"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 May 2006 17:06:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
. ..


No more flawed than the logic you just used. Weather is *simple*
compared to climate.

Actually, I've read numerous articles about the concept of "complex
systems". In all the things I've read, two examples were used to
illustrate:
the weather, and massive computer programming tasks.


Correct. That's why even 5-day forecasts are often inaccurate. Then
when you realize that "Weather is *simple* compared to climate", it
makes the concept of accurate 100 year climate predictions seem
totally ludicrous!

Jack

In any case, I'm absolutely 100% positive that you are correct. Based on
your research, humans do not, and never will have any effect on the
environment. This has all been a hoax perpetrated on the world by companies
who make green ink, the most popular color in the mass mailing sent out by
environmental groups.

On Tue, 30 May 2006 03:32:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


"Jack Goff" wrote:

Correct. That's why even 5-day forecasts are often inaccurate. Then
when you realize that "Weather is *simple* compared to climate", it
makes the concept of accurate 100 year climate predictions seem
totally ludicrous!

Jack

In any case, I'm absolutely 100% positive that you are correct.

Now we're getting somewhere!


Based on your research, humans do not, and never will have any effect on the
environment. This has all been a hoax perpetrated on the world by companies
who make green ink, the most popular color in the mass mailing sent out by
environmental groups.

Huh? How did you get that from what I've written? Especially when I
wrote " 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."

Do you read and understand what you've read, or exist here just post
inane comments?

Jack