Re: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...

Bill Todd wrote:

Dr. Dweeb wrote:

Bill Todd wrote:

Tom Linden wrote:

...

30 years ago VAX hadn't yet come out; automotive ignition systems
had no electronics; I was working on an Interdata 70 with 32k of
core memory. Since then (according to Moore's law) computer systems
have become 1 million times more powerful and all sciences have
advanced but you are still under the impression that climate models
are where you left them 30 years ago. Gee what a pessimist.

But the physics hasn't changed. Your presumption that it is because
of lack of computer power is misguided. The belief that given
enough computer power you make accurate predictions is naive to the
extreme and indicates a lack of familiarty with the undelying
science, which has not changed.

That's one of the more laughable statements (at least if you ignore
boob's) to have been made here recently. While the underlying physics
hasn't changed, the past 30 years have certainly improved our
understanding of how it applies to climate (and how to realize that
in a model) as well as provided significant amounts of new data to
work with (both current and geological). Many orders of magnitude
more compute power to model with haven't hurt either.


No amount of computer resources will reach a correct conclusion using a modelling algorithm that is wrong


No shit, Sherlock. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the sub-discussion to which you are purportedly responding - do try to tighten up your reading focus a bit.

> and/or incomplete.

That part of your statement is rubbish: incomplete models can yield conclusions that match reality extremely well and very reliably, as long as no *important* elements are missing (Newtonian physics comes to mind: it's close enough for almost all practical purposes, even though provably incomplete). You really need to curb your propensity for throwing incompetent generalizations around.

The bottom line is

that despite what we should assume to be increasing sophistication, climatology modelling as a prediction tool for long term patterns is still at a stage where it has zero predictive credibility. This fact is not in dispute.


Utter horseshit. Whether you happen to believe the predictions or not, the majority of those people in a position to voice a competent opinion (a group which I have no reason to suspect includes you) believe that they're eminently credible. Certain? No. Credible enough to justify taking action? Absolutely.


You gotta be kidding me?!!!??

This is about as unscientific drivel as I can take.
You SIR are not founded in science at all.
A good scientist will throw out rubbish when he can prove it false.
You have been given facts, yet you toss it out in favor of some liberal garbage that you've been spoon fed. I call it brainwashing the masses.
More and more real scientists are now coming to the forefront and calling it crap when they see it.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...
    ... enough computer power you make accurate predictions is naive to the ... That part of your statement is rubbish: incomplete models can yield conclusions that match reality extremely well and very reliably, as long as no *important* elements are missing. ... climatology modelling as a prediction tool for long term patterns is still at a stage where it has zero predictive credibility. ... Whether you happen to believe the predictions or not, the majority of those people in a position to voice a competent opinion believe that they're eminently credible. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: SR consistency is crap.
    ... They are incomplete but consistent. ... A physical theory is a generator of a list of predictions. ... worry about predicting contradictory things. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: SR consistency is crap.
    ... They are incomplete but consistent. ... A physical theory is a generator of a list of predictions. ... worry about predicting contradictory things. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR consistency is crap.
    ... They are incomplete but consistent. ... A physical theory is a generator of a list of predictions. ... worry about predicting contradictory things. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: An apology
    ... becoming insufferably pedantic, for which I apologize. ... perspective was incomplete, and that I was, as Mr. Brenner pointed out, ... The best sign of credibility, above all, is rejection by evolutionists ...
    (talk.origins)