Six digits, you say? Wow.

The Periodic Table isn't a model, or at least not a functional model. It's a chart - a way to represent data. Arguably, a chart is a model of sorts but considering your comment concerning "new evidence," you certainly seem to be implying that it's a model of how things function and this new proposal provides an alternate functional model, which isn't the case. The proposed alternative isn't a new theory of elements. It doesn't change our idea of how things works. It simply presents the same information and understanding in a different way. If the new table doesn't provide any new predictive ability at all but it does, say, present the information in a way that's easier to grasp or makes relationships clearer, then it's worth considering and possibly worth adapting.

What happened to "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."? (Emphasis mine.) Granted that the Declaration of Independence isn't legally binding in the way that the Constitution is, there's still no way that you can square the "Constitutional guarantees only apply to citizens" doctrine with the fundamental principle of human rights.

Exactly. You (the submitter) are aware that this is trivial on any enterprise switch, right? Often, it's not a direct capability to turn the port on and off at a specified time but it's effectively the same. For example, you might create an access list which drops all traffic on a port during a specified timeframe and passes everything outside it. The port is technically still enabled but since no traffic comes in or goes out, it might as well be shut down.

Arrhenius stated only that CO2 acted to absorb heat (long-wave infra-red radiation for the nitpickers). He posited that if you added CO2 to the atmosphere the heat would increase. What Arrhenius didn't know, or didn't fully grasp, is that at 280ppm, the atmospheric CO2 already absorbs 97% of all incoming long-wave infra-red radiation. Doubling the CO2 to 560ppm, would not make it absorb 194% of the radiation, it would make it absorb about 99% of the incoming radiation. Since CO2 accounts for approximately 4-7 degrees C of the Earth's warming (there's arguments on the exact figure) that would be an increase of about 0.08 to 0.14 degrees C. Now, there are some factors that add to that (re-radiation, tropospheric concentration and re-reflection of albedo infra-red, etc) that could make that as much as 1 degree C of surface warming. But that's it.

Adding twice the CO2 doesn't mean twice the temperature. And the feedback mechanisms are neutral to negative. They must be, or the 7000ppm CO2 of the carboniferous period would have resulted in Earth looking like a ball of molten rock.

Now, let's get back to the real point.

Climate scientists continue to make statements like, "We can expect more Katrina's every year!" Yet the U.S. is now in its longest cycle without a major hurricane landing since records began being kept in the 1930's. "We can expect more tornados to ravage cities across the U.S.!", yet tornadic activity across the U.S. is at a 50 year low. Total thunderstorms are average at best, and while there is some evidence of slightly stronger convection cells, there's a certain bias in the fact that we never before had satellites capable of sampling and quantifying such activity in seconds rather than days.

In short, the evidence all points the other way.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no shill for gas or oil or coal. I'd rather see all of it go away. Give me clean, safe, cheap, plentiful nuclear power every day of the week over all of that. Preferably LFTR designs spread out like candy all over the country. I'd love fusion too, but like my Grandfather who was promised to see it "within his lifetime" and died in 1988, I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Solar power is a joke, with its rare earths and sulfur-hexafluoride washes doing a dozen times more damage to the environment then they'll ever recover in a lifetime. We've already tapped 95% or more of the hydropower on Earth, and I doubt the birds will live through putting up enough windmills to power a typical city, much less the planet. Not to mention, that has it's own problems. Wind Power Potential Overestimated

Your point, "We've seen warming" ignores the one great thing about climate change -- the climate is a complex system -- it is always changing. It is a vast, living, breathing system taking in all life on earth, all changes in the sun, all chemistry in the oceans, every wave, every sunbeam, every butterfly flapping its wings. It must be constantly changing. We are looking at a tiny sliver of it and saying, "Oh no, we're all doomed!" We act as if we want the climate never to change, not one iota, not one jot.

The climate never changes on Venus, on Mercury, on Mars... They all have one thing in common. They're dead worlds.

Give me a changing climate any day over that.

So, the fact that both Tornadic activity in the United States and Cyclonic Activity globally are at 50 year lows all point to this "increased activity". Somewhere you have failed to notice that your claims must be backed up with data. Also, you have failed to explain why the actual global temperatures over the last 30 years have come in below the lowest predicted warming of all the models used by the IPCC, yet they continue to increase the predicted response. The last IPCC report posited a 3.0 degreeC/century rise in temperature, while actual data points at 1.2 degrees C/century or lower.

I work in computer science, and there's a name for a model which cannot predict, it's called "broken" or "incomplete". The fact that you now wish to make multi-trillion dollar, economy-wrecking, and real-life endangering decisions based on computer models that still can't agree with each other, much less the facts, is frightening beyond belief.

The amazing thing to me is that the same crowd that doesn't trust a banana with an extra gene inserted through a science evolved through 60 years of study, or grown with a fertilizer used for 80 years without a downside, are completely willing to take steps that will result in starvation, civil wars, and economic catastrophe over an increase of 0.012% of a particularly harmless gas in the atmosphere, which is required for life on Earth. A gas which, during the most life-bearing phase of the earth's history, was almost 20 times as abundant. All of which is based on computer programs developed by non-computer programmer programmers, over the course of a few months, which are less than accurate in the short term, and whose predictions are wildly inaccurate over the long term.

