OT: An Appeal by everyone's favourite eco-loon, Greta Thunbe

[whit3rd]

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 4:49:04 AM UTC-8, blo...@columbus.rr.com wrote:

> ... She probably thinks she has special gifts which have elevated her to great prominence, when in reality she is a useful idiot.

Why do YOU care what 'she probably thinks'; that's a cheap attack, a cowardly bit of
character assassination.

> I hope that she can properly process this when the day comes that she is spent fuel and is no longer needed and nobody cares about her opinions anymore.

A smile and some encouragement would be a more appropriate attitude. She deserves a
bright future.

 

[Phil Allison]

blo...@columbus.rr.com wrote:

---------------------------------

Phil Allison wrote:


** Using a sick kid as your spokesperson and public mascot is sickening.


I completely agree. She is being set up.
She probably thinks she has special gifts which have elevated
her to great prominence, when in reality she is a useful idiot.
I hope that she can properly process this when the day comes
that she is spent fuel and is no longer needed and nobody cares
about her opinions anymore.

** The AGW fanatics with not so hidden agendas have made her into a star.

While she is a sick kid, public sympathy goes her way.

Once she is clearly a self driven adult, that will change.

Direct and severe criticism can be then aimed right at her.

That she might not be able to deal with such an onslaught has me worried.

Because the fanatics behind her do not give a hoot.

Having a martyr for their cause would suit them fine.




..... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

Bill Sloman wrote:

--------------------


** Since Bill has declared that everything he posts is an
unsupported assertion he has no need whatever to justify -

there is no need for me or anyone else to reply.

The old fool is just rating like a completely mad bastard.

Hang on, that IS what he has been for decades.

Bonkers.


...... Phil

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:33:24 AM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

--------------------------------

Greta Thurnberg is essentially echoing scientific orthodoxy.

** Just another of Bill's whacky misconceptions.

and shows how far from capable of logic & reasoned thinking Bill truly is.


Here's text of Greta Thurnberg's speech to the UN

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763452863/transcript-greta-thunbergs-speech-at-the-u-n-climate-action-summit

Let's see Phil Alliosn or NT produce a line by line analysis that
picks out any deviation from scientific orthodoxy.


** The AGW hypothesis is just that.

As hypotheses go, it's in good shape. It's had a lot of attention, and while fossil carbon extraction industry has financed a lot of alternative hypotheses, all of them have fallen flat when tested against real world data.

Orthodoxy is still only a pipe dream.

When 97% of the top 300 climate scientists accept the evidence for it, it's accepted orthodoxy. I think I can identify four of the ten holdouts, and their scepticism doesn't seem to have rational grounds.

Greta's bizarre speech was full of AGW alarmist propaganda - intended
to induce fear in the young and gullible.

She did quote the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, which isn't happy about the rate at which the CO2 content of the atmosphere is rising.

That doesn't make them alarmists. Their unhappiness is entirely rational, even if you can't understand the evidence, and don't want to try to.

For the rest, it is simply not working.

Some crazy Scandinavian teen seen ranting on the news one night is not near enough.

Very telling this is the best effort the top AGW loonies can present.

What gets on the news isn't controlled by anybody except the news media.

Having sixteen-year-old address the UN is unusual, so it gets on the news.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up in 1988. It's about as far from being lunatic as you can get.

James Hansen has criticised their attitude to sea level rise as excessively cautious - and I think he is right. The fact that you can't get a good information about what's going on at the bottom of mile-thick ice sheets isn't a good argument for ignoring the risk that might slide off into the sea quite fast (as a lot of ice sheets did at the end of the last ice age).

I'm afraid the head-in-the-sand lunatic here is you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Mon, 04 Nov 2019 15:17:00 -0800, whit3rd wrote:

A smile and some encouragement would be a more appropriate attitude.
She deserves a bright future.

Well, with no shortage of dickheads around happy to lap-up her every
ludicrous pronouncement, I'd say she's got it made.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:10:59 AM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

blo...@columbus.rr.com wrote:

---------------------------------
Phil Allison wrote:


** Using a sick kid as your spokesperson and public mascot is sickening.


I completely agree. She is being set up.
She probably thinks she has special gifts which have elevated
her to great prominence, when in reality she is a useful idiot.
I hope that she can properly process this when the day comes
that she is spent fuel and is no longer needed and nobody cares
about her opinions anymore.



** The AGW fanatics with not so hidden agendas have made her into a star.

Which specific AGW fanatic do you have in mind?

Al Gore is about the only AWG enthusiast with serious name recognition, and he doesn't show any sign of fanaticism, nor can I think of anybody that does.

