Larry

I didn't say you said the words in my previous title. That is what my assessment of your stance comes down to however. You claim a routine part of current science and technology is psuedoscience and act like claims models are totally wrong are reasonable despite evidence they are not. Instead you support a stance that conveniently supports self interest without evidence. Don't try and tell me that constitutes a scientific approach. Computer modeling of GW is part of the scientific process even if incomplete.

Paraphrasing someone else's comments in your own words is part of the process of trying to understand their position. I'd prefer you try the technique sometime instead of just repeating the same comments over and over.

Computer models are not psuedoscience. I know full well how science is done and until now thought you did too. Computer modeling and validation is as much a part of the scientific process in modern science (as opposed to what you and I learned in highschool) as any other generation of hypothesis or theory. I went over the process of modeling in far more detail than I have seen you do. Your lack of comment on that process and labeling of models as psuedoscience has caused me to reverse my assumption that you know more about modeling than I do It even makes me wonder if you have ever been involved with the process of making one or even modyfying one as I had assumed you had.

A poorly built and unvalidated model may be bad science but it is never psuedoscience. Psuedoscince is scientific sounding BS that has no real basis in fact and is often not even truly scientifically testable. You can say models are psuedoscience a 100 times more and I still think that is a BS.

Computer models are far from being useless until proven otherwise and attempts by anti-environmentalists to portray them as such indicate a lack of scientific training not a high degree of it. If I have a choice between a computer model and nothing at all on which to base an important decision I would certainly follow a model if the underlying equations and prioritization of variables made sense.

And once again public policy is usually made based on balancing risks in the face of uncertainty not scientifically proven outcomes. Again you don't address this.

It is the fault of our legal system not the validity of superfund clean ups that so much money went to lawyers. I work on one former SF site. Clean-up was needed.

http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html
"Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view." Off course this site contains many items of possible issue on both sides given the uncertainty in the data.

Regards,
Mark