Not to mention, if tree-rings are such great thermometers, why has the dendrochronological record not been updated since the 1980's? Surely in the billions being funneled to climate research, someone can pay some grad students $10 an hour to go get some tree cores with a hand-drill every weekend?

Most of these climate scientists wouldn't know the climate it if rained on them.

You want an analysis of the article itself? I could do that, but someone already has: Cook's Survey not only Meaningless, but Misleading

The survey is full of self-confirming bias, and selection bias. And the 97% number ignores the 65% of the papers that said *NOTHING* either way about AGW. In fact, if you take only those papers that explicitly endorse AGW, versus those that deny it, the ratio is actually flipped, with the "deniers" winning out.

In fact, by percentages of publications, the number that support AGW have been steadily declining year after year since 1995 according to the very numbers in this paper. Make of that what you will.

That was a brief synopsis for those of you too lazy to RTFA.

Would you like me to work the Navier-Stokes equations for you to show convective heat transfer in a fluid body? I'm quite aware of what heating does, and I'm also quite aware that you have no concept of the numbers being talked about here. You talk about adding thousands of watts per square meter to a liquid forcing a transition to a gaseous (and often turbulent) state. The difference the math talked about here is 1.3 watts per square meter, out fo 1365 watts per square meter. And spread that over a 30 kilometer high column of gas. The overall increase is down in the third to fourth decimal place. Climate scientists know that, and they posit that there are dozens of "positive feedback" methods that will drive temperatures higher and higher. They believe the climate is in a unstable dynamic equilibrium, rather than a stable dynamic equilibrium -- think the difference between being on a roller-coaster poised at the top of the hill, or one at the bottom of a valley.

We have heard words like "tipping point" or "past the point of no return" which are all associated with an unstable equilibrium. Yet the climate of the Earth is no such thing. Yes, we may be able to push the roller coaster a little way up the hill, but when we release it, it will roll back down to the bottom again. The climate is the same way. It must be, or over the 4.6 billion year long life of this planet, some event (the Siberian Traps for instance -- look it up) would have long since sent the planet spiraling into catastrophe.

Anything -- ANYTHING -- we humans can do is temporary. To believe otherwise is the most blatant of arrogance on our part. The fact is, the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might be having some effect on temperatures. But so what? We live in every biosphere. No one is going to die from it. It could be good. Things will change. So what -- they've changed before. We'll adapt. Some things won't. They'll die. There's this thing out there called evolution. It's been doing that for nearly 4 billion years.

So, your boiling pot of water, while a wonderful visual, is totally wrong. To get a more accurate model, turn your burner up to full, and when you've got a nice rolling boil, light a match and add it. See if you can spot the difference. That's the real model.

Please cite the testable predictions that the Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Science conglomerate has made. Please include any time when they stated a falsifiable claim. In other words, a prediction, which if found not to occur, would falsify their model.

The only one I found was made back in the 1990's which claimed that the Tropical troposphere would show faster and larger warming than all other areas of the planet.

This did not happen, and is not happening. In fact, the tropical troposphere has cooled over the entire satellite record. In response to this, the climate scientists have modified their models so they can "reverse forecast" this occurrence. Their model was proven wrong, their theory proven wrong, so they simply changed the rules.

Every time there's a heat wave or a drought, we hear, "GLOBAL WARMING!" shouted from the rooftops, yet when we have the coldest spring on record in the U.S., we're told that's also caused by global warming. We're told after Hurricane Katrina, that such "extreme weather" was going to be continuously increasing as the warming drove the weather. However, total Accumulated Cyclonic Energy hasn't increased. In fact it's been the lowest levels in history. We have gone over 2500 days without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or above) hitting the United States. Again, that's the longest stretch in the history of records. And yet, we're told this must be caused by global warming as well.

So, if it gets hotter, it's global warming, if it gets colder, it's global warming. In the end, there's no way to prove it wrong. By your own definition, that's not science.

No climate science prediction showed the current 15 year period of global cooling, and yet we see them talking about 97% agreement. This doesn't point to settled science, this points to a monopoly on the publishing of papers.

97% of people in a room can call a rabbit a cat, but that doesn't make it a cat.

Did you RTFA?

How many years before we have a brain interface to Google? You'd know everything. And its not crazy to think that soon after we'd find ourselves limited by how slow our brains process information. The obvious next step being to augment our brains, our thinking, and in the process - augment who we are. That's what our scientists will be working on then (and of course, are actually already working on).

And they say Latin is a "dead" language! HAH!

Gotta call Bullshit. Sequestration cut every program by 1.4%. And there was a mandatory 1.7% increase on most budgets. If we really cut all programs 10% then it wouldn't be $44B in savings this year, it would be $370B in savings. We'd still be spending over $1T we don't have, but that would be a vast improvement over the $44B we're actually cutting.

All I can say is, "Bad Robots!"

NC headphones help but by themselves won't block out everything. Get some noise-cancelling headphones and play music - just don't play music you like. Find something you don't completely hate but that really doesn't float your boat. Something without vocals is preferable. You can grab all sorts of classical, big band, early jazz ensembles, etc. for free. It's not going to grab your attention and distract you like music you really like, but it will block out the sound around you. At least, that works for me. I use the trick for writing in public spaces.

"When the last Ice Age set on 28,000 years ago, Neanderthals had no sewn clothes and no large organized groups to rely on each other, hastening their fall. "

Ha! Take that, Robert J. Sawyer!