Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (313294)	12/1/2006 12:18:38 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573092

It doesn't matter how much computing power you throw at it if some key assumptions are wrong or some key factors are omitted. If a "projection model" assumes that the only factor in global warming is CO2, then it's obviously going to produce conclusions that fit your agenda. Can you point me to your source of information on these overly simplistic models? Al

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (313294)	12/4/2006 4:44:52 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573092

Tons of supercomputing power still can't predict the weather with 95% accuracy. Tons of supercomputing power still can't predict the stock market. People say that but they are hell of lot more accurate than they were ten years ago.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (313294)	12/4/2006 9:39:22 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1573092

re: Models are simplified representations of systems. It doesn't matter how much computing power you throw at it if some key assumptions are wrong or some key factors are omitted. The key isn't exactly what's going to happen with global warming. It could be much worse, or much better, or right on what the models predict. The important part is that there is dramatic climate change happening. And since the status quo on our little planet is pretty damn good, dramatic change has to be perceived as a negative. Once you determine that dramatic change is most likely dangerous to the species, the next determination is "can we minimize" the change? I have no idea if we ultimately can; if climate change, in this case, is man made or cyclical. Lots of smart people think it's man made. So I certainly think it's worth a shot to reduce the use of carbon based fuels. Besides, the effort has so many side benefits. Or we can just say to hell with it... say to the next generation fuk em if they can't take a joke...