Ha! The submissions can all be dismissed as "biased" without trying too hard. All of the Climate-scientists paid by the government and international institutions, for example, are inherently biased — should they conclude, there is no danger in global warming, their grants will dry out and they'll lose their jobs and influence.

Worse! Even if the scientists themselves are sincere, the people who run their departments and the international institutions are politicians and thus (far) less trust-worthy. And it is in their interest to only seek-out and hire scientists, who favour their agenda — sincerely or otherwise. A good scientist may still be able to find employment, but if the International Panel on Climate Change is closed, a lot of the currently-influential people will become nobodies...

The conflict of interest is so stunning, I'm surprised we can still breath in the room with this giant elephant. Compared to that bias, a blogger's personal agenda is nothing to speak of...

Here's the latest one.

Like I said many times before: once the result is known, finding somebody having "predicted" is too easy to be convincing. If you put 720 stalled clocks into one room, each set to a different minute, one of them will always show correct time.

No, please, link to a prediction published — anywhere, be it "peer-reviewed" publication or a tabloid — online before it materialized... And not just one, but at least two or three.

it isn't a good example of a prediction.

Of course, it is not a good example of a prediction — it failed! I "cited" it as an illustration of a "binary" prediction only. Sorry, I don't know of any "good" predictions made by the Climate-scientists, so I cited a bad one. Do you?

Are you ready to try again? Of all people, you already know very well, what I'm seeking — and agree, that the format I ask for is not unreasonable...

It was about sea ice. The ice loss in evidence is land ice.

Distinction without difference. Both would evidence to the dangers of global warming — or lack thereof. That one was posted, while the other was not, hints at a bias...

It fails to distinguish between Arctic sea ice (which is retreating) and Antarctic (which is advancing).

The difference between the poles may affect local residents on each, but it does not affect the debate of whether or not the whole planet is warming to an alarming — or even perceptible — degree.

Once again, replying to a request for pairs of links with a single link does not count. Your submission is hereby rejected. FAIL.

If you'd like to play again, sift through your sources yourself to identify the predictions and post links to them separately from the confirmations of each one materializing. This was the challenge from the beginning of this sub-thread.

Note, that the other condition was that the links be at least 3 years apart — because, once the result is known, finding a prediction for it may be too easy (and even, some times, intellectually dishonest too).

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...