If you are old like me and lived through the 80's the you know how bad eggs and fats are. It was established science.
And yesterday I hear this piece on NPR (and I listen to NPR just to hear a familiar language).

Apparently there is a shortage of eggs in the US. Some virus or something is closing down poultry farms and (which
brought a smile to my face) this was apparently bad for the "health concious" consumers who now are taught that
eggs are a great protein source. Yeah. I do agree but the lesson here is that this story is exactly the opposite of what
you would hear from the consensus science of the 80's. Protein? Eggs?

Oh science.You look so attractive at a distance but you're nothing more than a prostitute.

Now you are mixing things up, more specifically, sulfur dioxide (which is a pollutant) and rain (which is not) to get acid rain.

Indeed a very important lesson that most people don't have a clue what the debate is about.

Care to provide a reference that a majority agree on irreversible climate change? I doubt that. Please prove me wrong by providing a reference that supports this statement.

That is fantastic. Temperature variations in Antarctica span about 100 degrees, ranging from a low -90 in the winter to about +10 in the coastal areas during the summer and overcast conditions.Considering the range, it's quite extraordinary that less that one degree of change can wreak havoc in the lives of emperor penguins. One must wonder how they survive any temperature change at all if a barely measurable shift over a century in duration can have such a dramatic effect. It is even more strange that these emperor penguins have trouble with increasing temperatures as Antarctic average temperature has dropped slightly over the last half century, even setting a new record low of -93C (satellite measurements) quite recently (2010). This makes you wonder how much BS people can take before they say, ENOUGH!

all that strong but the evidence for the enhancement of the CO2 warming (for this to be anything but a big advantage for nature) is very weak indeed. It is scary that we are wrecking the economies of the west while the dictatorships are having our lunch. If people would like to to see how science fails, do have a look at the fiasco of cholesterol research and how literally, the American Heart Association is killing people for the funding it gets by selling its logo to companies still trading in cholesterol level lowering products which is known to make heart disease worse and increase mortality. It is absolutely horrible. Another consensus driven research. All peer reviewed and payed for but the drug companies. And it is still going on.

When predictions over decades fail, then the obvious solution is to make predictions over centuries. They are absolutely safe to make.
It is hard to believe that we left the dark ages for this bulshit.

This is truly insane. We have here a science that has proven beyond any doubt that it is incapable of predicting any property related to climate (surface temperature, stratospheric temperature (they even call it a mystery in the peer reviewed literature), humidity at altitude, cloud height, you name it, All of these properties are central to the understanding of the atmosphere and climate. They get nothing right. And now somebody is even thinking of giving these scientists that have proven they know nothing the power to experiment on a global scale, potentially even killing the majority humanity and every other living creature! Please people, for the love of your children, wake the fuck up! Before anybody is even remotely thinking of tampering the atmosphere on a global scale, make sure that they can predict just about every property there is so that we have reason to believe in the outcome. Otherwise, this is like performing brain surgery with a 375 magnum.

Having spent soon close to 20 years in the tech industry I have to say that education seems to leave a small imprint onto most peoples ability to raise the level of their output. And I'm not even talking about Bachelor's or Master's but Ph.D's. Even if presented the physics already mapped onto a mathematical formalism from which you only need to apply the mathematical cookbook (or pattern matching), most fail to perform 1 page of analysis, and to dress a problem with the proper math and then solve it without having a book on the subject at hand seems possible only to a select few. I have seen guys with Ph.D's and years of industry experience spending hours on computer simulations of problems that require 10 minutes of calculus, or maybe 5 even. That is actually really sad.
From another point of view, perhaps most tech jobs do not require much more beyond reading (manuals) and typing and, to some extent, because many (or perhaps even most) managers fail to recognize the difference between the average joe who does what he's told to and those who know what to do so that you don't have to do it again and again. It is quite possible that our societies och economic growth suffer because we don't have the smart people in the right places.

No, it just breaks the realism aspect of physics. If you hold on to it you need to violate relativity so in a sense physics had to choose what aspect of nature is the most fundamental, relativity or realism and relativity "won".

This action at a distance nonsense just has to end someday. This is no such thing implied by Bells theorem or entanglement experiments such as those by Aspect. Just let it go. Entanglement just explores the non-classical nature of quantum probability. The outcome of experiments with entangled particles is predicted by the standard Dirac notation and no mysterious action is needed.

I've written lots of reports with math formulas (in Latex) where they are needed. Most, if not all, the intended readers have a Ph.D. in experimental physics or optics but I noticed that unless the math is really trivial, they will not follow. Even the slightest math supported reasoning will throw them off. That experience tells me that math for the general audience is probably not a good idea. It is simply pointless the be correct if you are not coming across. Who hears the tree falling in the forest.

But we do not need several "control earths" to test the predictions of the GCM which form the basis of current catastrophic climate change scenarios. The GCMs make other predictions such as the altitude-latitude temerature anomaly, which seems to be a fail. Another example is that in only 2% of the model simulations show a 16-17 year hiatus such as the one we are currently observing. One could argue that the AGW-hypothesis has been falsified at the 2 sigma level. This is of course not enough but in a few years with the current climatic state we will have reached 3 sigma and not much further down the road, 5 sigma, but I'm getting ahead of my self. But considering the failed predictions on, well, just about anything the AGW crowd should at least consider that the theory might be incomplete and the conclusions wrong.

Reflection of chrome isn't all that good. Aluminium would be better but difficult. Silver is easy. Probably the way to go.