Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: [way OT] Re: How high's the water/presidential rant

Subject: [OM] Re: [way OT] Re: How high's the water/presidential rant
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:59:34 -0400
So, all of the folks listed here are not "reputable"?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming>
I'm afraid you won't win your point with me by character assassination 
of the opponents.  True, not everyone here is an atmospheric scientist 
(but many are) but I don't know what special position an atmospheric 
scientist has in what must be a hugely multi-disciplinary undertaking. 
I'll respect the atmospheric scientists a lot more if anyone ever 
figures out how to add clouds to their atmospheric model or at least 
admits that the model is grossly incomplete without clouds.

Of course, my view of mathematical modeling is very much colored by the 
prediction failures of a manufacturing process model I was involved with 
that took years to develop and whose variables were much more highly 
quantifiable than the inputs to a global warming model.  Right now the 
effects of global warming seem to be running ahead of the models.  Some 
find that truly scary.  To me it just shows very plainly that the models 
are wrong.

Chuck Norcutt


Andrew Fildes wrote:
> 
>
> 
>> The President isn't responsible for global warming(?) either. There  
>> are reputable scientists on both sides of this issue. (No argument,  
>> just stating a fact.)
> 
> Not exactly, unless you have an unusual definition of 'reputable'.  
> The term scientist covers a lot of ground and the division within the  
> atmospheric scientist community is between 'certain' and 'cautiously  
> convinced'. Those who are raising questions (as they should) tend to  
> be other kinds of scientist who are not necessarily more informed  
> about the topic than any intelligent individual, apart from their  
> understanding of scientific method. And there are  other non-expert  
> commentators, intelligent or otherwise. As Gore so neatly pointed  
> out, it's the journalists who are divided. And Bush would prefer to  
> listen to Michael Crichton of course.

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz