Reply With Quote
Incredibly.
Call-out thread delivers.
Incredibly.
"Even though the models are able to produce the expected outcomes doesn't mean that the experts are actually programming the systems they are experts in correctly"
Yeah - I have no idea why I'm laughing. I'm just ignorant on CS.
First of all the climate models do not produce the expected outcomes, I noted this is my statement. Now try reading what I stated again until you understand it,
"Even though the models are able to produce the expected outcomes doesn't mean that the experts are actually programming the systems they are experts in correctly"
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 lack of a computer science education is obvious as you do not understand the argument.
As a very simplistic example, I can write a program where the output completely matches any other dataset. I can do this in endless ways and have each one get the same exact output. None of which is evidence of the scientific validity of the methods used to get to those results.
"Even though the models are able to produce the expected outcomes doesn't mean that the experts are actually programming the systems they are experts in correctly"
Yeah - I have no idea why I'm laughing. I'm just ignorant on CS.
I do find it very ironic you making your repeated logical fallacy in a thread you started about logical fallacies.
So what is your solution? Ruin our economy in an attempt to stop CO2 production, when CO2 may not be the cause at all? Go to war with other nations to make them stop CO2 production? What is your solution? how do you get Asia to stop?
And i completely disagree. Between levels of radiative forcing that can be more accurately defined for solar and black carbon changes, there simply is not enough room left for CO2 to have much of en effect. The most effective solution we have to reduce AGW is to do our best to stop releasing soot in the air. As soot, it warms the air. On ice, it melts it faster. we have no control over solar forcing which has increased only a fraction of a percent since the 1700's, but that fraction of a percent represents more than a 1 watt/sq meter of radiative forcing in the atmosphere.
No.
I assess the cost, life quality, etc. If it's cheap, I go for it. If it's going to reduce my quality of life, I would prefer to live a better and shorter life than just live longer.
This is a poor example. If man was the cause for the warming trend we see, it would still take more than 200 years at our current CO2 output rate to increase temperatures by 2 to 3 C. That's assuming CO2 is as strong of a greenhouse gas the alarmists say. That is plenty of time for life on this planet to adapt to such a change. The earth will go on and so will we.
Why type of Apocalypse are you expecting?
I see no reason to spend money we don't have on uncertainties. I have no problem with reducing CO2 emission, and definitely want to see anthropogenic black carbon emissions eliminated to the best possible degree.
How do you suggest we cool the sun to the levels of 1800?
He's starting to make a habit of it.I do find it very ironic you making your repeated logical fallacy in a thread you started about logical fallacies.
It's entertaining.
I haven't made any logical fallacies about computer climate models, you have.
1. None of the climate models match any empirical datasets. You are confusing pseudo-trend following with accuracy. That is not how a computer program works. The fact that it does not match it exactly means the computer program is wrong.
2. Even if they did, it is scientifically meaningless. The model could be using equations that have nothing to do with real climate physics. A computer program cannot be used to "prove" anything scientifically. The fact that you believe otherwise only demonstrates your support of confirmation bias.
3. The scientists programming the computer climate models are not experts in computer science. Your delusions on this are entertaining.
You really should not continue to display your computer illiteracy like this.
The greatest logical fallacy of RandomGuy is that the government insiders on 9/11 would not want to kill thousands of people. RandomGuy thinks people in the gubiment are nice fellows who would not do that sort of thing. But of course, governments kill at a pace that exceeds anything the private sector could hope for. Over 100 million people were murdered by government employees in the 20th century, a new century record. You see, the gubiment has a monopoly on force.
You deserve your own thread so you can state your 9/11 theory in full an everyone can see it.
Boom and there it is. The climate model is only accurate if its perfect. But I do appreciate you making your logically void arguments again.
Could be could be could be could be.
Too bad for you they're not.
No...Boom and there it is. The climate model is only accurate if its perfect. But I do appreciate you making your logically void arguments again.
Could be could be could be could be.
Too bad for you they're not.
Consider basketball. A perfect shot, we would call a 'swoosh." Doesn't touch the rim. each prediction simply needs to make the basket. Yes, it's still a very tight margin, but doesn't require perfection.
Is computer climate science settled?
Really? Tired of making the same illogical arguments so you're moving on to new illogical arguments?
SMH
This is all tied together but none of it is illogical. Even simpler for you,
Is climate science settled?
I make this even simpler for you. Your initial arguments were completely moronic and foolish therefore now you're busy gathering straw to build a massive strawman.
I suppose you'll be adding these links to your thread on your own logical fallacies? Oh, wait....
You obviously have never studied computer science which is why you are deflecting,
Can a computer climate model be programmed to produce results that pseudo-follow a trend of or exactly match an empirical dataset using climate physics equations that are scientifically invalid?
straw straw straw straw straw. Keep piling.
Keep dodging,
Can a computer climate model be programmed to produce results that pseudo-follow a trend of or exactly match an empirical dataset using climate physics equations that are scientifically invalid?
Is climate science settled science?
No one calls it a swoosh.
I can ask the hard question too,tbh...
Can Poptech bring a novel argument instead of the takes we've all heard before?
That is not the answer to these questions,
Can a computer climate model be programmed to produce results that pseudo-follow a trend of or exactly match an empirical dataset using climate physics equations that are scientifically invalid?
Is climate science settled science?
We did in my day.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
