Re: [asa] Bacterial Gene May Affect Climate And Weather

From: Rich Blinne <>
Date: Sat Feb 17 2007 - 20:16:36 EST

The him is yet another anonymous blog comment. It's clear from the
context that these are not climate models. Just because AFPhys'
models are lousy doesn't imply that others are. The climate models
match the observed data while AFPhys' didn't. This is yet another
example why Janice should refrain from quoting Free Republic. The
article in question involved a paper in Science ( http:// ) and was
analyzed by Science Daily (
2007/02/070215185518.htm ). Did she quote from either of them? No.
Did the anonymous comments appended have ANYTHING to say good, bad,
or indifferent about the research in question? No. It's too bad
because the article was about understanding the genetic mechanism
behind how algae helps with respect to global warming. There could be
a genetic engineering angle here, too. In other words, it was some
good news with respect to global warming, but you wouldn't know it
because of Janice's obscurantist quoting techniques.

On Feb 17, 2007, at 5:44 PM, Janice Matchett wrote:

> At 07:37 PM 2/17/2007, PvM wrote:
>> "..This is based on an inaccurate understanding of science. First
>> of all , notice how these models..." - Pim
> @ Go tell him that. You can find him here:
> "...By the way, I work intimately with supercomputer modeling and
> the results of such computations. Believe me when I say that even
> very well understood physical models are subject to huge errors
> when it comes to comparison of the outputs of these runs with real
> world data and inputs. We're often stymied as to what is going on
> because our models didn't suggest things we actually see in or
> simple, well measured, lab situations.
> 16 posted on 02/17/2007 5:02:45 PM EST by AFPhys
> ~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Feb 17 20:15:48 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 17 2007 - 20:15:48 EST