Text 5959, 96 rader
Skriven 2007-09-11 22:17:18 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
     Kommentar till en text av Martin Atkins
Ärende: Re: Global Warming
==========================
Hello Martin,

> But you are. You say that i should have no opinion unless i
> conform to your narrow range of qualifications. Presumably then
> you are a "climatologist" and therefore your opinion is somehow
> superior to my own.

I've not gone on as you have, spouting numbers acting like I'm an expert.  You
however have done so.  What I have said is that your numbers and ideas go
against what almost every climtologist has said.

>Do feel free to post me your qualifications
> or by your rules you are not allowed an opinion.

Lol.. picking up on other's ideas posted here? I've already seen that response
here by two people, and I didn't reply to them because it is nonsense.

>> If you took more interest in physics you would know that any
>> experimental outcome only produces a result that will be overwhelmingly
>> probable if all external factors and all known inputs are accounted for.
>> When it comes to the earths weather patterns over periods of time
>> there are many external and internal factors that must be computed.
>> There is also human politics influencing the debate itself.

>> That is pretty insulting, Martin.

> I'm not responsible for your sensibilities. Take a handkerchief,
> wipe your nose dry your eyes and then go play with your dolls house.

Oh now you've really hit a sore spot with me.. insult my dolls, will you?
<laugh> It's ok, Martin, I wouldn't expect that you'd see what was insulting in
your statements above.

>> Btw, that is why they use supercomputers to
>> analyze weather. And if you took more interest in life in general (or
>> science in general) you'd know that is true.

> If you were any kind of programer you would be aware of the saying
> "Rubbish in rubbish out". If you design a program to give you
> the results you want from a limited amount of input then that's
> what you get....the result you want.

>> For example... When a computer model is built, it's predictive power is
>> tested against known periods of the past and if necessary, the model is
>> refined. When a model can consistently properly predict past periods it
>> generally accepted to be a good model.

> It's considered a good model if it gives them the result they want.

>> But even then, the model isn't static..

> Of course it isn't. These intellectual wonders will fiddle with it
> until it proves what they suspected all along. That is to say,
> that models designed by them will reflect their own politically
> biased prejudices and further there own self interest.

>> it is constantly refined to increase it's accuracy.  When the
>> best models independantly developed by leading climatologists align to
>> predict similar futures it takes a bit more than the abilitity to add
>> one plus one to dismiss those models and their predictions....
>> especially when later developments validate the predictions.

> The fact is no computor program can do anything other than compute
> it's designers inputs. If those inputs are wrong then the result
> is a reflection of the operators own falibility.


It's obvious to me from the above text that you have _no_ idea of what is
involved in computer modeling, and because of that there is no point in
discussing this with you any further.  Read up on it, and get back to me when
you're ready if you care to.

>> Perhaps in your world you have never found your self appointed
>> intellectually superior messiahs wanting but in my life experience
>> i have found that some of those with the biggest labels are the
>> worst possible frauds.

>> The most intelligent people I have ever known never had to put a false
>> front. I'll grant you that there are some pompous buffoons, but we're
>> not talking about a stray voice here or there, we're talking about an
>> overwhelming consenus.

> Overriding consensus by a small batch of academics shows that they
> may be at pains not to be seen as the odd one out amidst their peer
> group. Heaven forbid any one of them should jeopardize funding
> by suggesting his/her colleagues may be overstating their case
> and over simplified the problem.

It is no "small batch of academics".  But again, as I said, if you have no idea
how they've come to their conclusions, there is no point in this discussion.

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)