Well that's a rather large step back from "no physical object - no science", don't you think?

So climate is not an "identifiable phenomenon", as you put it? So Australia doesn't have a climate then? Is or is not climate a property that relates to a geographic location, as electric charge is a property that relates to a particle? Tell me, does it ever occur to you that you've got absolutley no idea what you are talking about?

And if you think computer modelling is synonymous with statistics, you don't know much about computer modelling, and you know somewhat less about statistics.

Tell you what, we all make mistakes now and then, so I'll let you have that last post again. Actually, make it the last three.

If the point is that you have no idea what you are talking about, then yes, I get it it.

So climate is not a scientific phenomenon because it can only be related to physical substance through "statistics". Tell me, how is it different from temperature? Temperature can only be related to a substance by way of an average. Unless you insist that temperature is not a scientific phenomenon? That would not surprise me.

I can sense a change of subject coming on.

Paella - give up.  There is too much of a disconnect between the general population and basic scientific knowledge.

I was up early on Saturday morning tracking the Falcon 9 using my Gnome-predict software.  It appeared right on cue around 5:57 am tracking from Northwest towards the East and there was a nice spiral pattern consistent with degassing from the second stage.

So then I see this in the paper:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/multiple-reports-of-a-bright-light-moving-str...

Just think of the general population as a bunch of Yahoos (ever read Gulliver's Travels?) and you'll get the idea.  Actually in the readers comments there are one or two people who correctly pointed out that it was the Falcon 9  second stage degassing.

Nobody believed them because they were content to believe their own "We are not alone" theories.

Give it up - you're wasting your time.  Action will be taken on climate.....quietly. Don't disturb the yahoos.

Paella wrote on Jun 4^th, 2010 at 5:40pm:


Dunno. Ask the Aborigines, they have been here for yonks, they should know.

I bet they wouldn't know what you are on about. They don't share your conventional mindset. For some reason. Who knows. Probably the red star. Or the pettyfogging mind. Same thing, actually. Ask them, anyway. Or ask Muso, he knows everything.i

Thanks Imperium. That's the point I was trying to make, but you said it a lot better.

That argument could apply equally to gravity and electromagnetism. Neither of which, having successfully utilised them for centuries, do we fully understand.

If I hold a cup at shoulder height and drop it, it will accelerate towards the Earth. That prediction is based on a theoretical model. Is it, therefore, inaccurate?

You haven't addressed the question.

My prediction that the cup will accelerate towards the Earth is based on theoretical modelling. Well tried and tested, but theoretical nonetheless.

Is it inaccurate?

Soren wrote on Jun 7^th, 2010 at 8:08am:


The first Lunar landing wasn't based on repeated experimentation either. OK, they modelled it, and tried it out on Earth a few times, but nobody tried it out on the moon. Like our current knowledge of Global climate disruption, the first moon landing was based on fundamental physics and chemistry, and these principles are very well tried and tested.

The same can be said of the Airbus A380 or the  Burj Khalifa in Dubai for that matter.  The very first  A380 that was built, flew as designed. The principles of engineering and physics are pretty robust.