Reply With Quote
If I'm wrong, please show me one that has been accurate.
I did not ask you what you had, I asked what field would the ["expert"] PhD be in?
Which is an argumentum ad populum. Can you provide me with the complete poll of all "climate scientists" in the world demonstrating this "consensus"? How many are there in the world anyway?
Just because I am more knowledgeable about this debate than you does not make me a "hack".
So no credentialed scientists support my position?
Alarmists do not get to arbitrary define what is a risk.
So you make emotional decisions?
Only due to government intervention in the energy industry by creating an artificial scarcity as they are now.
Alarmists who lack evidence and do not understand economics believe this, this is true.
Another economic fallacy, thanks for proving my economic points as well.
If I'm wrong, please show me one that has been accurate.
I take it that you mean you don't know of any either.
Take it to mean whatever you'd like.
What if you have to get some degree of predition on something before you have such a model available?
What then?
Wouldn't you use the best available model?
Sorry, your "attention from Randomguy" card is invalid.View Post Yesterday, 08:28 PM
Remove user from ignore listPoptech
This message is hidden because Poptech is on your ignore list.
No.
It's either accurate or it is not. This isn't horseshoes or hand grenades.
Also notice, I specifically said "predict." A model must be made and not altered before the outcome. A model that is made to fit past performance is not yet tested for it predictive ability.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-05-2012 at 02:30 PM.
It would be easier just to list the items where RandomGuy does NOT use logical fallacies.
Last edited by Galileo; 05-05-2012 at 06:49 PM.
Maybe, but then he wouldn't learn anything.It would be easier just to like the items where RandomGuy does NOT use logical fallacies.
He cannot because no climate model has ever been accurate. Computer climate models are all code based on the subjective opinions of the scientists creating them.
Yeah, no climate model has ever been accurate. Ever. Not the ones that are conitously validated. Its amazing how often they are used since none of them work.
A little too much to handle. Nothing wrong with that. God bless
Your concession on all points is accepted.
This is correct and none have ever been validated. Psuedo-matching past trends is not validation. Are you laughing at you lack of understanding regarding computer science?
Yeah, no climate model has ever been accurate. Ever. Not the ones that are conitously validated. Its amazing how often they are used since none of them work.
I'm laughing at your idiotic claim.
Then you are laughing at your own ignorance on computer science.
Falsify these statements,
A computer program can be written to get whatever computer generated results that you want.
Computer climate models are all code based on the subjective opinions of the scientists creating them.
You can thank the computer science illiteracy of those pushing climate models as evidence of anything for my skepticism. This illiteracy was exposed in a Nature article,
Computational science: ...Error …why scientific programming does not compute. (Nature, Volume 467, pp. 775-777, October 2010)
Researchers are spending more and more time writing computer software to model biological structures, simulate the early evolution of the Universe and analyse past climate data, among other topics. But programming experts have little faith that most scientists are up to the task. [...]
...as computers and programming tools have grown more complex, scientists have hit a "steep learning curve", says James Hack, director of the US National Center for Computational Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. "The level of effort and skills needed to keep up aren't in the wheelhouse of the average scientist."
As a general rule, researchers do not test or do ent their programs rigorously, and they rarely release their codes, making it almost impossible to reproduce and verify published results generated by scientific software, say computer scientists. [...]
Greg Wilson, a computer scientist in Toronto, Canada, who heads Software Carpentry — an online course aimed at improving the computing skills of scientists — says that he woke up to the problem in the 1980s, when he was working at a physics supercomputing facility at the University of Edinburgh, UK. After a series of small mishaps, he realized that, without formal training in programming, it was easy for scientists trying to address some of the Universe's biggest questions to inadvertently introduce errors into their codes, potentially "doing more harm than good". [...]
"There are terrifying statistics showing that almost all of what scientists know about coding is self-taught," says Wilson. "They just don't know how bad they are."
As a result, codes may be riddled with tiny errors that do not cause the program to break down, but may drastically change the scientific results that it spits out.
I don't need to falsify anything. Neither of those statements prove that climate models today that have been verified to be accurate and are in use are somehow invalid.
You cannot falsify either statement.
Your repeated false claim that climate models have been "verified" is based on computer science illiteracy. Just because the output from a computer program matches another dataset (no climate model matches anything) does not mean the methods used to match this dataset are scientifically valid.
Your standard is something that finds a perfect fit for a huge complex system like our global climate over the long term?
You are looking for a level of certainty that will not be possible for decades, if at all.
Sorry buddy.
Decisions need to be made now. There are some fair indications that we do not have a lot of time to make these decisions.
You have tested positive in a test that is 60% accurate for a certain type of cancer. Do you wait for a test that is 100% accurate to seek further treatment?
Meh. If it makes you happy to believe that, it wouldn't be the only untrue thing you believe.
Life it short.
Because asking people to falsify something is better than making actual arguments.
This is how twoofers work, as you have probably noticed here. "cosmored conspiracy thread" and all that.
They call something into doubt, but fail to provide alternate theories of their own, because then they would be forced to defend things.
It is the hallmark of those that have to have conspiracies running things for their worldview to work.
It would be easier just to list the items where RandomGuy does NOT use logical fallacies.
You have something there on your chin...
This is an incredibly ignorant statement.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
