Yes indeed. Opportunity has to stand as one of NASA's greatest post-Apollo accomplishments.
Thing is, someone wiping their drive isn't evidence of a crime. At the same time, various evidence of a crime--Internet connections, behaviors, associates--isn't going to get you a conviction, at all. When you put these together, you get a different picture: we have a highly-circumstantial pattern of behavior that may or may not prove the suspect was a criminal, and the subject panicked and destroyed the thing that may have but was not certain to contain hard evidence proving that this behavior pattern was indeed linked to criminal activity. From all these inferences, we can strongly infer that the suspect was destroying evidence of some crime, for which we have a good outline of what that crime very well could be.
When you hear quacking, there may be a duck, or a TV. If you find feathers, there may be a duck, or a pillow. When you hear quacking and find feathers all over the fucking place, there is almost definitely a duck there somewhere, even if you can't find it; any other explanation involving there not being a duck is a bigger leap of logic than there being a duck somewhere in the area. US courts recognize these types of connected vague images, and overlay them until you develop a sufficiently clear picture that is sufficiently unlikely to be something else--which, really, if you find a dead body and a murder weapon in a bloke's house, all you have is a pretty fucking strong inference to go against an alternate theory of the mafia framing the guy, so it's the same thing: he's only probably guilty, but we're pretty fucking sure.
How much of those tasks are familiar to you because of their similarity to other things you're already familiar with? How much f(c) do you have to back up all that shit? Are you claiming that something utterly alien and highly complex can be learned immediately with no effort, or just that a new task recognizable and understandable using your existing knowledge is also easy to understand?
Modern cognitive science and genetic science both say there's no such thing as innate talent, in the same way that science says faith healing is a crock of shit.
The one arena that is is not contentious in is in the climatology community. Yes, there are a very small number of skeptics, but then again there are a small number of skeptics in the biology community who insist on some variant of Creationism (or Intelligent Design, as they like to market it these days). But all in all, the contention among scientists is over degree, and not over whether or not human-caused CO2 emissions are radically altering global climate.
Because industrialists and mining firms have never ever dumped toxic chemicals that ended up in drinking water before. No fucking sirreee, they're fucking angels and we should just let them do whatever the fuck they want,,, because MONEY!!!!
Well great. I wager I can produce really cheap toys by manufacturing out of substandard materials. Sure, the materials might be toxic, might even be highly flammable, but hey, all that fucking counts is profits! We should just let companies fuck everything and everyone up because MONEY!!!! We should let them lie and distort and attack anyone who questions because MONEY!!!! Fuck every single human being on earth, because MONEY!!!!
parts per trillion doesn't make for much of a problem in any case
There are plenty of contaminants in water that would be a serious problem at the parts per trillion level. Whether these chemicals are or not is, I think, not yet demonstrated.
There is no such thing as talent; there *is* such a thing as motivation, fueled by deep interest, often called passion, which leads a person to perceive vastly lowered effort in developing a skill, and thus put more time and energy into it, developing it further. Geniuses have piles of cognitive techniques--they learn to use the brain as a tool in the same way a woodworker learns to use a router to cut intricate joints and designs for carpentry--one of which includes dissecting and examining any topic to associate it with some goal they find *extremely* interesting, thus creating this motivation, eliminating the effort involved in learning anything.
Nobody has in-born talent. People are exposed to environment; if you give your kid watercolors as a tiny, tiny child and praise them for their artwork, they will feel important because of their painting ability, and will base their self-worth on visual and graphic art. Their whole life's motivation will be art, and they'll paint and draw and do all kinds of things, and develop incredible skills, and be said to be some kind of savant-level virtuoso with God-given talent implanted at birth.
Let me ask. In what arena is AGW contentious?
Why should any scientist tailor their theories to ease your pain?