Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:8297 sci.misc:1011
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ll-xn!mit-eddie!bbn!bbn.com!eli
From: eli@bbn.com (Steve Elias)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.misc
Subject: Re: the "greenhouse effect" theory
Message-ID: <22276@bbn.COM>
Date: 18 Mar 88 01:58:17 GMT
References: <22138@bbn.COM> <114@aplcomm.UUCP> <22230@bbn.COM> <122@aplcomm.UUCP>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: eli@BBN.COM (Steve Elias)
Organization: BBN Communications Corp., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 48

In <122@aplcomm.UUCP> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) writes:

>I believe you are confused as to my definition:  I said that the greenhouse
>effect, as defined, was a confirmed, easily testable model.  

	i understand your definition.  it's not that tough.  
	i'm writing about the greenhouse effect: the scientific theory.
	one which we understand more as we research and attempt to model it.

	our understanding of the greenhouse effect and planetary atmospheres
	has a long way to go.  i don't think the scientific community will
	get bogged down when they lean things that are not in the dictionary.

	i'm not interested in discussing dictionary definitions of 
	scientific discoveries & theories.  does anyone mind?

>Now, you
>are debating the applicability of the valid model to conditions under
>which is was not generated.  This action is not generally recommended as
>"extrapolating beyond region of fit" also known as "going off on a limb"

	thanks for telling me what i was debating.  you are saying
	that the greenhouse effect IS a valid model ??  instead of 
	telling you what you were saying, i'm asking.  this action
	is recommended as "discussion" also known as "civil conversation". :)

>You are incorrect in saying that the Earth's atmosphere cannot be modeled.
>You might be more correct to say "cannot be modeled well", but you must

	i said "valid model" -- meaning a model that can 
	actually be used to predict what the atmosphere will do: on both
	macro scales and local ones.
	
	we're nowhere near developing a model like this -- neither 
	our computation methods nor our sensing methods are up to the job.
	do you concur?  

	i'm aware of the limitations and capabilities of weather service
	sensing and modeling -- mostly from the computation side.

>> .. another comment i made -- perhaps mistaking jwm's point ..

>And if you read my next line you would have seen this.  Why did you leave
>that out of your quote?  Keeping score or seeking knowledge?

	c'mon.  cut the abusenet bullshit.  i keep my postings short
	because i find 3 pages of included text to be BORING.  
	perhaps i did omit a crucial part of that section...  
	tally that mistake up, if you like.