On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:15:54 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:00:00 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:02:36 +0000, Larry wrote:

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in
om:

Myth 5 - Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide
useful projections of climate change


Horse****! They can't even predict the weather next weekend. How can
they
predict the temperature in 2017? The Farmer's Almanac is closer than
the
computer models, none of which EVER agree until the eye of the storm
passes
directly over your position.

I speak with some authority on this subject, having stood in the
demolished
neighborhood in the pitch black, staring in awe up through the eye of
Hurricane Hugo in '89 at midnight in Summerville, SC. The stars were
never
so beautiful as they were in the center of the big vacuum cleaner!


Weather and climate prediction are different animals. To take a
trivial example, I can predict that next summer will be warmer than
next winter but I don't know how much wind there will be next week.


And you cannot accurately predict whether next summer will be warmer or
cooler than last summer; the most you can do is make a guess -- educated
or
not.

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Ho...ngJudgment.pdf

Fine but little dated now.


Six years "out of date" means that the arguments are no longer valid?

Some questions/anomalies have been resolved quite recently. This one
of the ways The Great Global Warming Swindle dishonestly distorted the
truth - by knowingly using outdated or discredited research, they
say..

For example:
"Myth 3 - There is less warming in the upper atmosphere than at the
surface which disproves human-induced warming
We expect greater warming in the upper atmosphere than at the surface
in the tropics, but the reverse is true at high latitudes. This
expectation holds whether the cause of warming is due to greenhouse
gases or changes in the Sun’s output. Until recently, measurements of
the temperature changes in the tropics in recent decades did not
appear to show greater warming aloft than at the surface. It has now
been shown that allowing for uncertainties in the observations, the
theoretical and modelling results can be reconciled with the
observations."

I understand 'the cosmic ray thingy' was originally based upon flawed
data and is currently unproved.

Thirdly, the gobal warming signal seems to be gradually emerging from
the noise with time.

Charlie Morgan wrote:

Shouldn't you be in the boatyard applying bottom paint... or
something?

CWM

Did you use a respirator last time?

the_bmac wrote:
Cessna 310 wrote:
Jeff wrote:
You've been very quiet on the topic of Child Pornography lately. So
I take it from your silence on the point that you do have a financial
interest at stake in the matter.

Right. Rather than remain on the topic of global warming and
motivations, you're stooping to this level of personal attack?

You've missed the point, again. Jeff is modelling the fallacy in the
other guy's argument.


Nope, it was a purely personal attack.

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On 30 Mar 2007 12:33:05 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:56:56 -0400, Charlie Morgan said:

Shouldn't you be in the boatyard applying bottom paint... or
something?

Just trying to encourage a little intellectual honesty. It seems to be in
short supply.

Tomorrow the boatyard.

I'm just trying to encourage a little boating talk. It seems to be in
even shorter supply.

If you want honesty... The thread has long ago run it's course, and
the dead horse has been soundly beaten by all involved. No further
beating of the horse will give anyone an advantage.

CWM

Perhaps not. But it will certainly tenderize the meat.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...

Thirdly, the gobal warming signal seems to be gradually emerging from
the noise with time.

All the more reason to let significantly more time to pass in which to allow
the signal to noise ratio to be clarified, in my book.

On 30 Mar 2007 12:36:06 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:52:19 -0400, Jeff said:

I'm impressed.

If you're dying to know the diameter of a rod, and a fella shows up with a
micrometer and says he's an expert in using it, let him measure the rod. But
don't let him bamboozle you into thinking that just because he knows how to
use a micrometer he's an expert in figuring out how the rod got to be that
size.

I have never claimed to be an expert on climate modelling or even a
scientist. I am caught between a rock and a hard place - either
totally ignorant or corrupted by funding. I merely declared an
interest. I am in a postion to judge for myself the honesty and
integrity of some of the big players, who I know personally.

* Cessna 310 wrote, On 3/30/2007 1:37 PM:
Jeff wrote:
What is the basis for that conclusion? The fact that I've asked the
question
(to which the answer has not been received)? That's what inquiring
minds do.
They ask questions. Each may draw his own conclusions from the answers.

You've been very quiet on the topic of Child Pornography lately. So I
take it from your silence on the point that you do have a financial
interest at stake in the matter.

Right. Rather than remain on the topic of global warming and
motivations, you're stooping to this level of personal attack?


Dave has never addressed the topic of global warming. In fact, he
generally does not address any issue, but prefers to stay on the
sideline and take cheap shots. That was the exact sentence used by
Dave in questioning someone else. I guess it didn't bother you when
he said it.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:57:39 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .

Thirdly, the gobal warming signal seems to be gradually emerging from
the noise with time.

All the more reason to let significantly more time to pass in which to allow
the signal to noise ratio to be clarified, in my book.


Time will pass anyhow before effective action can be taken. Time now
to start planning, not shooting oneself in he foot by over-reacting or
corrupting the science by political dogma.

* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 1:36 PM:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:52:19 -0400, Jeff said:

I'm impressed.

If you're dying to know the diameter of a rod, and a fella shows up with a
micrometer and says he's an expert in using it, let him measure the rod. But
don't let him bamboozle you into thinking that just because he knows how to
use a micrometer he's an expert in figuring out how the rod got to be that
size.

I'm not impressed.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On 30 Mar 2007 12:36:06 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:52:19 -0400, Jeff said:

I'm impressed.

If you're dying to know the diameter of a rod, and a fella shows up with a
micrometer and says he's an expert in using it, let him measure the rod.
But
don't let him bamboozle you into thinking that just because he knows how
to
use a micrometer he's an expert in figuring out how the rod got to be that
size.

I have never claimed to be an expert on climate modelling or even a
scientist. I am caught between a rock and a hard place - either
totally ignorant or corrupted by funding. I merely declared an
interest. I am in a postion to judge for myself the honesty and
integrity of some of the big players, who I know personally.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you not post a link to a scientific paper,
claiming (or implying) that your name appears in the list of authors? It
strikes me that you have been trying to claim a place among those who study
atmospheric change.