Climate models
James
desired. The pro AGW crowd will tell you otherwise or admit to a few
glitches and declare them the best thing in their arsenal for action. The
models do serve a purpose however and that is to get published.
Take one climate model and apply well known numbers and have it reviewed.
Well, by thunder this is as accurate as it can be. You get an A and so does
your reputation until the next model comes along and someone can do it all
over again since it has different results or covers a different period or is
made for a specific purpose. Never you mind that the model has holes that
you can drive a semi through. By damn, this is SCIENCE.
The result of all this bullshit is not even informative since the model is
flawed in the first place. But it does get someone published and adds to the
collection of papers on climate change. It doesn't add much else. (That
seems to be a selling point that all these papers are some kind of
consensus) No wonder the science community has cheapened the process to the
point that their credibility as a whole is fading. The whole science world
suffers through this kind of baloney.
Roger Coppock
SCIENTISTS ARE TOTALLY WRONG.
(That would include several people on this forum.)
COULD YOU PROVIDE US WITH A FEW DETAILS TO HELP US EVALUATE YOUR
STANDING TO MAKE SUCH A LARGE CLAIM:
Your professional experience with modeling is what, James?
Your educational level, James, is?
Your mathematical background, James, is?
Your computer science experience, James, is?
Your knowledge of atmospheric chemistry and physics, is?
You have:
-- written what textbooks?
-- published what articles?
-- obtained what data?
-- written what computer code?
MIGHT ONE THEN CONCLUDE THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR CLAIMS AND
YOUR RESUME SHOW THAT YOUR EGO IS INFLATED.
W. D. Allen Sr.
point that their credibility as a whole is fading...."
Just finished a newspaper article about some pinhead scientists faulting
vitamin C for "increasing" the risk of death. Of course, the authors used
only data that justified their hypothesis. It's what happens when too many
unemployed "experts" are chasing too few "study" dollars.
The ethanol email on in this newsgroup today is still another example of
"everything good - nothing bad!" jackass analysis, as is typical of much in
the "global warming" world.
WDA
end
"James" <jra...@dcr.net> wrote in message
news:j0Pud.179$FG5...@fe39.usenetserver.com...
James
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1102834814....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
LOL S'matter Roger. You mean to tell me you didn't get published? Well,
there's no shame in trying now is there?
Peter Hearnden
accuracy and your qualifications therein? Then we can see just how well
versed in the subject you are.
I say this because new readers of this NG might think, laughably of course,
you're just cheapening the scientific process and bullshitting just to try
and get across your own prejudices. As if.......
Peter
"James" <jra...@dcr.net> wrote in message
news:j0Pud.179$FG5...@fe39.usenetserver.com...
James
"Peter Hearnden" <pe...@wronghearndenbit.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cpjl7o$if9$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> James, can you give us a link to you extensive work on climate model
> accuracy and your qualifications therein? Then we can see just how well
> versed in the subject you are.
>
> I say this because new readers of this NG might think, laughably of
course,
> you're just cheapening the scientific process and bullshitting just to try
> and get across your own prejudices. As if.......
>
>
> Peter
>
(according to those who interpret them and write papers on them) and at the
same time claims and studies that say they are flawed. One doesn't have to
be an expert in climate models to read them. Your argument is such a typical
response from liberal environmentalists, I'm surprised that kind of crap
still goes on with a straight face.
One only has to mention something here before someone with an opposite view
is demanding a PHD, years of experience and some other qualifications. So
unless your view has those same qualifications you demand, you are not
qualified to say how well versed the person is. It's really hypocrisy at
it's finest here when the science freaks comment on economics, politics,
history, treaties and many other things but demand specific credentials when
they hear something they don't like.
Your phony outrage is noted but please stop ponificating.
Joshua Halpern
> "Peter Hearnden" <pe...@wronghearndenbit.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cpjl7o$if9$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>>James, can you give us a link to you extensive work on climate model
>>accuracy and your qualifications therein? Then we can see just how well
>>versed in the subject you are.
