You make a good points about persuasive writing, and Stephen just wrote a good description of the nature of the fundamental problem of modelling chaotic systems.
- Rick -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 11:43 AM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless To summarize my point about chutzpah, Rick Monteverde wrote: >Never said there was no warming, I said we didn't do it and that we're >not capable of doing anything practical to change it. You can say this without irking me and other conventionally-minded, pocket-protector scientific type people by rephrasing a little. Just throw in some weasel words. You do not even have to be sincere; you may be thinking your version in your mind, but instead of saying it directly and forcefully, you say: "Never said there was no warming, I said there are indications that sources other than CO2 emissions from human sources may not be the only cause. Natural CO2 emissions may also play a role, and there is evidence that other factors contribute. Furthermore, although I agree that atmospheric physics are well understood, computer models predicting long-range change have notable weaknesses which are comparable to or at least analogous to the well-known tendency of short range forecasts to degrade into noise because of their probabilistic nature." See? That wasn't hard! You can say anything you like as long as you pad it with doubts, evasions and escape clauses. I will disagree but you will not get my goat. - Jed
