That's pure Balonium Jed, and you know it. Straw man argument. Utterly
useless and pointless.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Bruno Santos <besantos1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Do we have a climatologist here? That would help the debate.
It would help if people would first read a credible, expert account of global
warming theory!
However, I have to say that I have my doubts when it comes to predictions
by these experts. You see, we do not have any credible scientific model for
weather prediction that works for periods longer than a week . . .
I do not like to be harsh, but that is a prime example of a mistake made by
an amateur critic who has not read the literature. You completely misunderstand
the technical issue. What you are saying is similar to this assertion:
"Life insurance companies have actuarial tables predicting how long a person
is likely to live, based on present age, sex, the person's weight, whether he
or she smokes and other factors.
However, a life insurance agent cannot tell me whether I will live another 20
years. I might be run over by a bus tomorrow. I might die of cancer next year.
Therefore, life insurance is a scam. They pretend they can predict the
future, but they cannot."
Needless to say, that is nonsense. You can predict the remaining lifespan of
a large group of people, even though it is impossible to predict the lifespan
of any given individual. Large scale complex events involving many elements are
sometimes more predictable than individual events with fewer causes and less
complex causes. That is counter-intuitive but it happens with many natural
phenomena, including climate, epidemiology and so on.
- Jed
