Actually the less massive donor star is really quite non-spherical. The shape will will what is known as a Roche Lobe, this is a 3D teardrop shape. The donor will also be several time larger than the more massive primary star.

The total mass is almost certainly less than 1.4 time the mass of the sun and therefore does not have enough total mass to create supernova and a neutron star (its nowhere near massive enough to form a black hole).

Well, the IPCC report into climate change only reported a 9:1 chance of global warming being due to humans. I think most people would agree that climate change being anthropogenic is a valid arguement, even those who sceptical of the science.

Change "faceless bureaucratic peon" to members of the community who voluntarily work on ethics panels.

Who ever said that?! Thats fine. You can do whatever you want with your money. Personally I would be horrified if I found out that I would be kept as a vegetable for an extended period of time. There is such a thing as dying with dignity

Shock, Horror. Some people go into the the medical profession to help people, not keep vegetables alive and pander to the rich.

Where an Earth did you get this? It is simply not true. This idea that the NHS is awful is totally wrong. Is it perfect, no, would we like to get rid of it, hell no! Yeah we complain about the NHS all the time but we are British, we complain about everything!

Well, it might slow the passing of the Mutant Registration Act.

The Prime Minister of Italy owns the largest Italian publishing house

On that point I would certainly not disagree, the fact that the proof is not conclusive does not mean we should not act upon best available evidence. In any case reducing our reliance on oil can only be a good thing.

Sure, but you need not be conclusive to publish.

And in this case, we need not be conclusive to act. We've got a problem that won't wait around, we can't afford to wait for 3-sigma evidence. Even deferring the decision is, itself, a decision that we're making all the time. So really, all we can do is go with the best data available and do what we can.

I'm not saying it's not good, it's just not conclusive.

If you read a little further into the report they state that global warming is due to human activities at a 90% confidence level. Now, in the real world this seem definative but as a scientist this is certainly not conclusive. This is less than a 2 sigma detection, if I want to publish anything I need at least 99.7% confidence (3 sigma) that my result is correct.