On 1 Des, 20:40, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Rune Allnor *<all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> >On 1 Des, 19:21, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> >> Don't buy it! *Don't let them control the debate.
> >Keep the politics out of this.
>
> Um, sorry, posting links to Wall Street Journal articles is
> injecting politics into. *Don't blame me.

I am generally considered a bit beyond half-mad: It
doesn't matter where a statement is made, not even
who makes it. What matters is the statement.

The guy who wrote the piece knew what he was talking about.

> >In plain English: The climate models aren't good enough.
>
> "Aren't good enough" for what purpose? *

To understand the climate. If the models don't describe
the essentials of the process under study, they are
useless.

> What standard of
> proof is needed to make a political decision to implement
> more pollution controls? *

There are several good reasons why various pollution
controls should be implemented. The climate is *not*
one of them.

The past few days news reports indicate that "3rd-world
contries" claim some $100 billions from "industrialized
countries" for "climate damage compensations."

The world economy is about to be screwed seriously up
during the upcoming Copenhagen meeting. Why? because
of these computer models that don't work.

Rune