Multi-year trends in global temperatures are not.
Please, please show proof that any model with 10+ year response times is demonstrably valid.
The problem is that we only have ~100 years of good data and ~200 years of fair data and very poor data prior to that
The fundamental problem that I (as a person with a good knowledge of statistics) have is that all the data pre-processing (a.k.a. faking) that goes on gives unreasonably low estimates of the variance (or standard deviations or confidence intervals).
A good scientist should define a clear model and use all of the raw data to validate the model. Then and only then can the model be used to extrapolate - say to the future or to the causes of climate change.
... can be curtailed without going back to a technological stone age.
But I think you are on the right track. Solution is to make that external monitor more convenient. You can buy laptop portable versions of just about everything, except monitors (or at least I’ve never seen that). Should be trivial to make a monitor with integrated short cables and where the stand folds into itself and fits nicely into a laptop bag, with maybe some kind of protective cover for the screen. Would seem a much simpler approach than this contraption.
Yes, it's called a second laptop (oh and a decent OS).
It seems like this is publicly available information.
But it's not, you obviously didn't read the article. Here was the process: 1) Google employee makes sure some fake word does not exist in google or bing search results. 2) Said employee points google's cache results of that word to some random page. 3) Said employee uses Internet Explorer at his desk at Google to make the search appear in Google, then selects the only link as the correct thing he was looking for and Bing somehow acquires this information. 4) Search now appears in Bing.
Well... Step 1 may cause Bing to start trying to index said fake word. The step 3(b) where the Google employee clicks on the Google search result for the non-related page will (via the Bing spybar) associate the fake search term with the non-related page (the fake term will appear in the HTTP_REFERRER field).
Bing crap: probably.
Bing cheating? Not proved.
They're just using their spybar clickstream data as a source of search info, just as Google initially innovated by using link data as a data source, rather than the contents of web pages.
To conclusively prove cheating, they have to show a statistical correlation between the ranking of faked pages on Google and faked pages on Bing. Shame on you Google!
No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.