On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:41:15 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


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.

THUD Ed, what do you think -most- of the AGWk alarmists base their
Chicken Little voodoo on? And if the major scientific organizations
disagreed with the alarmists, wouldn't they speak out against it?

Who is this writing models? Is he a AGWk believer or denier, Ed? I
didn't see the original post.


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.

What most of us (we deniers) dispute is that the science backs the
AGWk alarmists' claims. Much of that lies in the fact that even the
w(h)eather men can't predict the environment for a couple days, let
alone 100 freakin' years. Your Nobel Prize winning Algore can't, with
his hockey stick figures, either. Feh!

--
You can't do anything about the length of your life,
but you _can_ do something about its width and depth.
-- Evan Esar