I know Grendel, and if I didn't think you would take it with a grain of salt, and a smile on your face, I would not have posted it.

As far as schizo goes, it is a bit like that, initially I tried to temper my responses because I did not want to be hypocritical, and post things which I may have to mod out, but I found it restricted me from being myself, and that was no fun for me, and devalued my ability to post my own opinions, so I have chosen to just go back to being myself, and if any are offended then I wil look at it, or ask Locutious or FD to, or whoever is Mod on the member run boards.

Would you be interested in modding this board?

Muso does not want to do it any more, so we need a mod for this board now, and then you could delete my offending post, or edit it, or even ban me for flaming you.

The good thing is I know you would not do any of those things, you would just give back as good as you get, which is why I reckon you would be a good mod for this board, so please consider giving it a go.

Grendel wrote on Jun 6^th, 2009 at 11:25am:

1-
I'm not following you around, I've been posting on this board for a couple of months now, this and the multi cult board, the fact you choose to post on both of those boards is just bad luck on my behalf.
2- If I see an obvious mistake or intentional misleading statement I will comment, its not just you ask yadda, soren, calanen and others, when they do what you do I make comment. That's what forums are for, commenting.
3-I am entitled to comment on posts I agree or disagree with, the fact you make so many posts that are inaccurate is not my fault.
4-I'm not trying to engage you, but I will not just let you post articles that are clearly wrong, if you don't like me commenting don't post lies.
5- From where I'm sitting you are trying to engage me, you've just asked me a question, I never ask you questions , I comment about inaccurate posts you make, there is a difference.

Grendel wrote on Jun 6^th, 2009 at 11:44am:

looks like you're trying to engage me again boofster.

Grendel wrote on Jun 6^th, 2009 at 11:59am:

God boofy, you flip flop more than the rodent did, your not engaging me in one post then you are in the next.
Pointing out your mistakes is not flaming boof, it is simply pointing out your mistakes.
It seems you have a problem with anyone who highlights your inaccuracies, thats not my fault but yours.
Get a grip on yourself and realise the world does not revolve around you.
Now, have you got a comment on my cut and paste that counters  your assertion on global warming? I wont hold my breath.

keep it up as usual you ruin topics
pardon me whilst I opt out of this inane pointless boring  banter

I have to concede that Grendel does make a valid point here Skippy, but I cannot fairly criticise you for flaming Grendel, being guilty of it myself, but it is just so bloody tempting to do, I find I can't help myself sometimes.

I think we should try and be fair though, and try and contain our replies to the topic at hand, and stick to discussing that.

The point about modelling being an imprecise system does have some merit, but to take that fact, and then try and use it to assert that we should ignore what we have learned from climate modelling, is a big stretch to make, even for denialists who only ever seem keen to add to confusing the issue, rather than offering any real contribution to the accumulated works and commonly accepted theories that climate scientists have developed.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 6^th, 2009 at 9:40pm:



Models should be in support of primary, empirical evidence to illustrate that evidence. But in the political debate that sometimes goes under name of climate change debate, models are the sticks to beat sceptics over the head with. It is forever about some curve of annualised average or other.

A model is always incomplete AND is always constructed with an answer or tendency in mind. Selecting what is 'relevant' is also deselecting what is irrelevant, so it is always already constructed with a mind already leaning towards a preconceived answer or trend.

A sceptic like me is amused and irritated by the obliviousness of the model-toting doom-mongers to this inevitable epistemological bias that hangs around them and, like the smell of their own fart, repels everyone but themselves.

Soren wrote on Jun 7^th, 2009 at 9:31pm:


It's either a strawman or a misconception on your part Soren, but models are not the be-all and end-all. Not everything is based on models, and that graph which I posted showing models and global temperature data sets together demonstrate that they are pretty darned close to the mark.  

- and I'll say this once and for all - Climate models do not employ iterative techniques.