simulation

=twitter

That can be

example. Heck,

model that

You feel privileged to see the destruction of western science??? This entails the destruction of engineering as well. What will you do when you can't sell your products that work, because the corrupt governments are requiring everybody to buy crap instead? See also Obamacare/Pelosicare.

?-)

Much to my distaste, i agree with you.

You have a really perverse idea of fun. Besides it will take another 50 to 100 years to play out, do you think you will be alive till then.

Yep.

?-)

On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:08:53 -0700) it happened John Larkin wrote in :

Priviliged? Soon they burn you for being a witch for doing electrickity tricks! I do wonder how they will bring it to get people to see their cellphones as work of the devil, probably when somebody twitters about a subject not supported by the political 'mainstream', like in Turkey Its a monkey world, there are more monkeys than people who can think for themsleves. And it has always been that way.

Hey. "Terminological inexactitude" was the phrase invented by Winston Churchill in 1906 to describe lying (unparliamentary language).

More famous recently was "being economical with the truth" which was used by a British civil servant in the "Spycatcher" book banning trial.

Climate change deniers are guilty of both and more besides.

Definitely >:-} ...Jim Thompson

-- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at

a sufficiently complacent bunch of morons.

Could be. The people who are paying for the denialist propaganda don't have much use for their US work force. They've out-sourced the work to China fo r now, and presumably expect to replace the Chinese with robots when they s tart to get expensive. A population crash would minimise the amount they'd have to spend on subsidising the lower-paid.

This might be short-sighted. The declining population would probably resent being decimated, and might go to the trouble of finding those responsible for the debacle and lynching every last one of them.

If you knew enough to know that climate models and weather models were enti rely different species, you own comments might qualify as something other t han garbage.

Centuries isn't at all a fine grain when you are talking about anthropogeni c global warming. The atmospheric CO2 levels have gone up from 270 ppm befo re the industrial revolution (say 1750) to about 315ppm when we first start ed measuring them reliably, back in 1958, to about 400ppm today. Another hu ndred years of ever-more enthusiastic digging up and burning of fossil carb on should be quite enough to land us in a deep hole with very little chance of digging our way out.

The climate models do fall apart readily, but there are a lot of them. They aren't there to produce precise predictions, but to tell us roughly how th ings are likely to change, given certain assumptions.

The can't tell us precisely which hell we are moving towards in our handbas ket, but they can tell us - with remarkably high reliability - that we won' t like whatever it is when we get there.

It is worse than that; the models fall apart so readily (not more than 20 years, often not predicting correctly at all) and they are trying to say it can predict for centuries. Centuries is the fine grain of climate.

?-/