On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:03:17 -0600, Bob Schmall wrote:

Leon wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
As someone who makes his living using, in part, computer simulations I
can also tell you that one of the other things no one has touched on here
yet is the absolute uncertainty of the validity of the models being used.

Absolutely correct.

The models do not use enough of the correct data that actually caused
weather changes to be accurate.
The average person can guess as accurately as the models.


There's some truth to that. Since weather tends to be chaotic,
predictions more than 2 days out are risky. But remember, we're talking
climate here, not weather. Climate can be scientifically codified.

Given that climate is the statistical summarization of "weather", and
that the climate being scientifically codified is the statistical modeling
of the weather as measured, it is relevant that weather models are
notoriously unreliable -- how then can climate models be any more reliable?
If you can't predict weather events with any reasonably high degree of
precision, why should climate change predictions to within a few degrees or
tenths of a degree be relied upon ,particularly for the purpose of enacting
statist policies?


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+