One for the not so swift among us-
 

Jack Goff wrote:


What bothers me abouty this whole thing is that we have "experts"
trying to tell us what it's going to be like in the year 2100. Hell,
the weatherman can't tell us what the weather will be like 5 days from
now with any kind of decent accuracy! Weather is simple compared to
*climate*, and we're supposed to put faith in these predictions?

Jack


5 days?

Try 5 hrs.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

Black Dog wrote:
On a happier on topic note, I think we are FINALLY going to launch the
boat tomorrow. Whew!

Stella


That's my plan too!

One for the not so swift among us-
 

Black Dog wrote:

It bothers me that people who are refered to as "scientists" (I don't
know if they call themselves that) treat the results of modelling
experiments like they were real data.

That's not at all accurate in my experience. Having spent
most of a career designing circuits by simulation I can
assure you it is obvious that simulations are only as good
as the associated models. Models are developed and
qualified by comparing their behavior to actual
measurements. There is even an old saying that serves as a
warning "simulation is a lot like masturbation, if you do it
enough it starts to feel like the real thing."

-rick-

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On 26 May 2006 10:47:52 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Now, remember, I never said that human activity is wholly responsible
for global warming.



That the earth is currently experiencing a small upswing in temps is
pretty much an undeniable fact.

What bothers me abouty this whole thing is that we have "experts"
trying to tell us what it's going to be like in the year 2100. Hell,
the weatherman can't tell us what the weather will be like 5 days from
now with any kind of decent accuracy! Weather is simple compared to
*climate*, and we're supposed to put faith in these predictions?

Jack



Global warming alarmists are no different than religous fanatics. (and
in reality, just another brand)

You must believe in their particular brand or you are a heritic.
Anything out of the ordinary that happens has roots in their beliefs.
There is the constant proclamations of the "end of day"
Those that express their disbelief are shouted down

etc. etc.



Global warming, and their alarmists, are a fraud.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=081204D

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On 26 May 2006 10:47:52 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Now, remember, I never said that human activity is wholly responsible
for global warming.



That the earth is currently experiencing a small upswing in temps is
pretty much an undeniable fact.

What bothers me abouty this whole thing is that we have "experts"
trying to tell us what it's going to be like in the year 2100. Hell,
the weatherman can't tell us what the weather will be like 5 days from
now with any kind of decent accuracy! Weather is simple compared to
*climate*, and we're supposed to put faith in these predictions?

Jack



Global warming alarmists are no different than religous fanatics. (and
in reality, just another brand)

You must believe in their particular brand or you are a heritic.
Anything out of the ordinary that happens has roots in their beliefs.
There is the constant proclamations of the "end of day"
Those that express their disbelief are shouted down

etc. etc.

If it were found to be true (the connection between warming and human
activity), how would you then decide which scientist hadn't been a fanatic?

One for the not so swift among us-
 

On Sat, 27 May 2006 12:15:08 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On 26 May 2006 10:47:52 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Now, remember, I never said that human activity is wholly responsible
for global warming.



That the earth is currently experiencing a small upswing in temps is
pretty much an undeniable fact.

What bothers me abouty this whole thing is that we have "experts"
trying to tell us what it's going to be like in the year 2100. Hell,
the weatherman can't tell us what the weather will be like 5 days from
now with any kind of decent accuracy! Weather is simple compared to
*climate*, and we're supposed to put faith in these predictions?

Jack



Global warming alarmists are no different than religous fanatics. (and
in reality, just another brand)

You must believe in their particular brand or you are a heritic.
Anything out of the ordinary that happens has roots in their beliefs.
There is the constant proclamations of the "end of day"
Those that express their disbelief are shouted down

etc. etc.

If it were found to be true (the connection between warming and human
activity), how would you then decide which scientist hadn't been a fanatic?


You may be missing the point. It's not that most people don't
acknowledge some type of connection between warming and human
activity. Rather, it's whether or not human activity plays a
*significant* role in the equation, and if anything we might do could
make any measurable difference whatsoever.

Jack

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...

Global warming alarmists are no different than religous fanatics.
(and
in reality, just another brand)

You must believe in their particular brand or you are a heritic.
Anything out of the ordinary that happens has roots in their beliefs.
There is the constant proclamations of the "end of day"
Those that express their disbelief are shouted down

etc. etc.

