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 (356113)	10/26/2007 10:35:44 AM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577188

If you knew anything about computer models, you would know that they are only as accurate as the variables you code into the simulation. The weather models can't accurately predict next weeks weather - but they can forecast decades into the future - not.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (356113)	10/26/2007 10:15:35 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577188

Hi Ten, I actually know quite a bit about computer models. I'm a statistician by trade and am trained in TQM or what they call Six Sigma now. We make a living improving processes and running computer models to find root causes of problems. Climate scientists do the exact same thing with global warming to determine the root causes. With statistics and scientific method, you can determine with a high degree of certainty whether something is a fluke or whether it is a systemic trend with highly probable causes. Right now, I think there is general ignorance as to the true extent of the evidence of man-made causes for global warming. So it's tough for folks to come around to believe that it's true, especially with the oil companies and people like Bush spinning F.U.D. on a daily basis. However, none of that changes the facts.