On Jul 21, 4:53*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"BDR529" jake wrote in message

...

This is just another opinion from the AGW deniers crackpot community.

Already, name calling.

This opinion did not appear as an article in a peer reviewed ISI journal,
so who cares what they wrote. As far as I can see the web site:

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/

only has one article, and that is exactly the bugger referred to in
Bonzo's merchant of filth post. There is no ISI rocketscientists journal,
this itself is already a lie.

This is hardly the sort of thing that could be published in a peer reviewed
journal; it is criticism of a public process and does not pretend to be
scientific research.

The climate models are obviously massive simplifications, and are equally
massively flawed, as evidenced by the fact they cannot even predict the past
correctly. They simply don't correctly "predict" the last few hundred years
of climate change, let alone the last 100,000 or 100 million years. If they
cannot "predict" the climate change between 1800 and 1900, when that has
already happened (FFS!) and should be easy to "predict", what hope do you
give them for 2050 to 2100?

The article is exactly the kind of material that would show up in peer-
reviewed journal because if it had any factual basis it would provide
a starting point for improving the process.

Please provide the documentation, ie model name, parameterization
schemes used, resolution etc that DID NOT CORRECTLY predict the
current climate. I suggest you go to www.pcmdi-llnl.gov where there is
an archive of all known climate model output. There you can download
the output from your choice of model and you will find you are
speaking without having a clue about what you are talking about.
Because you have taken the time to do your homework it doesn't give
you the right to libel those who have done their homework