I could try to piece together an argument, but I would rather hear from someone that feels strongly about this.
While it would be silly to treat these numbers as directly representative of what you would see with actual money, it should provide some useful information if you take it with a grain of salt as there should be some correlation with real usage. It would be especially useful if later a limited test is done with real money and compared with these results, as it would be hard as-is to guess how much less would be donated with real money.
Bakker was trying to disprove the idea that science would be better off without religion. Given religion most certainly has come in conflict with science at various points in history, it is implied his examples must show religion helping the advancement of science. So when he brings up examples of religious people conducting science, the only way for it to help his argument is if he is suggesting that their religious work directly contributed to their scientific work. Otherwise he is just giving us examples of religion being neutral to science, which is just as well demonstrated by any scientist that wasn't known for their religious work.
In other words, Bakker falled to prove his point, leaving us to conclude that, at worst, science would be where it is today if there were no religion (as that is the best his arguments seem to demonstrate).
I'm certainly glad my brother merely had the reverse of this guy's problem.
Sure, some rarely-used features may be hard to find if they are not located on the ribbon, but I've done enough hunting through the old menus to know it's no worse in that respect.
I agree that the ribbon falls well short of its potential in Word due to 'Styles' taking up all that space, but even with that handicap I find it more useful.
There is not a single life that will be lost from AGW, even if your worst case is true. People would just gradually move out of coastal cities. But all the proposed reactions to AGW to try and slow it down or stop it will end up starving a lot of people
So changes to growing seasons, rainfall and flood patterns have zero risk of killing people or causing starvation, and humanity can deal with such changes with little more than a shrug, but replacing a coal plant means certain doom?