Larry,
Thanks for the links. They look very interesting. However I've seen no evidence you have read them based on your seeming inability to answer a single technical question about modeling. I trust based on past experience that you do indeed know a lot about programming, but you have certainly not demonstrated it. What I have seen does cause me some serious doubt as to whether you are in technician mode or development mode when it comes to software. Are we supposed to believe you are a modeling expert because:
a) You have not answered a single technical question about modeling?
or
b) You choose to believe a handwaiving model of excess CO2 absorption by plants despite obvious experimental contradiction over a computer model that does not account for every observed variation in climate?
or
c) You refuse to address the issue of weighing relative risks of action and inaction in the face of scientific uncertainty?
or
d) You have provided strong evidence most technically related public policy decisions are based on conclusive scientific evidence?
Based on my experience as an engineering programming instructer at Auburn (2 years), gradschool computer modeler (3 years), and an automation engineer (2 years) I give you an F for both effort and accuracy. I'm sure you have more experince, but you damn sure haven't demonstrated even a month's worth. Even good sophomore programing students could answer some of the technical questions I've asked based on one quarter of programming experience.
Regards,
Mark
Space/Science » in reply to When you learn how scientific computing is done, then we'll take
Larry Is A Computer Expert Because
The whole thread (17 posts)
- Temperature measurements over Antartica show a flaw in climate computer models
- Re: Temperature measurements over Antartica show a flaw in climate computer models
- Of course they're wrong!