> While she is a sick kid, public sympathy goes her way.

She may have Aspberger's syndrome, but she doesn't look - or act - like any kind of sick kid. The public image I've seen is remarkably self-possessed.

> Once she is clearly a self-driven adult, that will change.

She looks like a decidedly self-driven adolescent, so I suspect that Phil's prophecy will prove to be inaccurate, if not downright silly.

> Direct and severe criticism can be then aimed right at her.

As if you and our collection of right-wing lunatics aren't being critical and patronising already.

> That she might not be able to deal with such an onslaught has me worried..

So does the wide acceptance of the evidence for anthropogenic global warming. My hypothesis is that you have generally bad judgement in finding stuff worry about.

> Because the fanatics behind her do not give a hoot.

Identify just one fanatic.

> Having a martyr for their cause would suit them fine.

And Phil is happy to work his butt off to engineer her martyrdom.

She certainly hasn't yet sustained the kind of damage that might qualify her as a martyr, and vilification by Cursitor Doom isn't exactly damaging. With his track record, the only way to avoid being vilified by him would be to be too ineffective to be noticed.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 11:32:22 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Mon, 04 Nov 2019 15:17:00 -0800, whit3rd wrote:

A smile and some encouragement would be a more appropriate attitude.
She deserves a bright future.

Well, with no shortage of dickheads around happy to lap-up her every
ludicrous pronouncement, I'd say she's got it made.

Since Cursitor Doom is our leading exponent of the art of lapping up ludicrous pronouncements, his expertise has to be respected.

The fact that Greta Thurnberg hasn't made any ludicrous pronouncements may have escaped him. He lets the Daily Mail and Russia Today do his thinking for him, and they won't have endorsed Greta Thurnberg.

When Greta Thurnberg quoted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, what she said wasn't in the least ludicrous. The sort of puerile propaganda that Cursitor Doom soaks up like a sponge is aimed at making idiots like him (and John Larkin) ignore sound advice, and when they demonstrate that they have been suckered they do become ludicrous. Of course they are much too dim to realise this.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 4:41:41 PM UTC-8, Phil Allison wrote:

> there is no need for me or anyone else to reply.

Nor have you anything to say.

> The old fool is just rating like a completely mad bastard.

Phil, you're looking in a mirror?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 11:41:41 AM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

** Since Bill has declared that everything he posts is an
unsupported assertion he has no need whatever to justify -

there is no need for me or anyone else to reply.

That's not what I claimed, and I do make a habit of supporting my assertions, which is more than Phil can manage.

> The old fool is just ranting like a completely mad bastard.

Phil's been looking in the mirror again ...

Hang on, that IS what he has been for decades.

Bonkers.

Probably not. Phil's judgment is erratic when you get away from audio electronics.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Allison]

Bill Sloman is a Luantic wrote:

------------------------------------

Let's see Phil Alliosn or NT produce a line by line analysis that
picks out any deviation from scientific orthodoxy.


** The AGW hypothesis is just that.

As hypotheses go, it's in good shape.

** ROTFL !!

FFS no hypotheses is never " Orthodoxy " !!!!

Only maybe in some lunatic fringe AGW fantatics' minds.

Orthodoxy is still only a pipe dream.

When 97% of the top 300 climate scientists accept the evidence for it,

** Bollocks - there is zero real evidence.

There are no credible climate models and the wild claims are all from AGW fanatics with one hell of a political agenda to run.


> it's accepted orthodoxy.

** Ridiculous crap.

Greta's bizarre speech was full of AGW alarmist propaganda - intended
to induce fear in the young and gullible.

She did quote ....

** Lots of alarmist garbage fed to her to be regurgitated.

For the rest, it is simply not working.

Some crazy Scandinavian teen seen ranting on the news one night is
not near enough.

Very telling this is the best effort the top AGW loonies can present.

....... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

whit3rd the TROLL wrote:
---------------------

( snip mindless garbage)


** You are a brain dead moron - fuck off.

 

[John Robertson]

On 2019/11/04 4:36 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:33:24 AM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:

--------------------------------

Greta Thurnberg is essentially echoing scientific orthodoxy.

** Just another of Bill's whacky misconceptions.

and shows how far from capable of logic & reasoned thinking Bill truly is.


Here's text of Greta Thurnberg's speech to the UN

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763452863/transcript-greta-thunbergs-speech-at-the-u-n-climate-action-summit

Let's see Phil Alliosn or NT produce a line by line analysis that
picks out any deviation from scientific orthodoxy.


