As you SHOULD know, you cannot test future accuracy.
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.
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.
Why are the experts continuing to come up with bad, biased models and continue to make predictions based on those bad, biased models?
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.
Funny, because the science that I learned about in college was ALL ABOUT being constantly questioned.
But surely, then, you remember that science doesn't stop at the question. You need to actually do research. In climate science, that means collecting data and building a model. I think it is noteworthy that no AGW opponent has built a model.
You can call them anything you want, but they are following the scientific method to the extent allowed by the nature of an observational science. They self-identify as scientists. AGW opponents do not have a single model that they can point to, and as far as I know, no prominent AGW opponent is working on a model. They can self-identify as scientists if they want, but they certainly aren't sticking to "their" philosophy.
Thanks for the high-res version. Is there some technical reason that they omit the ocean data? I would think the oceans have quite a bit of photosynthetic activity!
Thanks, I did not know that. But to be clear, this does not create junction points... this is the "official" method that I reference. I don't want people cutting-and-pasting Users
I'm thinking (hoping?) that normal disk caching would take care of stuff like that. Honestly, I'd just use the supported method unless your SSD was very, very tiny. I use the junction point method because I wipe out the C: drive from time to time to avoid Windows cruft. Every so often I apply Windows updates and re-baseline.
Windows is a pain in the ass, but with some determination you can set everything up on the SSD and then use "junction points" from the rescue disk to connect to a Users directory on a big spinning drive. If you are willing to get about 90% of the way there with just conventional tools, you can just move the "My Documents, My Music, etc." type directories by right-clicking on them, selecting Properties, and then going to the Location tab. From there you can move them to the spinning disk. This is fine if you only have a few users on the PC, but can get very tedious with multiple users.
Hey! I held off with my "barista at Space-Starbucks" joke.
Um, you have it backwards. Assad was the first Arab to sign a peace deal with Israel, and he was such a reliable ally of the US that he was allowed to build M1A1 tanks domestically. Gaddafi was a state sponsor of terrorism who was a total belligerent until Reagan ordered a bombing run.
But it matters not. When the revolution comes, we shall flee to the safe haven of Russia. Brother Putin will let us stay at his airport. I plan on taking a nuclear sub with me. It will be awkward to store at the airport, but the plan must be held.