Global Warming : The First Computer Generated Religion

The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.

This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Global Warming : The First Computer Generated Religion

  1. Glen Shevlin says:

    Welcome to the first fully comperterized transatalntic flight.
    There is no pilot everything is controlled by multiply redundant computer systems.
    Please do not worry nothing can go wrong…wrong…wrong….

  2. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    Sounds like a A380?

    I was so scared flying a brand new on a few months ago, nothing worked, I was on a 8 hour flight and 1/2 the plane’s entertainment system kept crashing over and over and it was “brand new” with the “latest technology”

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/8305440/qantas-a380-likely-to-be-out-for-some-time/

    • The computers they use are fine. The software isn’t too bad either. The problem is the failure to understand its limitations.

    • Airframe Engineer says:

      Maybe just play it safe, and insist on a Boeing aircraft next time…. 🙂

      • Neil says:

        We’ve all heard, no doubt, of the fiasco with the A380 and it’s wiring looms.

        Half the design was done with one version of Catia, the other half with a newer version of Catia, and they couldn’t match them up, either in software or physically.

        Airbus Industries owns Dassult Systems, creators of the Catia software. I’ve seen Catia used before… it’s truely horrible software, so much so that we ripped it out and went with Autodesk Inventor.

        What else is lurking in that thing?

        I’m with you, Airframe Engineer. It it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going!

  3. major says:

    Its not that they believe their weather simulations are infallible, they want to believe that they as humans are infallible and want to distort the science to confirm that. That is they want to use an alleged imminent climate crisis to manipulate society to their goals, so they merely want to contrive science to support that . Of course contrived science is self contradicting to the true nature of science and thereby is no longer science. Science is empirical and is not science if it becomes apriori.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      And it shows clear signs that become increasingly obvious that it is not science. Like the few scientists who believed in global cooling in the 70’s. it quikcly became clear that their theories (there was not one) were not accurate and had to be abandoned. excpept of the ones that asserted cooling was from aerosols, and they just adjusted the theory in light of the decrease in aerosol pollution. Or Lysenkoism, or various non darwinian evolutionary theories from a century or more ago. ACC, while it might not be completely accurate, is a viable rigorous theory that is consistent and is falsifiable, and has had no structurally increasing incompatibilities.
      On the other hand, the idea that scientists are engaged in a massive conspiracy based on a political agenda that trumps any and all scientific results is a hypothesis that is easily shown to be massively inconsistent, requiring a corruption of the entire scientific establishment to a degree unheard of since modern science began. Interesting because it is promoted by a group with an extremely rigid political ideological basis, that can’t accept any idea that conflicts with the market controlling almost every aspect of society

      • Mike Davis says:

        TonyD:
        You got that wrong because the current theories on ACC or CACC or CACD or what ever you wish to call your religion has so many opinions as to what is gong on and they are using many different models to find answers that are not yet answered.
        It is not settled science no matter what you are trying to push. Your so called consensus is a fantasy and IF the science was settled they would not be asking for funding for more research.If your science was settled we would know clouds contribution to weather. If the science was settled the promoters would be open and transparent about their research because they would not have anything to hide.
        There are to many known unknowns and even more unknown unknowns. As well as so much of the so called research that is just plain wrong.

Leave a Reply to Airframe Engineer Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s