** The AGW hypothesis is just that.

As hypotheses go, it's in good shape. It's had a lot of attention, and while fossil carbon extraction industry has financed a lot of alternative hypotheses, all of them have fallen flat when tested against real world data.

Orthodoxy is still only a pipe dream.

When 97% of the top 300 climate scientists accept the evidence for it, it's accepted orthodoxy. I think I can identify four of the ten holdouts, and their scepticism doesn't seem to have rational grounds.

Well, no, the 291 didn't, the research was gerrymandered to come to that
conclusion. Did you READ the paper they wrote?

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

I quote from the synopsis:

------------(quote)------------

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6%
endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause
of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1%
endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

-------------(end quote)----------

So, from 32.6% of the abstracts they get 97% for the total? That means
it was more like 64% of the papers' authors had no expressed position on
AGW - not 97%.

This is called data cherry picking in scientific research.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#49b27e0d1157

https://www.prageru.com/video/do-97-of-climate-scientists-really-agree/

https://www.old-time.com/commercials/1940's/More%20Doctors%20Smoke%20Camels.html

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

John :-#(#

 

[bitrex]

On 11/4/19 11:14 PM, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 6:44:34 PM UTC-8, Phil Allison wrote:

There are no credible climate models ...

Climate models are so detailed that your head would swim if you tried to
inspect one. Your credulity is not an acceptible criterion, because you're
completely out of touch.

The thermodynamics of a warm planet with a cool atmosphere containing
greenhouse gasses says that human products ARE making the climate change,
even without depending on any of the details in climate models.

Removing climate models makes it difficult to pinpoint the future, but
doesn't change the general prediction of massive costly or disastrous changes.

...and the wild claims are all from AGW fanatics with one hell of a political agenda to run.

Wild claims, and fanatics, exist in dark corners and dark imaginations. Not Greta's style.

Greta's bizarre speech was full of AGW alarmist propaganda

mostly, that 'propaganda' is knowledge and understanding.
Call it by its right name, science; it's a simple courtesy.

to claim there are no credible climate models means one would have to
describe what a "credible" one would be like. But it sounds like "there
are no credible climate models" is an axiom for him and there isn't much
point in debating someone's axioms.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 1:44:34 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

------------------------------------


Let's see Phil Alliosn or NT produce a line by line analysis that
picks out any deviation from scientific orthodoxy.


** The AGW hypothesis is just that.

As hypotheses go, it's in good shape.

** ROTFL !!

FFS no hypotheses is never " Orthodoxy " !!!!

Newton's "Law" of gravitation was never more than a hypothesis, but it was the accepted orthodoxy until Einstein refined the model (by throwing in curved space-time) falsifying Newton's simpler formulation.

> Only maybe in some lunatic fringe AGW fanatics' minds.

It's the denialist fringe that exhibits real lunacy.

Orthodoxy is still only a pipe dream.

When 97% of the top 300 climate scientists accept the evidence for it,

** Bollocks - there is zero real evidence.

There are no credible climate models and the wild claims are all from AGW fanatics with one hell of a political agenda to run.

Phil clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. Neither does John Larkin, who confuses weather prediction with climate modelling, and witters on about chaotic systems as if you couldn't make useful prediction on the basis of models of chaotic system. You can't make precise moment-to-moment long term predictions, but you can say useful stuff about the year-on-year averages.

it's accepted orthodoxy.

** Ridiculous crap.

Greta's bizarre speech was full of AGW alarmist propaganda - intended
to induce fear in the young and gullible.

She did quote ....

** Lots of alarmist garbage fed to her to be regurgitated.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wasn't set up to produce alarmist garbage - if anything it's a bit less alarmist than it ought to be, as James Hansen has pointed out vis-a-vis sea level rise.

Their output wasn't fed to her - it's published internationally and everybody can read it. Most people don't bother.

For the rest, it is simply not working.

Some crazy Scandinavian teen seen ranting on the news one night is
not near enough.

She's not remotely crazy, and her address to the UN wasn't any kind of rant..

It certainly expressed disappointment with their performances so far, but rtht didn't make it a rant.

> > > Very telling this is the best effort the top AGW loonies can present.

This seems to be the first bit anthropogenic global warming information that Phil has paid any attention to, give or take a bit of propaganda from the Australian Green Party, who do seem to aim more for emotional impact than information transfer.

There is better information around, mostly in books.

https://www.monbiot.com/books/heat/

has been around since 2006, and it has lasted pretty well.

