d.magitis <d.magitis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> <kinslerp@delillo.lsr.ph.ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:o7ifc4-he7.ln1@moo.uklinux.net...
> > d.magitis <d.magitis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Sorry no climate prediction model here.
> >
> > Then you're hardly qualified to comment, are you? Perhaps you
> > have other relevant expertise?
> Please enlighten me and let me know who is qualified to accurately
> predict the future.
Well, some are better quaified than others. We might relatively easily
ascertain the qualifications and track records of reputable climate
scientists. You, however, appear to have seen a TV documentary.
> >> I'd have more chance of predicting
> >> the lottery and so would everybody else creating such models.
> >
> > OK, so no doubt you can despite the technicalities and accuracy
> > of climate models with the best of them. Pick one from a well
> > respected research group, and let's discuss it.
> well respected research groups funded by governments no less,
> all eager to join the bandwagon/cash machine.
"Funded by governments"? Do you actually know what this means? It
generally means, for example, being rather badly paid. The money
provides a rather crap salary and resources to do research. The
research is not funded on the basis of predicting a "gobal warming"
(or its opposite), it's funded to improve understanding.
Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us all by demonstrating your
knowledge of science policy?
If I were an unprincipled climate resarcher with an eye on the money,
I'd sell out and push propaganda for the industrial lobby. That's
where the money is. It sure as fuck isn't accumulated by working in
academic research.
> All glaring into there crystal balls
Oh dear. I think you mean "climate models".
> terrorising the general public with yet more rubbish.
You have provided no evidence that you are qualified to judge the
research of any climate science group. And there's little evidence
the general public cares very much, let alone that it's "terrorised".
> They spoon it, you eat it and eat it all.
Who shall I believe?
(a) some random off the internet, who does nothing but mudslinging?
No science, no data, no evidence.
(b) the predictions of the majority of climate scientists,
who, despite their minor imperfections, are the closest things
we have available to experts on the subject?
(c) the propaganda of various industial lobbies, who
think they have a lot of money to lose?
Even if (b) might be wrong, they're still less likely to have
biases, and more likely to be right than the others.
It is likely that your response to this post will not be worth responding
to. It will contain no positive statements about the subject at hand,
merely attacks on climate research and some assorted insults. It's
important you make no positive statements, because then I might be able
to expose the weaknesses of your position, and the gaps in your knowledge.
Nevertheless, your tactics make that pretty clear anyway.
|
|