Re: [asa] Just Do It - Good Stewardship and Global Warming

At 09:06 PM 11/3/2007, Christine Smith wrote: "Just because something
is a computer model does not de facto make it a "false premise"."

@@ Correct.

Of course, you wouldn't have used "de facto" unless either you
missed my previous posts on the subject, you didn't comprehend the
significance of the proof, or you are in denial.

Here are the basic points again:

QUOTE: "..There are by now a few dozen such models in the world, but
they are not entirely independent of one another, often sharing
common pieces of computer code and common ancestors." ~ K. Emmanuel MIT

QUOTE: "..The problem here is that many important processes are much
smaller than these scales. For example, cumulus clouds in the
atmosphere are critical for transferring heat and water upward and
downward, but they are typically only a few miles across and
so cannot be simulated by the climate models. ... there are not
too many ways to test the model, and projections of future climates
must necessarily involve a degree of faith. " ~ K. Emmanuel MIT

QUOTE: "... all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated.
Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and
the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by
the computer models.

Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am
therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate
models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of
fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid
motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of
describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of
fields and farms and forests.

They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.

The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not
yet understand.

It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned
building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and
measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the
clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their
own models.".... Freeman Dyson,
(8/8/07)
<http://echo3.bluehornet.com/ct/ct.php?t=1522963&c=1501910315&m=m&type=1&h=F7CFB1B3D40CE8540F6A8509DE92D33F>http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html

QUOTE: "The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
[for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're
basing them upon the climate models" (Chris Folland, UK Meteorological Office)

QUOTE: "The climate modelers have been cheating for so long it's
almost become respectable" (Richard Kerr, discussing adjustments in
climate models, Science 1997)

..Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former CEO of the Netherlands' Royal National
Meteorological Institute: "I am of the opinion that most scientists
engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are
in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to
sell their products to society."

~ Janice

>--- Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
>[...]
> > @ Arguments based on false premises (computer models, etc.) are
> what are useless. Rome is not burning and it is only the 60's
> hare-brained re-treads who are still fiddling (same
> > pathological tune, different stanza)
> >
> > November 02, 2007
> > 'Global Warming' as Pathological Science By James
> > Lewis
> >
>http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/global_warming_as_pathological.html
> >
> > ~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 4 12:38:34 2007