"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:52:04 +0100 someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

Now why do I not trust GW models?
In fact why do they give the same answers when it should be impossible for
them to do so?
The fact that they do agree indicates that they are being fiddled to make
them agree.
They do appear to be fraudulent or at least the reports on what they show
do.

"'Consensus is collusion'"

"Objection: More and more, climate models share all the same
assumptions -- so of course they all agree! And every year, fewer
scientists dare speak out against the findings of the IPCC, thanks
to the pressure to conform.

"Answer: The growing confluence of model results and the
increasingly similar physical representations of the climate system
from model to model may well look like sharing code or tweaking 'til
things look alike. But it is also perfectly consistent with better
and better understanding of the underlying problem, an understanding
that is shared via scientific journals and research. This
understanding is coming fast as we gather more and more historical
and current data, all of which provides more testing material for
model refinement.

Read the articles.. you can't predict it whatever the model.
So the fact the models agree implies there is something wrong to get the
same result.
The results should vary widely but they don't.

Look at weather forecasts as they have the same problem with predicting in
advance.

In fact the met office do lots of runs with different starting data to see
how much the predictions diversify or converge for each forecast. Some days
it always diversifies and they know the forecast is cr@p. They get around
this they are constantly updating the starting conditions, something the
climate modelers can't/won't do.

Now go and produce some more cr@p quotes rather than actually thinking about
it like you always do.