'Climate models will need to be substantially revised'

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

You look funny with that arrow sticking out of your wellie though. Dorts, no scientist worth the name would claim his science is "finished". The science of evolution is in a continual state of modification. The sophistication of today's molecular genetics, or the predictive capability of computer modelling, are far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined. Yet no rational person doubts the basic mechanism of selection acting on variation. By the same token, no reputable climate scientist would clain that the present science is the last word in explanation. Nor would she say that because we cannot give all the details of how it happens, anthropogenic causation of climate change must be a false hypothesis.

Darwin thought that all evolution was gradual; we now know that it can occur with startling rapidity. Darwin's mistake does not invalidate evolution. It may prove to be the case that aerosol formation plays a major role in climate warming. That does not invaldate the evidence for such warming.
Ric

Please Ric, no lectures, especially re. Darwin, evolution, molecular genetics, computer models etc. It sounds like your 'trying to teach granny to suck eggs' and does you no favours.

All I did was to draw your attention to work being done on cosmic rays and their possible effects on cloud formation which I had hoped may stimulate sensible debate.

The answer in my last post was directed at KE. and I think if you read his comments you'll understand why. It wasn't directed at you, so why the lecture?
Dorts.

[STYRBJORN]

Dorts -

Fair comment, and I apologise if I have, albeit inadvertently, given offence. The problem with jumping to conclusions is that sometimes one jumps back at you. I read your OP as an attack on climate science generally and answered accordingly.

I'll think on't further and get back to you.

Ric

[Dorts]

Thanks for your reply Ric.
I'd love a good old debate on climate science, but it always seems to end-up in a game of 'one-upmanship', so polarised are many of our views, and I suppose I'm as guilty as anyone in that respect.
I do try to keep as up-to-date as possible with all current thinking on the subject, and, as I'm sure you are aware, I have a rather different view on the validity of the science that drives much of the main-stream thinking, than perhaps you do.

Maybe, (as I remember we did last year), we could re-ignite this debate in the cold winter months when the 'season' is over.
All the best
Dorts.

[STYRBJORN]

Originally Posted by Dorts

Thanks for your reply Ric.
I'd love a good old debate on climate science, but it always seems to end-up in a game of 'one-upmanship', so polarised are many of our views, and I suppose I'm as guilty as anyone in that respect.
I do try to keep as up-to-date as possible with all current thinking on the subject, and, as I'm sure you are aware, I have a rather different view on the validity of the science that drives much of the main-stream thinking, than perhaps you do.

Maybe, (as I remember we did last year), we could re-ignite this debate in the cold winter months when the 'season' is over.
All the best
Dorts.

Yerron. As I recall, you were agin "anthropogenic" climate change. I was and am convinced that we, H.sap, have ucked up the landscape all over the known universe.

Your move!

Ric