As you SHOULD know, you cannot test future accuracy.

We already have the slashdot story generator:

http://www.bbspot.com/toys/sla...

Right. Playing with your gun teaches the ability to resist road rage. Are you even listening to yourself?

Try it. Then sound off. B-)

I'm sure the points in there are good, but I need to point out that while it is a "peer reviewed journal", you linked to something from the "Opinion & Comment" section. There is quite a bit of work being done to understand where all of the heat is going, but that has been discussed on here before.

If you link to that same editorial one more time, then I'll believe it.

As persuasive a source as an article by a British politician is, I'd like to hear from someone who actually does this for a living.

Well, looking up the thread, you are an expert in talking completely past a person, I'll give you that.

I mention that there is no such thing as a model which supports anti-AGW, and you retort that the "experts" are producing biased models. I used my highly advanced deductive reasoning to assume that you meant that the models not supporting the anti-AGW argument, which would of course be all of them. Obviously you only meant SOME of them. How silly of me. Please accept my most sincere apologies and may the Festivus spirit fill you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Bell showed that Von Neumann's disproof of local hidden variable theories was flat out wrong.

My understanding is that hidden variables theories can be made to work if reality is non-local. And given that quantum entanglement appears to be non-local, hidden variables should be able to work.

The "we shouldn't even attempt science" argument.

So the climate scientists' responses to the poor temperature prediction has been to improve the models and look for why there is a discrepancy. That is scientific. The unscientific thing to do is mine Google for items which reinforce your opinion on the matter.

I have a very hard time accepting your characterization of every single model ever created as "bad", with no counter-examples of a "good" model. How can you assess the non-expert's criticism if there is no way to test their assertions?

But you nailed it with "non-experts". Non-expert's opinions are generally not worth as much as an expert's opinion. There are many, many non-experts latched onto this field for ideological reasons. It's like evolution.

The NRA stands up for all citizens equally. If you have evidence to the contrary, the burden lies on you to bring it up.

Here's my question: why doesn't the NAACP stand up for the right of black people to keep guns?

Not so great if you want it to actually ring when a call comes in. On the Bold, I found that I have to use the ringer that sounds like an office phone ringer. If I use any others, it plays the short sound once (and they are all only a second or two in length) and I tend to miss the call. Also, I want the Favorites group open every time. Isn't that reasonable? I mean, they're my favorites. But it always mysteriously moves to Frequent or All, so that I have to swipe to find what I want. Most of the tiny icons don't look like what they represent, or two or three look almost the same.

It's crap, and I can't wait until my company replaces it with an iPhone.

What I'm really surprised about is that the price hasn't really gone down yet. The prices you see at those dispensaries are still higher than street prices in states where it's illegal, which is baffling.

The statists would say this is because deregulation doesn't work, while I believe it's because banks and investors won't work with dispensaries for fear of being attacked by the federal government. Also, with the legal states being surrounded by the illegal states, you're limited to local sources. When the supply is limited, any demand tends to push prices up.