David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jed, you can research the global warming discussion and become more > informed. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. > No one should assume that the guys making the global climate computer > models are great experts, which is what is happening at the world's peril. Oh yes we should assume that. People who work with scientific data all day long are usually good at it. They have to go through peer review which is very challenging. Researchers have sent me many papers in chemistry and physics (not just cold fusion) that went through peer review. They get torn to shreds. Academic researchers are very competitive and merciless with mistakes. > If you take the time to look into the subject, you will see that those > models have all missed the real world tests by a rather large margin and > need to be modified every couple of years. I have seen claims of that and I have read experts showing that is not the case, in the Sci. Am. and elsewhere. I do not know much about climatology but I do understand statistics and trends and I can see the experts are correct in this case. As I said, the biggest source of misunderstanding is the confusion about predicting weather for a specific location over a few days versus long-term climate trends. The two problems are completely separate, in the same way predicting your future as an individual is compared to making an actuarial table. > Why do you suppose this is true? > It is clearly not true. > A person can argue that only the high priests of climate have the answers, > much like you are saying, but when they fail to make correct predictions it > is time to question them. In this case they have not failed. I believe I can judge that much. What you say is exactly like the people at Wikipedia and the APS who say "the high priests of cold fusion claim they replicated but we know better." "They are a cult of fervent halfwits." -- F. Slakey of the APS. Every one of their models predicts that the earth should be hotter than > it actually is measured to be after a modest period of time elapses. No, not a modest period. This is a general trend over many decades, with a great deal of variation. The earth is, without question, much hotter than it has been. Even many of the so-called climate skeptics agree with that. The only question is why. - Jed
