MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
An interesting sentiment from someone who runs away from the slightest challenge to their ideas. Hmmm.
Going to ever get back on topic, PT?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections
- Thread starter Poptech
- Start date
An interesting sentiment from someone who runs away from the slightest challenge to their ideas. Hmmm.
Going to ever get back on topic, PT?
Are you denying my posts have not been edited/deleted/moved/locked/merged?
Answer the question.
Improbable Joe
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2009
- Messages
- 147
The answer was edited/deleted/moved/locked/merged, and you missed it!
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
Quit moving the goalposts.
You answer my question... you know, the one I've been asking you to answer for two weeks now?
I never ran away from it Matt! I replied to your comment as I always did. You are now lying and repeating it as if I never replied to it! But wait could my reply have been one that was moderator edited? Must be a conspiracy or it could of just been censored.
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
The record disagrees with you. Keep running, PT, and I'll keep chasing you down with the same question you refuse to face honestly. And as I already stated, anyone who clicks that link can clearly see that your posts are still present in their original form. There has been no censorship.
Get back on topic.
Last edited:
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Poptech, if you answered him, I missed it. Would you care to point to that?
Be that as it may, you have made the claim (in both threads, before they were merged) that your computer science expertise tells you that computer models have no validity. (With the possible exceptions of ones that can be tested against "the real thing" under controlled conditions, such as aircraft flight dynamics models.)
So, do you, Poptech, ever use forecasts derived from economic computer models to guide your investments or other business decisions? Do any businesses you work for, invest in, consult with, or contract with use them? Or do you only deal with companies that derive their business plans from laboratory tests?
If you're okay with paying attention to economic computer models, is that because all their predictions are always accurate? Do you have your own global economy that you can test them against?
In short, is your attitude regarding use of economic computer models to inform personal and corporate business decisions consistent with your attitude regarding use of climate models to inform public policy decisions?
Respectfully,
Myriad
Last edited:
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
Can you summarize the answer?
I will stick around for a few minutes, so I can read it right away, before anyone.... butchers.... it.
I do not feel they have been of any real use and should be discarded. There is nothing that can predict the future.
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
And you are referring to your original dodge, which I have already laid out clearly in my post. Referring to an earlier attempt to move the goalposts does you no favors. You still haven't addressed my fundamental challenge with your arguments about 100% accuracy - let me lay them out again.
Everyone here can easily see what you're doing. The hole is only getting deeper for you, PT
Another shifting of the goalposts. You need to take it to the CT subforum
No quantitative economic models are just as useless. Some of the companies I deal with use them. A business plan based on real economics and not quantitative modeling can be done. Thank you for bringing up economic models as I have mentioned the uselessness of them several times.
There is no goal post shifts! Only your lack of understanding. I have always been talking about the accuracy of the "laboratory" which by default determines the ability to get an accurate experiment! Over and over you repeat this but lack the basic mental ability to understand it.Another shifting of the goalposts. You need to take it to the CT subforum
Okay, thanks for addressing that.
Next question: If restrictive measures to limit carbon emissions are enacted, what adverse effects will result? In other words, why not just put the most restrictive measures in place, just to be on the safe side?
Respectfully,
Myriad
Because it will severely cripple the economy and the measures are useless
What You Can(‘t) Do About Global Warming (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
So we just give up and accept doom? Not a chance.
There is no Doom!
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
But, what should replace them?!
Climatologists want to work with tools that will allow them to study and experiment with various aspects of the climate, effectively and efficiently; that can improve in accuracy, over time.
If you answer "nothing", then you are basically dismissing the entire science of climatology. And, that seems rather rash and irresponsible, doesn't it?
Maybe not with 100% accuracy, but 80-90% accuracy is better than nothing, right?
I mean, heck: even 1% accuracy is better than 0%. But, somehow I suspect that our climate models, as inaccurate as they may be, are still a lot better than 1%.
Last edited:
How do you know?
Maybe it will actually be good for the economy. Or only affect the economy by an insignificant amount. Or have no effect at all. Can you show me some papers in peer reviewed economics journals that prove this alleged "crippling" effect?
Respectfully,
Myriad