anything that allows blackmail

This is why people with substantial power — such as, first of all, government officials — must not engage in adultery or anything similarly reprehensible even if it is not illegal for the rest of us. Not because of some wicked "puritanism", but because it opens them up to blackmail, that corrupts government thus affecting all of us.

Government officials — be they lawmakers, judges, or executives — must be squeaky fucking clean. (Same may apply to CEOs, but that's up to their shareholders.)

You are asking for a model, though.

Not at all. I don't care, not yet, how the prediction was arrived to. Only that it was made and turned out accurate. Once I see at least two or three such, we can dig deeper. But I'm yet to see any.

The fact this information is so easy to find

Yes, yes. The Prince of Darkness must be very busy the last 10 or so years preparing that special place in his Realm for people, who claim information to be "easy to find" without providing links to any...

You lazy fucker.

Hugs and kisses, hater.

you start to act like a petulant child

At least, a child, however petulant, would not use words like "fucker".

Yes, I am lazy — but the burden of proof is not on me, it is on those people, who want me to change my ways to fight a problem. They (including you) have to prove, the problem exists in the first place.

So, instead of posting attacks on my (deeply flawed) person, how about you either put up — the format I am asking for is perfectly reasonable — or shut up?..

How about you look at the predictions made by the scientists rather than random pundits in the media.

I'd be happy to — could you post any? Being as "intellectually honest" as you are?

Most of the model predict an average earth temperature around 290K.

I'm not asking for a "model" — I just want to see a successful prediction. And I am willing to consider "within 80%" as "successful".

They are therefore all correct, as the measured mean earth temperature is each year between 80% of this value and 120% of it.

Once I see citations of successful predictions, we can switch into discussing their usefulness. But we aren't there yet, despite there being so many responses here already...

my comment meets your expectation

Your comment included no links at all and therefore can not possibly meet my expectations. FAIL.

Link points to a report which contains numerous links

Whether true or not, that's not, what I was asking for.

actual reports and paper providing what was asked.

If this were true, you — and countless others bothering to reply in this subthread — would've been able to form the links into the shape I ask for in minutes. Just to prove me wrong. And yet, despite there being so many responses already, nobody has done it...

That would only be possible with a simple 'binary' prediction

Yes, I would accept some of such. For example: "By 2015 Arctic will be ice-free". Do you have any?

Models make specific predictions over a period of time, when most of the predictions made by the model are accurate to a reasonable degree (no model is perfect).

You are right, no model is perfect. Can you link to a prediction, that materialized within, say, 80% of the predicted value(s)?

The link you provide shows AREA. The article is about VOLUME.

So? How does this refute my allegation of a bias? Both area and volume are, presumably, important parameters...

LOL, your a real piece of work, aren't you.

Thank you, yes, I'd like to think that I am.

Try reading my post again.

Why? That it contains only one link is immediately obvious and enough to return it otherwise "unopened".

its just Mi the Ignorant Bigot

Ah, ad-hominems, they prove everything!

no matter how many times he's proven wrong.

If I really had been, you would've included those link-pairs I asked for — for everyone's benefit... In fact, you would, likely, have linked to the post refuting me on this matter in your signature! But you can't, because it was never done. So far two people tries to answer my challenge and both failed.

About that global cooling theory: One article in Newsweek 40 years ago.

Here is another, just FYI.

Easy.

Your post in response to a request for pairs of links contained only a single link and was thus automatically rejected. FAIL.

Please, try again.

The post accepted by Slashdot cites European Space Agency's satellite as evidence of ice-loss.

And earlier submission citing NASA's satellites leading to the opposite conclusion was not accepted. Kind a strange for a normally unabashedly US-centric Slashdot to so openly favour European satellite-data over American — makes one suspect a certain pre-existing bias...

I don't see any substantial changes here, do you?

People have been talking about global warming/climate change/politically-correct-term since the last two decades but some countries just keep their head in the sand.

They certainly have. But, to the best of my knowledge, none of the actual predictions made over these years by the "alarmists" have ever materialized.

Would you care to prove the above statement wrong? Try to post a list of link-pairs: first link in each pair shall point to a prediction and the second — to its materializing... Note, that entries containing only the latter will not be accepted — when a result is known, it is too easy to find somebody having "predicted" it.

The prediction and the materialization would have to be at least 3 years apart too — successfully predicting tomorrow's weather does not count, that is.

Game?

Some people within the United States may disagree with you. [blacklivesmatter.com]

Seriously? BlackLivesMatter? If you have to refer to a "movement" born out of a lie — that the robber Michael Brown, supposedly, had his arms up when he was shot — your whole position gets seriously compromised.

Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, meet Pot. [mxgm.org]

An inflammatory collection of lies and innuendo based, once again, on the sorry fate of another thug, whose reaction to being followed in the street was to "whoop the shit out of the cracker".

If, while alleging "historical" and "nationwide" victimhood, you don't have decent poster-boys, something must be wrong with your premise.

The anonymous GP is right: we aren't actively killing nor seriously repressing a large number of our own people. Not usually. And if/when it happens, it is a cause of outrage here in the US, whereas in China, North Korea, Cuba or under ISIS it is accepted, grudgingly or otherwise...

But then, I suppose that proverbial kettle of Joseph McCarthy and the pot of Lavrenty Beria are equally "black" to you too...