Al Gore's book

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_in_the_Balance

was published in 1992, and has lasted pretty well too, but the technology available for generating energy without burning fossil carbon was less well developed back then.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 1:10:56 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:

On 2019/11/04 4:36 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:33:24 AM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:

--------------------------------

Greta Thurnberg is essentially echoing scientific orthodoxy.

** Just another of Bill's whacky misconceptions.

and shows how far from capable of logic & reasoned thinking Bill truly is.


Here's text of Greta Thurnberg's speech to the UN

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763452863/transcript-greta-thunbergs-speech-at-the-u-n-climate-action-summit

Let's see Phil Alliosn or NT produce a line by line analysis that
picks out any deviation from scientific orthodoxy.


** The AGW hypothesis is just that.

As hypotheses go, it's in good shape. It's had a lot of attention, and while fossil carbon extraction industry has financed a lot of alternative hypotheses, all of them have fallen flat when tested against real world data.

Orthodoxy is still only a pipe dream.

When 97% of the top 300 climate scientists accept the evidence for it, it's accepted orthodoxy. I think I can identify four of the ten holdouts, and their scepticism doesn't seem to have rational grounds.


Well, no, the 291 didn't, the research was gerrymandered to come to that
conclusion. Did you READ the paper they wrote?

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

I quote from the synopsis:

------------(quote)------------

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6%
endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause
of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1%
endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

-------------(end quote)----------

So, from 32.6% of the abstracts they get 97% for the total? That means
it was more like 64% of the papers' authors had no expressed position on
AGW - not 97%.

This is called data cherry picking in scientific research.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#49b27e0d1157

https://www.prageru.com/video/do-97-of-climate-scientists-really-agree/

https://www.old-time.com/commercials/1940's/More%20Doctors%20Smoke%20Camels.html

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Wrong paper.

https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/107/27/12107.full.pdf

It was published in 2010. You've found a 2013 response in a journal with a much lower impact factor. The lead author is at the University of Queensland, of all places.

The proposition that one should search abstracts to work out whether the authors of the abstract accepted anthropogenic climate happens to be absurd.

It's not the sort of information that gets into abstracts.

The PNAS paper sorted their experts into "convinced by the evidence" - CE and "unconvinced by the evidence" - UE groups.

"We compiled these CE researchers comprehensively from the lists of IPCC AR4 Working Group I Contributors and four prominent scientific statements endorsing the IPCC".

"We defined UE researchers as those who have signed statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC. We compiled UE names comprehensively from 12 of the most prominent statements criticizing the IPCC conclusions."

You've found a nonsense paper, and been suckered by it. Nothing new there either.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 6:10:56 PM UTC-8, John Robertson wrote:

Well, no, the 291 didn't, the research was gerrymandered to come to that
conclusion. Did you READ the paper they wrote?

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

So, from 32.6% of the abstracts they get 97% for the total? That means
it was more like 64% of the papers' authors had no expressed position on
AGW - not 97%.

This is called data cherry picking in scientific research.

No, that's an odd conclusion. A scientific paper isn't an endorsement of
anything, it's a report on ongoing work. Adding 'endorsement' in a paper
would be possible (drawing conclusions in a final paragraph) but in no way
expected.

There was never a yes/no/abstain vote. You certainly cannot count 'abstention' as
a personal statement of 'no position'.

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 6:44:34 PM UTC-8, Phil Allison wrote:

> There are no credible climate models ...

Climate models are so detailed that your head would swim if you tried to
inspect one. Your credulity is not an acceptible criterion, because you're
completely out of touch.

The thermodynamics of a warm planet with a cool atmosphere containing
greenhouse gasses says that human products ARE making the climate change,
even without depending on any of the details in climate models.

Removing climate models makes it difficult to pinpoint the future, but
doesn't change the general prediction of massive costly or disastrous changes.

> ...and the wild claims are all from AGW fanatics with one hell of a political agenda to run.

Wild claims, and fanatics, exist in dark corners and dark imaginations. Not Greta's style.

> > > Greta's bizarre speech was full of AGW alarmist propaganda

mostly, that 'propaganda' is knowledge and understanding.
Call it by its right name, science; it's a simple courtesy.

 

[bitrex]

On 11/4/19 11:14 PM, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 6:44:34 PM UTC-8, Phil Allison wrote:

There are no credible climate models ...

Climate models are so detailed that your head would swim if you tried to
inspect one. Your credulity is not an acceptible criterion, because you're
completely out of touch.

The thermodynamics of a warm planet with a cool atmosphere containing
greenhouse gasses says that human products ARE making the climate change,
even without depending on any of the details in climate models.

