Nice try!!! But you fail to answer the obvious: you declared you'd shred "it" whatever the argument or source. That is outstanding, specially when you intruded a discussion between the addressee of your message and your doppelganger in this thread.
You can say what you want, it does make it anymore true. You still do not understand what I said. It is a comparison between the real and virtual worlds. The word "laboratory" is not literal but a necessity thanks to matt's attempt to distort my argument. Any experiment done in the real world will obey all natural laws whether you understand them or not, essentially "nature" fills in the blanks for you, this is not done in a computer simulation.
I have not contradicted anything. Computers are a fantastic invention that are very useful in all manners of science and engineering for the processing and analysis of data. They are however not able to predict the future. I find it ironic that at a forum denouncing all sorts of new-age mysticism, tech-based fortune tellers are just believed. You constantly attempt to distort my argument and fabricate strawman positions due to your lack of understanding exactly what I am talking about.
Please show me where I have stated the belief in the predictive abilities of economic models. What I did is cite papers (some of which used economic models) at your request that show the negative effects of cap and trade. I in no way endorsed any of the modeled conclusions.
Again you are taking the word "laboratory" literal. I was forced to use that word because of Matt's attempt to distort my argument. I use the word "laboratory" to describe the virtual reality "environment" from the REAL "environment" in which an experiment is taking place and not a comparison between the virtual and real experiment but rather where is was being done.
You still have failed to provide your definition of the word "model". I am speaking ONLY of computer models, specifically computer climate models.
The definition and the context of the word "model".
Computer flight simulations are vastly different then computer climate models. The only comparison is they are both simulations.
Empirical observations and experiments are done in a REAL environment and have a chance of being correct since they are not subject to the bias of the virtual "laboratory". People fail to understand this simple point.
And so do experiments done in the virtual world. Its the bare assertion fallacy.
ROFLMAO!!! No they do not! So are you claiming computer climate models are 100% perfect representations of the REAL world? Are you claiming that computer climate models 100% perfectly obey all natural laws? Are you claiming that everything in nature is 100% perfectly understood and can be describe by a mathematical equation in a computer climate model? You cannot be this clueless.
It seems like your orbit is quickly decaying. You're about to ignite yourself!
Since this seems to be a common complaint with you I believe it to be your lack of understanding of the English language.
Well, he's welcome to post in native Spanish (I guess). But if 2/3 of the stuff doesn't make any sense then....
Probably not. But then that might be due to my having a background in computer science and understanding the issues that Poptech raised.
Actually I didn't say anything at all but merely listed the papers. You then created strawman arguments based on things I did not say. But to clarify, only the papers citing economic models as the sole source of their conclusions claim to show the negative effects of cap and trade. This has nothing to do with me endorsing economic models. I simply provided the existence of such papers to your challenge. And a note, only two of the papers are directly related to modeled results, others merely analyze other models currently being used by the proponents of cap and trade legislation. I have waited for your acknowledgement of this but your dishonesty in creating strawman arguments appears more important.
I in no way endorse the conclusions of the papers whose sole source of their conclusions are economic models (this works both ways). But see you are creating a strawman as to why I cited them, it was to prove the existence of such papers. I was well aware of this whole charade you are currently engaged in. Your whole purpose was to then engage in more slander as is the typical goal of certain JREF members. Again you lose.
That makes NO sense.
Yeah they do. Why do you think I bring up Maxwell's equations the last time I lambasted you. It was a ****ing mechanical model.
Ooo god. I am about ready to scream. No. I am claiming that you are an have no understanding of the fundamentals of science because of the fact that no model in science is 100% correct and the fact is that it does not invalidate any of them. I mean come on. You've had to have opened a science book at one time or another. This is just really sad more than anything.
