"d.magitis" <d.magitis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:zGCJh.141562$HO5.107125@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> <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.
shelves, I do apologise.
>
>>> 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.
The government has been using terror tactics for years, remember the onset
of the next ice age?
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
|