Removing climate models makes it difficult to pinpoint the future, but
doesn't change the general prediction of massive costly or disastrous changes.

...and the wild claims are all from AGW fanatics with one hell of a political agenda to run.

Wild claims, and fanatics, exist in dark corners and dark imaginations. Not Greta's style.

Greta's bizarre speech was full of AGW alarmist propaganda

mostly, that 'propaganda' is knowledge and understanding.
Call it by its right name, science; it's a simple courtesy.

There's a school of philosophy that views all "science" which doesn't
involve actual physical objects you can immediately point to and observe
cause and effect between them with your own eyes, as not actually being
physical science, but a type of metaphysics on par with astrology and
divining the future from bird entrails.

H.L. Mencken was of that type:

"The human mind, at its present stage of development, cannot function
without the aid of fictions, but neither can it function without the aid
of facts—save, perhaps, when it is housed in the skull of a university
professor of philosophy. Of the two, the facts are enormously the more
important.

In certain metaphysical fields, e.g. those of mathematics, law,
theology, osteopathy and ethics—the fiction will probably hold out for
many years, but elsewhere the fact slowly ousts it, and that ousting is
what is called intellectual progress. Very few fictions remain in use in
anatomy, or in plumbing and gas-fitting; they have even begun to
disappear from economics."

He viewed pure mathematical physics that didn't have an immediate
application to the here-and-now as bullshit and speculating upon events
that might occur in the future or had occurred in the distant past no
more significant than religious prognostications found in the book of
Genesis or Revelations.

That is to say he thought any mathematics more sophisticated than the
times tables, or any "facts" derived from e.g. an integral involving an
infinity was bunkum.

 

[bitrex]

On 11/4/19 11:52 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 11/4/19 11:14 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 6:44:34 PM UTC-8, Phil Allison wrote:

There are no credible climate models ...

Climate models are so detailed that your head would swim if you tried to
inspect one.    Your credulity is not an acceptible criterion,
because  you're
completely out of touch.

The thermodynamics of a warm planet with a cool atmosphere containing
greenhouse gasses says that human products ARE making the climate change,
even without depending on any of the details in climate models.

Removing climate models makes it difficult to pinpoint the future, but
doesn't change the general prediction of massive costly or disastrous
changes.

   ...and the wild claims are all from AGW fanatics with one hell of
a political agenda to run.

Wild claims, and fanatics, exist in dark corners and dark
imaginations.  Not  Greta's style.
Greta's bizarre speech was full of AGW alarmist propaganda

mostly, that 'propaganda' is knowledge and understanding.
Call it by its right name, science; it's a simple courtesy.


There's a school of philosophy that views all "science" which doesn't
involve actual physical objects you can immediately point to and observe
cause and effect between them with your own eyes, as not actually being
physical science, but a type of metaphysics on par with astrology and
divining the future from bird entrails.

H.L. Mencken was of that type:

"The human mind, at its present stage of development, cannot function
without the aid of fictions, but neither can it function without the aid
of facts—save, perhaps, when it is housed in the skull of a university
professor of philosophy. Of the two, the facts are enormously the more
important.

In certain metaphysical fields, e.g. those of mathematics, law,
theology, osteopathy and ethics—the fiction will probably hold out for
many years, but elsewhere the fact slowly ousts it, and that ousting is
what is called intellectual progress. Very few fictions remain in use in
anatomy, or in plumbing and gas-fitting; they have even begun to
disappear from economics."

He viewed pure mathematical physics that didn't have an immediate
application to the here-and-now as bullshit and speculating upon events
that might occur in the future or had occurred in the distant past no
more significant than religious prognostications found in the book of
Genesis or Revelations.

That is to say he thought any mathematics more sophisticated than the
times tables, or any "facts" derived from e.g. an integral involving an
infinity was bunkum.

"Physicists and especially astronomers are consequently not real
scientists, because when looking at shapes or forces, they do not simply
"patiently wait for further light," but resort to mathematical theory."

I wonder if the nuclear bomb, built in quantity in the last decade of
his life, made him think any differently. Probably not.

 

[Phil Allison]

bitrex wrote:

-----------------

to claim there are no credible climate models means one would have to
describe what a "credible" one would be like.

** No way to tell merely by looking at one.

Predictive models have to make lots of *accurate* predictions before you can have any faith in them. That is how real science works.

Climate Science is a misnomer, just means playing about in the dark with dodgy computer models created by code scribblers.

None of whom can lay claim to fully understand weather or if humans can possibility take control over it.

Total news to a brain dead, four toed pig like you.


..... Phil