John E. Kuslich <johnk at indirect.com> wrote:
>Just look at research on "Cold Fusion", "Global Warming", and "The Ozone
>Hole" for further examples of the poor quality of some recent so-called
>The ozone hole is quite real. You might look up articles by Sherwood
Rowland written in the last 10 years if you don't believe me, or if
you have qualms about the quality of the research. The evidence
on global warming is mixed to the best of my knowledge.
I believe that the basis for the conclusions is careful work on ice cores.
Why you put either of these in the same category as cold fusion
is beyond me; perhaps you can cite review articles in real journals
that indicate the poor quality of the science?
>Chaos theory eliminated any hope of long term weather prediction, and
>yet we still have "researchers" at major universities doing computer
>simulation of weather.
>Generously, this sentence suggests that you haven't read the Journal
of Atmospheric Research recently. If getting to a library is troublesome,
catch NCAR's web site: http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/
for some idea of what people who study weather actually do.
The Lyapunov spectrum of weather models depends on the number of modes
one includes. The number of days over which it's feasible to
forecast weather depends on the largest Lyapunov exponent.
You might look at J. Curry, Commun. Math. Phys. 60, 193 (1978).
I hope that what you do for a living is less half-assed than your post.
Science has some real problems; excessive politicization is certainly
one of them. What you seem to cite as symptoms aren't.
wagner at pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu