On 23 Aug, 21:27, John Wright  wrote:
>   cupra wrote:
> > Huge wrote:
> >> On 2007-08-22,   cupra  wrote:
>
> >>> My view - go back 60/70 years and look at the technologies that have
> >>> emerged (including Nuclear). I reckon in the next 60/70 years more
> >>> leaps will be made that'll make oil (almost) redundant.
> >> Particularly once oil becomes too expensive to burn as fuel. That'll
> >> force a switch to other technologies.
>
> >> (I'd like to say fusion, but that's been 25 years away for 50
> >> years...)
>
> > Yep - it'll still have the enviroloons protesting though...
>
> They already do - IIRC Greenpeace are opposed to fusion power and ITER
> in particular.
>
On what grounds? Source?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

On Aug 23, 10:12 pm, k...@moouklinux.net wrote:
> Further, quite why you think climate scientists are incapable of concieving
> the idea of testing their models against obvious stuff like Tunguska et al
> is a mystery.

Given how hard this stuff is to model I wouldn't be all that surprised
if they didn't to be honest.
But perhaps they do; I don't know one way or another.

> > And as Dyson has pointed out current climate "models" only "work"
> > because they are fixed.
>
> Ah yes, a designer of vacuum cleaners.
Interesting way to describe on of the most successful inventors of
recent years...

> Not my first choice to go for reliable
> information on climate processes.

Shall I let you get back to putting your head in the sand then?  Why
should climate modeling not be open to criticism?  Very important
decisions will be based on what is being presented as being a highly
reliable model.  ( which is cannot be)

>  And the models are generally "fixed" so
> that they can predict historical data; so that we can trust their predictions
> better.

No,  the models are run against past data as a guide to removing
models that suck a lot.
They are not fixed as such.  Historical data is just used to screen
things.   Anything as complex as the climate is impossible to model
with current computer technogy so they have to model a subset of what
they believe are the most important things.

Even that is very difficult hence the wide range in results posted by
top climate scientists.

Dyson didn't say he was an expert in climate modeling.  Only that he
was worried at things they didn't consider major enough to model at
all.  He wasn't against climate research he was very much for it; but
he felt important areas were being ignored.  What he said was
immediately ignored and misrepresented by the Green lobby.

I think GW does exist but I worry about how environmental issues
cannot be looked at in any way other than a blind faith trust.

Fod