"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"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.

You sound really smart. I want to learn from you. What is a socialist?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...
"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.

You sound really smart. I want to learn from you. What is a socialist?

According to Fritz, any legitimate scientist who doesn't support President
Retardo.

I wonder which president was part of the definition when Marx was alive and
writing.

On Sat, 27 May 2006 12:51:33 -0400, P. Fritz wrote:


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.

And the difference between a "Global Warming Alarmist" and you, would be?
"socialist leanings", "eliminate humans", yup, I can see you are open to
the possibility that this planet could be warming. Scientists, who have
spent their entire careers studying this issue, have come down on both
sides, but the general body of science believes the planet is warming.
The only real debate is it natural, or man made.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 May 2006 12:51:33 -0400, P. Fritz wrote:


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.

And the difference between a "Global Warming Alarmist" and you, would be?
"socialist leanings", "eliminate humans", yup, I can see you are open to
the possibility that this planet could be warming. Scientists, who have
spent their entire careers studying this issue, have come down on both
sides, but the general body of science believes the planet is warming.
The only real debate is it natural, or man made.



I'll bet you $11.39 that I can make this Fritz unit go off on a tangent that
100% predictable. Say when.

On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:21:13 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Fri, 26 May 2006 16:34:36 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

Explain the increase in Mars' temperature.

Explain the direct relationship between Martian weather and the
Earth's weather.

Ummm, they share a primary source of heat?

That's right, there is none.

Noone who would start their argument from such a position of ignorance is
worth my time.

Sadly though, as a testament to the poor science/logic/math education
that we have given to many of our students, this is an all too often
repeated talking point.

It's even more sad that so few kids take advantage of the math and science
opportunities that *do* exist in our high schools.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 May 2006 12:51:33 -0400, P. Fritz wrote:


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.

And the difference between a "Global Warming Alarmist" and you, would be?
"socialist leanings", "eliminate humans", yup, I can see you are open to
the possibility that this planet could be warming. Scientists, who have
spent their entire careers studying this issue, have come down on both
sides, but the general body of science believes the planet is warming.
The only real debate is it natural, or man made.



I'll bet you $11.39 that I can make this Fritz unit go off on a tangent that
100% predictable. Say when.

Oh, I wouldn't touch that bet, we all know Fritz!!!

Jack Goff wrote:
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.

So we've apparently misplaced all records of the past?

"-rick-" wrote in message
...
Jack Goff wrote:
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.

So we've apparently misplaced all records of the past?

If that's convenient, then yes.

If you push hard enough, you'll find that behind some peoples'
interpretation of the science we have at the moment, there's something
unscientific that you can't do anything about. You have to just wait for
these people to drop dead, in the same way the South had to wait (and is
still waiting) for racists to drop dead already. The "something" is fear of
having to change their behavior. These people believe that the two
statements below are exactly identical:

1) As your president, I'm telling you that we all need to think more
carefully about how our choices affect the earth.

2) Effective immediately, there will be a $1500.00 federal surcharge on any
vehicle which gets lets than 28 mpg. We will control you.

On Sun, 28 May 2006 23:41:45 -0700, -rick- wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:
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.

So we've apparently misplaced all records of the past?

Of course not. But those records are woefully incomplete to enable an
accurate model to be constructed. How many weather satellites did we
have 100 years ago?

You seem to be thinking that climate is like an NPN transistor. It's
not. Think of a black box with 200 inputs and 10 outputs. We know
what the ouputs are, and can measure them. We know what most of the
inputs are, and are pretty sure about the rest. It's reasonable to
assume that there's a few that we don't know about, and may never
know. Of the inputs we understand, we've just recently identified and
have been able to measure many of them (in the climate timeline scheme
of things). We've seen that there is a huge time lag inside of this
box, sometimes years, sometimes decades. Finally, we have virtually
no control of any of the inputs, so we can't change just one and
observe the outputs. Most of the inputs are totally out of our
control, and are constantly changing. So once again, unlike your
simple circuit on the bench, the climate computer model can not be
verified against the real world.

So answer this, Rick. 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's prediction
for 94 years into the future?

Jack

Jack Goff wrote:
On Sun, 28 May 2006 23:41:45 -0700, -rick- wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:
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.

So we've apparently misplaced all records of the past?

Of course not. But those records are woefully incomplete to enable an
accurate model to be constructed. How many weather satellites did we
have 100 years ago?

Maybe they didn't have weather satellites then, but they had weather.
They also had people quite competent in keeping data.

You seem to be thinking that climate is like an NPN transistor. It's
not. Think of a black box with 200 inputs and 10 outputs. We know
what the ouputs are, and can measure them. We know what most of the
inputs are, and are pretty sure about the rest. It's reasonable to
assume that there's a few that we don't know about, and may never
know. Of the inputs we understand, we've just recently identified and
have been able to measure many of them (in the climate timeline scheme
of things). We've seen that there is a huge time lag inside of this
box, sometimes years, sometimes decades. Finally, we have virtually
no control of any of the inputs, so we can't change just one and
observe the outputs. Most of the inputs are totally out of our
control, and are constantly changing. So once again, unlike your
simple circuit on the bench, the climate computer model can not be
verified against the real world.

So answer this, Rick. 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's prediction
for 94 years into the future?

Flawed analogy. Very flawed. the model for recent events (5 days in
your case is much more detailed and refined than the 94 year model. The
more detailed and the more refined a model is, the more instances of
error. Ergo, while a 5 day model might not be accurate in your eyes, if
it were the same detail as the 94 year model, it would be spot on.