That should be "obviously and unapologetically."

Wow. I don't even know where to start.

You start by telling me I'm arguing against human progress (WTF?), and then proceed to apologize for a group of people whose behavior was obviously and apologetically out of line for the better part of a year, and even call their work "credible." You then suggest that more people of this caliber are necessary, ignoring the fact that more people will not diffuse the laziness or alleviate the stretched budgets you claim are the source of the problem.

No, the problem is groupthink, editors who refuse to run stories contrary to their political views, and news stations who position their organization for ratings rather than their informational value.

Yes, I'm saying that simple, unfiltered data is preferable to lies and spin. The fact that reporters spin and lie to fit their personal and organizational agendas is well-known. To call them on their dishonesty is never "stale."

They are inadequate on their own. Unfortunately, many "reporters" have gone outside of their charge of "getting to the meat of the issue" and have become propagandists and king makers. When that happened, their value was lost and the simple transcript is of greater informational value.

Real reporters dig in no matter who is the center of the controversy - not just when it's someone they don't agree with. They don't ask political figures loaded questions and insult them, they chase the truth. They don't push agendas, they tell you what all of the agendas are and tell you the implications with an even hand.

Modern reporters are closer to tabloid writers and publicists, and their value is on par with those professions.

I don't see how a failed discussion site about general technology has anything to do with "failing with Linux." I went to his site a few times, but found that it was missing a sort of critical mass that is necessary to make it an interesting discussion.

Yes, I know I'm feeding the trolls. They just look so cute and I'm still in the holiday spirit, I guess.

Nuke the Pacific! Sounds like a plan! We'll get right on that. We'll even use clean uranium.

This stuff doesn't happen overnight, assuming it happens at all. If we're talking a hundred years, people move around. If Manhattan starts having flooding problems, people will sell off and leave it. Not really a big deal -- certainly no different than has happened countless times in other former boomtowns. Honestly, the idea of fitting 3 million people on an island is a little wacky to begin with.

Also kind of strange how the climate does not cycle over 11yrs in tune with the cosmic rays from sunspots.

Why is that strange? You've got two phenomena, oscillating at different frequencies. Earth's cycles don't affect those of the sun's, and the sun's don't affect the Earth's so drastically as to force a significant change in the Earth's rhythm.

So what happens? I'd hazard a guess that they add up. When the cycles both peak, you get a particularly hot year. When they're both low, you get a cold year. Most of the time they're out of sync, where a low sun cycle cools off a high point in the Earth's cycle, or a high sun cycle warms up what would have normally been a particularly cold winter.