[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

...I am the only one saying I don't know. Everyone else seems to believe their opinion is fact. Think about that for a minute.

Have you even read this thread? Many others don't claim to know. How casually you state something that is so easily shown to not be factual. Think about that for a minute.

[Justus]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

"Model simulations are not scientific experiments" (not your words). You said that statement is "wrong" (your words). Your reply was wrong because all model simulations are not scientific experiments. Your later posts are still defending that statement.

you said to me "And you are the judge of what constitutes a valid scientific experiment because of what?" I made no such claim. I simply stated what should be obvious to anybody trained in modeling and/or the scientific method. All models are not scientific experiments.

Finally, I am much a subject matter expert in this discussion as you are. I'm a professional engineer trained in modeling and the scientific method. I think you feel the weakness of your rebuttal and have resorted to personal attack.

How long ago did you declare your participation in this thread over?

Sorry to be blunt, but...well you get the gist.

Well said!

[tuccillo]

I am not sure why to choose to defend a position where you define what is valid and not valid in a discipline in which you have no expertise. Trying to say that model experiments are not valid without defining the model used and the purpose of the experiment is useless. You are arguing some truly inane position for some unknown reason.

Do you realize that this subthread started with the following statement by outlaw?

"Since when do model simulation results constitute data sets? Model simulations are not scientific experiments."

What exactly is your point about refuting an obviously incorrect perception?

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

"Model simulations are not scientific experiments" (not your words). You said that statement is "wrong" (your words). Your reply was wrong because all model simulations are not scientific experiments. Your later posts are still defending that statement.

you said to me "And you are the judge of what constitutes a valid scientific experiment because of what?" I made no such claim. I simply stated what should be obvious to anybody trained in modeling and/or the scientific method. All models are not scientific experiments.

Finally, I am much a subject matter expert in this discussion as you are. I'm a professional engineer trained in modeling and the scientific method. I think you feel the weakness of your rebuttal and have resorted to personal attack.

How long ago did you declare your participation in this thread over?

Sorry to be blunt, but...well you get the gist.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

I am not sure why to choose to defend a position where you define what is valid and not valid in a discipline in which you have no expertise. Trying to say that model experiments are not valid without defining the model used and the purpose of the experiment is useless. You are arguing some truly inane position for some unknown reason.

You say _I_ am trying to define what is valid/not valid??!!?? Really?!? Good one. LOL!!

[tuccillo]

Whatever you say. Your the expert in climate simulations.

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

You say _I_ am trying to define what is valid/not valid??!!?? Really?!? Good one. LOL!!

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

Whatever you say. Your the expert in climate simulations.

Finally you understand.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

I only said I wouldn't respond to outlaw's posts. So the posts have taken two positions: "anthropogenic climate change is real" and "anthropogenic climate change is a scam". The only position I have taken is we don't know the extent of it yet. So I am only arguing against extremist positions. I am the only one saying I don't know. Everyone else seems to believe their opinion is fact. Think about that for a minute.

I think I said the AGW "movement" is a scam. That's what I meant, anyway. I thought I said CO2 does heat the atmosphere, but to a point. It is the positive feedback assumptions used in these models that drive the catastrophic predictions. The climategate emails prove beyond reasonable doubt the conspiracy of the holders of the key global temperature measurement data sets to withhold the raw data from any skeptical scientists, to manipulate the data sets to reflect increased warming over time, and their conspiracy to shut down any dissenting papers via the peer review process. If that isn't a conspiracy, I don't know what is. Hopefully, sanity will prevail before the AGW movement destroys our world economy.

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

Finally you understand.

Polar - I think you may have discovered VPL's lost brother.