Bruno Santos <[email protected]> wrote: Do we have a climatologist here? That would help the debate.
It would help if people would first read a credible, expert account of global warming theory! > > However, I have to say that I have my doubts when it comes to predictions > by these experts. You see, we do not have any credible scientific model for > weather prediction that works for periods longer than a week . . . > I do not like to be harsh, but that is a prime example of a mistake made by an amateur critic who has not read the literature. You completely misunderstand the technical issue. What you are saying is similar to this assertion: "Life insurance companies have actuarial tables predicting how long a person is likely to live, based on present age, sex, the person's weight, whether he or she smokes and other factors. However, a life insurance agent cannot tell me whether I will live another 20 years. I might be run over by a bus tomorrow. I might die of cancer next year. Therefore, life insurance is a scam. They pretend they can predict the future, but they cannot." Needless to say, that is nonsense. You can predict the remaining lifespan of a large group of people, even though it is impossible to predict the lifespan of any given individual. Large scale complex events involving many elements are sometimes more predictable than individual events with fewer causes and less complex causes. That is counter-intuitive but it happens with many natural phenomena, including climate, epidemiology and so on. - Jed
