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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (342515)	1/11/2010 3:50:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793606

The "scientists" on the issue of GW are not the key players. The key players are the computer programmers who try to model the impact of the "science". Sort of. I'd say the most "key", are the politicians and political operatives. The programmers and model makers are next, beneath them. Those who actually study climate get less attention. Economists (who one could hope would have some input on the costs of various types of actions) get even less. And the interests of everyday people are somewhere near the bottom.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (342515)	1/11/2010 4:27:52 PM
From: ManyMoose	4 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793606

I know a little about models. I've used models that predict the growth of trees and stands of trees, given certain input variables like the quality of the site, density of the trees, management actions like thinning, and so forth. These models are based on hundreds of thousands of careful measurements over many years by scientists who have no reason to falsify any data. Trees do not move around. Trees can be individually identified and named. Trees can be measured very precisely. Many thousands of them can be measured, and new measurements added to the database when they are acquired. Tree growth and respiration processes are well-known, simple, and predictable. The analysts who model them plot all kinds of statistics that demonstrate the reliability of the projections based on their models. They can tell you precisely how much wobble is in the data, what the predicted range of outcome is, and how likely the outcome of any particular course of action is going to be within the predicted range. In short, these are the most sound and stable statistical models of the natural world in existence. I could be wrong on this, but I doubt it. I used these models daily to decide whether to implement a particular treatment on stands of trees. I found these models to be very useful and reliable. Would I be surprised if the results of my decisions were outside the predicted range? No. I could use that information to change my decision making process. Would I bet the farm on these models, the most stable and predictable models of the natural world? Not no. HELL NO! Yet here we have the entire world debating on whether we should bet the farm on these computer models based on temperature readings from thousands of years before thermometers were invented, based on on temperatures inferred from tree ring growth, (which is preposterous on its face!), whether the subject processes are dynamic in real time on any scale that you care to mention, and which variables we have not begun to scratch the surface of. IT'S OUTRAGEOUS. These computer models are no more than some computer game and have no more reality than some special effects movie like Avatar or The Matrix. In short, THEY ARE NOT REAL. They CAN'T be real.