of the opposing player? Looking at the researchers website, the algorithm seems to be deterministic. So I could use the meta-knowledge about how Cepheus would play with any possible hand (that is compatible with my hand and the public cards), and could bet accordingly. From what I've read so far, I don't know if that effect is modelled in the paper.