<kinslerp@delillo.lsr.ph.ic.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:om4hc4-72m.ln1@moo.uklinux.net...
> 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.
"Qualified" please check spelling.
So you obviously put your faith in prediction. The facts show that the
climate changes whatever and we humans do not have any fact within these
changes.
>
>> >> 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.
"Global" this really hurts. I'm losing faith in your spelling.
OK university, so called independent sources are not supported by government
grants? They have just set up yet another independent source to investigate
how it is best to reduce 67% of C02 emissions from your home within the next
40 years. But obviously they do this for free. Oh and by the way if this was
to take effect tomorrow this would mean. Losing your car, eliminating all
electrical goods, doing away with your central heating and eliminating your
annual holiday. Sound like living in a cave to me. However Paul I will give
you the funding argument due to default as no figures have be published
submitting the total costs.
> 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.
"Researcher" somebody help!
Is it not, I forget all academic researchers are on the minimum wage and
prefer this work rather than stacking selves. I have to type at this point
that I am not keen on your childish antics regarding language.
>> 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".
Qualified, common knowledge would suggest you do not back a prediction.
>
>> 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?
"Industrial"
>
> Even if (b) might be wrong, they're still less likely to have
> biases, and more likely to be right than the others.
Due to your quick response I am "Predicting" that you completely ignored the
links I provided. All the data is out there we should look back not forward
to see how climate changes.
The fact is you cannot rely on a future prediction. Not ever. The global
warming effect is totally based on such.
>
> 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.
Thank you Paul, Can you really back a prediction given the facts on past
climate events?
Currently I'm working on the Prime pattern theory, I have lots of graphs and
figures.
Breaking news MC squared and string theory under threat due to molecules
travelling past the speed of light. We live and learn, maybe.
>
>
>
|
|