I think you are rather over reacting to my over reaction. I'm pissed about science putting a bad foot forward. You're just pissed about me expressing my opinion. Get over it.

I've nothing against software jocks, they're critical to modern society and I'm a rather pale imitation of one in my current job incarnation as an automation engineer. They are certainly trained to think logically. However all humans make mistakes regardles of their fondness for logic. As a production engineer I have much experience with with programmer disconnect from reality that some software people seem to have as if what they think they program is what will happen regardless of real world data.

The freedom to rewrite software code is fundamentally different from the codes of nature. To uncover the codes of nature requires a sound foundation and meticulous attention to detail including clear definitions. You can trial and error a program to some extent as long as you have a logical outline but you can't trial and error your way to natural laws without a clear understanding of where you've been and what you've done.

Many software jocks are not scientists and engineers in the sense that most scientists and engineers are with a direct connection to the real world. Your lack of interest in accurate definitions shows at least some overlap with that mind set. Phil obviously does not have that mind set, and probably goes to the opposite extreme with his skepticism of climate models.

But hey you are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to think you are clueless on the importance of this issue even if you are correct that I am over reacting.

Regards,
Mark