All models are wrong. There is no such thing as a perfect model outside of trivial classroom models e.g. spherical cow. Modeling fluid dynamics for aerodynamic lift, structural integrity models for bridges and buildings, etc . all have errors. They don't account for all variables and it is impossible to do so.

Science isn't built on models. Models are built on science. As with any other branch of science models are used to help get a better understanding of the phenomena being studied. Models are TOOLS that are built out of the results of science.

As to GCM's in particular, there is plenty of information out there describing the models, their error bounds, what they account for, what they don't, so on and so forth. For a layman's summary the IPCC does a fairly decent job describing the models, what they're used for, and accuracy.

WUWT is one of the absolute worst sites you can go to for any kind of "scientific analysis". They wouldn't make it through a first year statistical analysis course, let alone any sort of rigorous review process.

Darwin wins. Again.

None of your links are to peer reviewed research articles. Three of your statements refer to changes in trends BY THE END OF THIS CENTURY. Your fourth statement amount Britain never seeing snow again is just made up BS. That has never been stated in any research paper on climate.

Developing anything other than a trivial web application requires in depth knowledge of several different technologies, along with a couple different languages, knowledge of browser quirks (no those big libraries don't always get them all), etc. Compared to traditional application development, web development is a bloated and complex mess, or as the original author wrote:

"The web is just an enormous stack of kluges upon hacks upon misbegotten designs".

This statement is absolutely true. The web was never intended for "applications". That happened later. And instead of going back and making the web more conducive for applications, we basically got the equivalent of bad case of technological diarrhea smeared across the web hoping that somehow it would just make everything stick together and work.

Well, it works somewhat. But it certainly isn't pretty.

Even the best bikers in the world end up going over the handle bars into a ditch every now and then. What will be your excuse when you and your team cost some company millions of dollars due to delays and bugs that wouldn't have occurred if you had simply ditched your ego and went with the safer choice?

Unless you know everyone on the project team beyond awkwardly greeting them once in a while by the water cooler, choosing the best technology to use on a project based on what let's you be a SUPA HACKA is not only naive, but will most likely horribly backfire. Always assume your team will consist of the muppets and plan your tools and technologies accordingly.

Yeah, don't let dumbasses near them.

Spoiler: "DRINK MORE OVALTINE!"

So erotic is when you use quarks, and exotic is when you use the whole Higgs Boson?

Did jupiter or just yell at her?

JavaScript was developed by a Sith Lord.

What? Of course republicans don't want to kick them out of the country! They LOVE Mexican immigrants! Dirt cheap labor, and they can't even complain if you mistreat them. If they start to get uppity you just threaten to send them back across the border.

So why are they so anti-immigration then? They're not. Tougher immigration laws means they can keep stringing these poor people along and treat them even worse. Meanwhile, inside those immigration bills they slip in little extras like reducing the punishments for employing illegals and such. Just a little "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" for the big money donors.

Basically, republicans are about as anti-immigration as the DEA is anti-illegal drugs.

But why? That's the question you need to answer. Why would any civilization advanced enough for true interstellar travel even be slightly interested in smashing the Earth with a relativistic weapon, or any other kind of weapon?

Any civilization that advanced wouldn't NEED Earth for anything. They could get everything they need and more from countless worlds, asteroids, comets, and whatever else they happen to come across and in much greater quantities than our planet can provide. Through technology they may be practically immortal as well. They may only come by once every couple million years or so to see how things are going.

At best, Earth would be little more than an idle curiosity. It would be something to watch and study, and with their technological level they could do so completely undetected if they so chose. But it's more likely that such an advanced civilization simply doesn't care. We're a primitive barely aware species on a little speck of rock.

Until teachers get fired for teaching evolution or climate change. :P

No. It isn't. Read the paper instead of making inferences from a summary that is significantly lacking in details.

Scientists knew there was geothermal heat contributing to base melting of the glacier. Most places on Earth have a tiny amount of geothermal heat flux so underneath most glaciers there some small amount of melting due to this heat. On average, the geothermal flux on Earth is about 65 milliwatts/square meter.

This paper was looking to quantify the geothermal flux under the glacier so that they could model the behavior more accurately. It turns out the the average geothermal flux under the glacier is around 120 milliwatts/square meter with some areas going as high as 200 milliwatts/square meter. This adds a little bit more base melt and thus allows the glacier to move a little bit faster.

Keep in mind, these are milliwatts we're talking about, so it certainly isn't melting a lot. But since it is base melt it is contributing to glacier movement speed. This contributes to the ice loss already occurring due to warmer temperatures.