Except that the latest UAH and RSS data sets (still in beta, so unofficial) show no warming for the last 18 years - something your link even acknowledges. (In 2009 he mentions "I have to say I find this all very puzzling.")

Have they been good at predicting things, or are the things predicted being 'adjusted' to better match the predictions?

"Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed âoeits hottest March since records began in 1880â. This year, according to âoeUS government scientistsâ, already bids to outrank 2014 as âoethe hottest everâ. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the worldâ(TM)s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAAâ(TM)s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as âoethe hottest year everâ.

Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were âoeClimategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warmingâ and âoeThe fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandalâ.
My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAAâ(TM)s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been âoeadjustedâ, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.
So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/com...

Difference between raw and final data sets (this is an official graph from NOAA):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/c...

"It also renews the expiring parts of the Patriot Act through 2019."

No. let that fucking thing die. The PATRIOT ACT and those that support it are enemies of the american people.

A lot of people claim the soft sciences are not 'really science' due to the intangibility of their results - and this plays directly into that bias.

However, it's very much not just the softer sciences that have this issue. There's a growing realization that it's pervasive across many hard science disciplines:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB... : 64% of pharma trials couldn't be reproduced.

http://retractionwatch.com/201... - half of researchers couldn't reproduce published findings.

We're inundated with data that, due to the specificity of the field or detail of the results, has to come from 'experts' and doesn't lend itself to a sort of common-sense vetting that we can use to filter bullshit in the usual course of our lives. Whether it's from ignorance of statistical methods, poor experimental technique, motivated mendacity (for whatever reason), or simply experimental results that represent only an unusual end of a bell-curve, there are many, many reasons that scientific data has to be taken with a serious grain of salt. It can't be assumed to be conclusive until we've reproduced it in whatever context we're trying to apply it.

If that 10 years is maintenance free as in I don't have to do anything to it He will win big.
The biggest problem with off grid solar+wind installs is that caring for the battery bank is outside of the abilities of 80% of the population. If musk can make an off grid solar/wind install a zero effort/ zero care system where the drooling masses don't have to do anything.....

That will get the adoption rates way up, if the payback is within 5 years.

Right there. Psychology is as much a science as Astrology and Tarot cards. It's all based on what the observer thinks is normal.

The CEO deserves all the cookies! He is being generous in giving the Tea Party guy a chance to look at the cookie.

All hail the holy CEO's .... for they are our salvation!

"Corporations don't hold guns to their customer's heads."

AS in a physical gun? no not yet. But they hold financial guns to peoples' heads all the time. and many times try to do financial assassinations.

Why kill a person when you can make them suffer for the rest of their lives financially.

Yep, and Carnegie was a horrific evil man.

the things he did to people makes the worlds most notorious criminals seem like saints.

All it takes is time for a honest person to turn into a bought and paid for Politician.

And that is the solution. TAX Intellectual Property.

Sony bitches about $200 million lost in piracy? Let the IRS tax them on their new made up bullshit number. Suddenly IP "losses" go to sane levels.

I want IP taxed at 15% of the value claimed, and any claim in court asking for more due to piracy, is charged RETROACTIVELY by the IRS.

...hipster tragedy*:

"Oh no, my trendy tattoo is interfering with my Apple Smart watch! What ever will I do?"

*also called comedy by the rest of us.

The Surface to Air missiles are programmed via a web interface using Active X controls written in Visual Basic 6.

Companies like Dematic have been doing that for decades. Welcome to the 1990's FETCH!

Not freak weather, that is tropospheric ducting. It actually happens a lot more often than you think.