This probably won't give you any consolation, but in an interesting and almost poetic coincidence, "sopa" is Swedish for "loser" or "garbage". Every time I read the name of this bill, my brain automatically interprets it as the "loser bill", and it somehow just feels so right.

Sweden isn't as small as you think. The average population density is around 20 persons per square kilometer, roughly the same as the US I believe. Sure, much of it is concentrated in southern parts, but people have had fiber to the home for close to a decade even in remote areas in the north, where the population density is one person per square kilometer.

Would you be willing to put money behind that claim and make a bet? I'd gladly hedge the risk.

Statistically significant with 95% confidence means that the probability that we would see data like those we have, in the case that there is no warming, is less than 5%. Now, if this level were 10%, we might say: Well, this data we are seeing could in fact just be a fluke -- we can't be sure. That's something entirely different from saying that data indicates there is no warming.

If you want to claim that there has been no significant warming, you would have to compute the probability that we would see similar data in the event that there is warming going on. This probability will likely be nowhere near as low as 5% or even 10%.

The end result is that while the data doesn't indicate there is warming with statistical significance (only almost), nor does it indicate that the temperature has remained flat, with any statistical significance. That is, the data for this particular period tells us nothing with certainty -- we simply have too little of it. But if anything, the data that we do have support the global warming hypothesis more than it supports the random variation hypothesis.

Trying to use this as an argument, not only against global warming, but against any precautions that even consider global warming a possibility, is frankly idiotic, especially considering all the other data that we have.

Ok, let me get this straight. You are saying that if data indicates there is a 90% probability of global warming, governments should not consider it as a factor? I can see there is no point in continuing this discussion.

You're not listening to what I'm saying. "Not statistically significant" only means "data does not prove it beyond 95% certainty". So if the data are sufficient to be 94% sure there has been warming, we still do not call it "statistically significant". It does absolutely not mean that the data indicates there has been no warming. Quite the contrary, it does, just not to the degree that we by convention call "certainty".

Also, it is hard to be 95% certain of any climate hypothesis if the time span is to short, because any trend will be overshadowed by local noise.

But for all intents and purposes, it makes no difference whatsoever whether we are 95%, 90% or 80% sure that we are fucking up the climate. The odds suck, regardless.

Either you don't understand basic statistics, or you're just trolling. Regardless of which, what the first link you provided is saying is essentially something like this: "Because the time span from 1995 to 2009 is such a short period to measure climate over (which by definition is the average over a long period of time), we can only be 90% or so certain that long-term average temperature has continued to increase during that period.". How you can get that to a confirmation of no global warming is beyond me.

Relevant quote from the BBC interview:

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Probably. But I'm honestly growing a bit ambivalent as to how one should approach people about climate change. Normally, I would say civil discussion is the most effective way to reach someone, but considering the seriousness of the matter, when nothing happens at some point you ought to start getting angry.

If somebody were pouring gasoline onto my house, and were about to set fire to it while insisting that I have nothing to worry about because surely nothing is going to happen, I wouldn't be very civil with them. We more or less have the same situation right now, only at a much slower pace.

By refusing to accept facts and take responsibility for the situation we have created, millions will be forced from their homes around the world, people will die from starvation and floods, species will become extinct, etc. etc.. How can we in good conscience stand by and be civil about it as others spread lies and misinformation for their own personal gain?

I'd say being on the high side there is a bit of an understatement. Using a trie, as you suggest, you'd probably be able to check a typical word against the entire dictionary less than 100 cycles, so your estimate is probably overshooting by four or five orders of magnitude.

It would be trivially solvable using a trie. 10000 messages is only 1,6 million characters even if every message has the maximum length. Even your typical smart phone processor could probably manage that throughput.