If it were found to be true (the connection between warming and human
activity), how would you then decide which scientist hadn't been a
fanatic?


You may be missing the point. It's not that most people don't
acknowledge some type of connection between warming and human
activity. Rather, it's whether or not human activity plays a
*significant* role in the equation, and if anything we might do could
make any measurable difference whatsoever.

Jack

I'm not missing the point. If you acknowledge the connection, then
logically, you must stop calling any scientist a political fanatic.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

On Fri, 26 May 2006 21:38:28 -0700, -rick- wrote:

Black Dog wrote:

It bothers me that people who are refered to as "scientists" (I don't
know if they call themselves that) treat the results of modelling
experiments like they were real data.

That's not at all accurate in my experience. Having spent
most of a career designing circuits by simulation I can
assure you it is obvious that simulations are only as good
as the associated models. Models are developed and
qualified by comparing their behavior to actual
measurements. There is even an old saying that serves as a
warning "simulation is a lot like masturbation, if you do it
enough it starts to feel like the real thing."

-rick-

If by "circuits" you mean electronic circuits, that's a whole
different kettle of fish. Electronic circuit simulators are a
well-developed, fairly mature technology. Even RF circuits can be
modeled fairly accurately. These simulators have the advantage that
you point out... "Models are developed and qualified by comparing
their behavior to actual measurements."

Simulating and modeling climate change 94 years in the future does not
have that advantage. Scientist have no test climate that they can
introduce variables into, and no time machine to travel 94 years into
the future to measure the results. Therefore, unlike your circuit
simulator, there is no way to check the output of their climate
simulator against real-world results to verify its accuracy.

As previously discussed, weather models can't tell us with any decent
accuracy what it will be like in 5 days. Are you really telling me
that you believe a climate model for 94 years into the future?

Jack

One for the not so swift among us-
 

On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:00:02 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
.. .

Global warming alarmists are no different than religous fanatics.
(and
in reality, just another brand)

You must believe in their particular brand or you are a heritic.
Anything out of the ordinary that happens has roots in their beliefs.
There is the constant proclamations of the "end of day"
Those that express their disbelief are shouted down

etc. etc.

If it were found to be true (the connection between warming and human
activity), how would you then decide which scientist hadn't been a
fanatic?


You may be missing the point. It's not that most people don't
acknowledge some type of connection between warming and human
activity. Rather, it's whether or not human activity plays a
*significant* role in the equation, and if anything we might do could
make any measurable difference whatsoever.

Jack

I'm not missing the point. If you acknowledge the connection, then
logically, you must stop calling any scientist a political fanatic.


I didn't call anyone a fanatic. That was someone else.

However, whether or not there's a connection has little to do with a
scientist being a political fanatic. Being correct on a single theory
does not preclude one from being a fanatic.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:00:02 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
. ..

Global warming alarmists are no different than religous fanatics.
(and
in reality, just another brand)

You must believe in their particular brand or you are a heritic.
Anything out of the ordinary that happens has roots in their
beliefs.
There is the constant proclamations of the "end of day"
Those that express their disbelief are shouted down

etc. etc.

If it were found to be true (the connection between warming and human
activity), how would you then decide which scientist hadn't been a
fanatic?


You may be missing the point. It's not that most people don't
acknowledge some type of connection between warming and human
activity. Rather, it's whether or not human activity plays a
*significant* role in the equation, and if anything we might do could
make any measurable difference whatsoever.

Jack

I'm not missing the point. If you acknowledge the connection, then
logically, you must stop calling any scientist a political fanatic.


I didn't call anyone a fanatic. That was someone else.

However, whether or not there's a connection has little to do with a
scientist being a political fanatic. Being correct on a single theory
does not preclude one from being a fanatic.

It is comical how the Global Warming Alarmists react. Anyone that doesn't
believe in the creed is "in denial" or has been bought by the "evil
corporate conspiracy" Have you noticed at almost every alarmist has
socialist leanings, some even wish to eliminate humans from the earth,
they also have short memories........forgetting the "coming ice age"
doomsday predictions of the 70's.