wrote in message
...
On Mar 31, 5:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"cavelamb" wrote in message

m...





wrote:
On Mar 31, 2:56 pm, cavelamb wrote:
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
This should start a few arguments. And Dyson knows full well what the
reaction will be.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html
Cover article of the New York Times Magazine, 29 March 2009 issue.
Joe Gwinn
I read that whole article last weekend.

No way I'd even try to second guess Dyson.

But the Greens (koomkaya) ?
I've never heard of one in his class.

(or who TOOK his class! )

Well, would YOU, Mr Cavelamb, be likely to hear of anyone who took
one of his classes - and you spelt "Kumbaya" wrong, your credibility
lies in tatters.........

And it doesn't matter anyway - even if global warming is real, the
planet will not get off its collective arse to do anything about it.
And if its wrong, same end result, ie nothing has changed. The wingers
and lefties will have to find something else to argue about....

So, it was a nice essay, good colour piece about a 85 year old
physicist who is getting cranky and doesn't like groups of other
scientists agreeing with each other....(my 3yo granddaughter does
that, she will grow out of it....)

Andrew VK3BFA.

Well, as Bender would say, "Kiss my shiny metal ass".

Crank up Google Earth and go look at South America.

Clear a continent of rain forest - that used to soak up CO2
like crazy - and give off O2 at the same time -

What would you get, Andrew?

More CO2?

And what would YOU get, Richard? Numbers, please. With the complete
chemical
equations. d8-)

Between you and Larry, I'm thinking I must have missed my opportunity to
learn global-scale organic chemistry and atmospheric fluid dynamics. You,
of
all people, who knows about aircraft engineering and who doubtless has
stared at one or more mathematical models of turbulent flow, in wonder...

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I write dynamic models for a living. Anyone who says a climate model
can predict global temperature with reasonable certainty is guilty of
engineering malpractice.

I don't think anyone has done so -- at least, not any of the major
scientific organizations.

The whole issue has turned into a religion. Replace climate change
with booze and sex and it sounds just like a sermon from a a hell and
brimstone preacher.

Try replacing it with "evolution." I think the religion you're referring to
has more in common with that one: there are always some naysayers who will
deny it.

All any of us have to go on is the reputation of the scientists making the
claims, in both directions. The rest is a lot of hubris and
presumptuousness. Anyone here who says he can judge the actual science
behind the claims has yet to show any evidence that he knows what he's
talking about.

--
Ed Huntress