>>
>>I say this because new readers of this NG might think, laughably of
>
> course,
>
>>you're just cheapening the scientific process and bullshitting just to try
>>and get across your own prejudices. As if.......
>>
>>
>>Peter
>>
>
> The internet is full of these model studies which proclaim dire consequences
> (according to those who interpret them and write papers on them)
Point to one.
josh halpern
James
"Joshua Halpern" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:m8svd.4085$N%6.3554@trnddc05...
abstracts of papers written based on climate models. They are quite useless
but they do get published.
Joshua Halpern
or shut up.
josh halpern
James
you pricks want every damn thing spelled out for you when it is quite a
common thing is beyond me. The only reason I can fathom why is so you can
bash the article as to where it came, who wrote it, no qualifications etc
etc etc. A typical ploy for laziness which means you are not really
interested in the first place.
Joshua Halpern
or shut up. You evidently have no intention of putting up.
josh halpern
Peter Hearnden
Typical lame Jamesish response. Crikey all we're asking is for you to do
some cuttinandpastin to back up YOUR allegation - we all know you can do
that.
Joshua is quite right! YOU made the claim, it's laughable if you can't back
it up!
James: 'M'lord, he's guilty', 'What? You want to see the evidence M'lord?
The evidence is useless go find it youself!'. Case dismissed I'm sure.
>
>
Alastair McDonald
You are the lazy one, if you are not prepared to do a simple google
search to back up your ideas.
I could agree with your sentiments when you wrote;
"James" <jra...@dcr.net> wrote in message
news:j0Pud.179$FG5...@fe39.usenetserver.com...
> Climate models are many and when it comes to accuracy,leaves much to be
> desired. The pro AGW crowd will tell you otherwise or admit to a few
> glitches and declare them the best thing in their arsenal for action. The
> models do serve a purpose however and that is to get published.
>
But to claim that the literature is full of models which claim dire
consequence
is plain wrong. You are confusing two of the sceptics well worn arguments.
The argument is that the models are wrong, so there is nothing to worry
about. And that those warning about global warming are chicken littles.
But because the models are wrong, does not mean they are overestimating
the dangers. They could equally be underestimating them. In fact they are!
Cheers, Alastair.
David Ball
Uh-huh. Modeling is a tool. Nothing more. It is widely used in
everything from engineering to economics. The are invaluable for
weather and climate applications, but they don't provide all of the
answers.
Let's look in detail at what you said above:
1. Do a news google on climate models. You will likely find
numerous reports. If you could do a similar search on tradesmen, do
you think you might find numerous instances of the use of hammers,
James? Do you think a search on surgery might find extensive use of
scalpels? Sorry, but your point is meaningless.
2. Lots of papers based on climate models. Of course, you
fool. Do you think researchers are going to do the complex
calculations needed to assess the future state of the atmosphere in
their heads? Want them to pull out a slide rule?
3. They are quite useless but they do get published. This is
probably the funniest thing you've said in quite a while. Kindly show
where and why they are useless, bringing your extensive expertise in
numerical modeling to bear on the problem. They are far from useless.
They are invaluable. Your posts are useless, James.
James
"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:igrtr016a9v1vj3ou...@4ax.com...
My, my. My little op-ed has brought out the best in all of you. From the
apoplectic Roger to the "Post only science" dope like you who never posts
any science himself except to tell others they are wrong. The rest have
requests of an op-ed that they are too damn lazy to find for themselves.
Their phony interests are, well, phony.
David Ball
If all else fails, play the Troll. Not surprising, James. It's
about the only thing you can do. Morons of the world, unite! James is
on the case....
Roger Coppock
The Bible cautions us not to argue with a
fool lest we become one.
When you sit down on that porcelain thrown,
do not to argue with your output,
just to flush it down.