But seriously, if anyone has followed anything with the iPad and who is using them for what, it seems at least on the surface that people are using it as a light front end to a large back end. Colleges tend to have pre-existing large back ends, and it would seem somewhat natural that colleges might look at enterprises and what they're doing with the iPad and going "Hmmm, we could do that too."

Also, you seem to presume that such a scenario will fit for all. I never remotely indicated that, and I qualified my whole argument. So, back at you.

I guess the concept of a decent thin client escaped you. As long as the students have a valid login, they get to use whatever they want running off a large (hopefully) secure backend. Mind you, I don't know enough about the state of thin client software for the iPad to know whether it's a good thing to do at the moment. But hey, it's worked for *nix for years, and very well, so why not with an iPad or few.

Mind you, I could be horribly wrong, and deserve to be beaten with a stick. Whatever :P

Well, one option is that Lindzen is one of the "elite" so he's kind of invulnerable to papers of his being rejected even if other people don't like what he says. That or what he's saying has succeeded in passing scrutiny each and every time. And if it's the latter, then the "science is settled" clique have something to think about rather than bouncing up and down in a rage crying "denier!"

He could be the sort of person (like you) who failed to notice up until this point he was using a netbook. Hint, Apple doesn't do netbooks, never have. So, he's hardly an "Apple loving geek." That and what he said he does should also give you some sort of clue that the netbook was not an aberration. I put it down to you doing what you accuse him of, and far too much of it. Didn't your parents tell you that you'd go blind? Which appears to have happened to you given your poor grasp of what he wrote.

There could be proposed a theory of anthropogenic warming of space all caused by us that will arise and become "settled science" or not.

In that most everyone is whining about how they all had teachers that sucked. Their attitude tells me that they suck far far more than the teacher they think is/was bad.

I'm sure they have many other adults they interacted with before they failed to grow up who they think sucked. I'm sure they would be equally aggravated by such as Plato, Socrates on down to such as Feynman.

IMHO, the lady from OFSTED has it right. If you cannot cope with something you think is bad in your student life, then the only one who sucks is you.

So staggeringly complex that people like Jones (who is mathematically at least, and definitely ethically imho challenged) don't think that it's worth their while working with those who could help them do better computer modeling as well as statistical analysis.

That and I do wonder, seeing as Climate Science is only about 30 years old that they are being more than a little bit arrogant that they "get it" and have fully developed understandings. After all, most science has taken a lot longer than that to get anywhere near to a decent level of understanding.

It wasn't all that long ago when dear old Bil Gates et al were claiming in front of the DoJ that giving anyone (their competitors) access to Windows code would be a threat to national security. Fast forward to now and it appears that either the truth changed a whole lot or for some reason national security interests are served by giving China and Russia and who knows, maybe even the French access to Windows source.

The new Windows, our most secure OS ever!! Well...

They are missing the point that:

a) PC's are now a mature technology, and there's little new/innovative going on with them. At best a slow evolution and a marketplace for developers that is saturated.
b) Growth areas in software development are happening where Microsoft is not a presence worth a second look. People go where the jobs are, and Microsoft isn't where that is.
c) Their recent attempts at reinventing themselves have been major crash and burns. No one likes jumping on the back of a crashing and burning vehicle.

Anyhow, one day they will wake up and realize they've painted themselves into a corner and have no clue how to get out. Who knew they were going to be a chunky niche player.

There's an awful lot of absolute rubbish being passed off as science, by scientists. Having seen the bollocks that some people with more phD's than they deserve have come up with, it's hardly surprising people at large are noticing and calling foul.

That and all too much of what passes for science seems to be being done to make a fast megabuck or few, rather than being done for reasons like, "I wonder what would happen if..." or "I think this wee thingy works like this..." People quite rightly don't trust corporations, especially when their quarterly results or the chance to corner a market are concerned, so why would anyone trust corporate sponsored "science?"

Sure there is good science being done, but there's way too much dross out there, and people do notice.

To do some serious lobbying, so this "clearly incorrect and patently unfair" court decision can be done away with.

That or there will be chairs flying towards Quebec.

Your whole "it's too hard for outsiders to understand" thesis is bollocks. The end point of science is to make stuff understandable. If it can't then it isn't science.

It's the behaviour of Jones, the IPCC clique et al playing fast and loose with ethics, data, and presenting unsupported assertions (such as the Himalayas all melted away) etc. Remember for a moment that none of the emails, or the revelations about IPCC reports have have been found to be fabrications.

Also note that there have been numerous statisticians of note who reckon their processes are rubbish. Not to mention the Russian and other climate scientists who reckon the AGW idea is that of a bunch of numpties who don't know what they're doing.

That's the problem, particularly the ethically challenged behaviour of Jones and his immediate clique.