You really think they work in the mornings? 10 to noon Tuesday and Thursday.

im just arguing agaisnt what was put forth.

just because im pedantic and start to bother myself when i dont cover all my bases, i feel the urge to point out that we are clearly speaking of axioms in the commonly used mathematical understanding rather than the understanding of classical philosophy.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Haven't read much of this stupid thread, only the last two posts. I don't normally engage GW or CC threads nor religious ones. They happen to be very similar with the same rabid people making the same rabid arguments.

Whether you agree with the science or not, there is an overwhelming consensus that climate change is real and man made. Even if you think it is a conspiracy, it would be too powerful to take on head on. The real battle is on policy. Thank god we have a president who doesn't think the benefits of climate change legislation outweigh the benefits. Now that the scientist have proven that manmade climate change is real, now they have to prove a solution will work and have material reversal of damage before they expect people like us to accept their proposals. I lean on the side that climate change is real and at least partially man made. But I don't give too shits about the damage they say will happen as a result of it. Flooding and widespread famine I believe would be so gradual that it would correct itself accordingly. A majority of US citizens live within 50 miles of the coast, I do not, so the burden should be weighed heavier on those who live in the areas that would mostly likely be impacted before I'm forced to do anything.

I also don't want the US to lead this policy, as it will have minimal impact if countries like India, China, Russia, or even emerging economies in south America or the Middle East do not abide by the strict covenants.

I'm all for developing new technologies, but not at a greater cost or mandate that makes existing technologies more costly.

Prove without a doubt that your solutions will reverse or eliminate mans impact on climate change, that remaining impact doesn't continue to pose a similar threat to mankind and that it can be done within reason of existing technologies, and you have my full buy in. Otherwise, the argument is just a bunch of zealots making a lot of noise.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Atheism and climate change in the same subject line? I thought that was banned?

You're wasting your time too.

I'm still not convinced he ever passed the bar.

Pretty retarded, right?

im kind of thinking i may not have.... I'm taking a lack of refutation as a tacit acceptance, or at least a consideration of my points. im trying to invoke the principle of charity in debates a lot more than i have in the past.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Nope, didn't pass it. He's inside it, steadily draining the 12 bottles.

It's the IL Bar, decently high pass rate.

In a nutshell:

Plug Godel into a computer and you get an answer: basically a model for proving God

Plug data into computer and you get an answer: basically a model for proving climate change is man made

I don't trust models. I spend lots of time evaluating them and more important trying to break them. (The people working on them are things like mathematicians, really fucking smart, social skills are wanting in some cases.) The financial markets are less complex than weather/climate yet somehow these guys have an accurate model. I put as much faith in that as the model that said all the mortgages backing an MBS going into default is impossible.

Does climate change exist: yes.
Is it man made: no
Does man contribute: probably

The inputs are imprecise as best as I can tell. Additionally I am not sure how the inputs are cleaned up. They are put into a model which by nature must have assumptions. Yet the output is taken as the final word? That does not make sense to me.

If you are so quick to dismiss the Godel model why is a climate warming model sacrosanct. . . . .Fine do you accept VaR or MBS modeling? If not then why do you accept the climate models?

Why do you have faith in the sacrosanct climate model, when it is demonstrable that models are faulty?

That was your point? All this time for that? No need to wait to type it on a computer, you could have used your kid's Speak and Spell. This was like going to any M. Night Shyamalan movie after The 6th Sense. You wait and wait for the big payoff at the end and pfffft.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Francois pointed out that there is a difference between an axiom (godels model) and an onservation, and i expanded on it.

godels model is this kind of argument: "just accept what im about to tell you because thats the only way my proof works"

that convinces you? really?

are you aware that climate models work forwards and backwards? are you aware that they make predictions that prove correct?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Just trust me when I tell you, he his REALLY stupid. You might as well try explaining it to him in Klingon.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I'm really not sure I want to get into this, because you seem to have some firm preconceptions that are quite erroneous (e. g. "basically a model for proving climate change is man made"). But I'll give it a try.

There are some fundamental differences between climate models and financial models. Why on earth would you assume that one class is representative of the other?

Climate models are intended to duplicate physical reality; not that they do so perfectly. They mimic physical systems as closely as possible; their predictions are testable against the real world in many cases (e.g. hindcasting). Individual components of these models are based on (and can be tested against) small-scale field or laboratory studies. Climate models are based closely on physical laws or parametrizations thereof.

Financial models are not usually based on physical laws. They are based on the application of mathematics and statistics to a set of assumptions that presumably describe the behavior of a market. And when they founder, they usually do so because the assumptions were flawed; e.g by assuming that the risk of failure for any single mortgage in a MBS is independent of the risk of failure of any other mortgage in that portfolio.

I'm not saying that climate models are perfect; far from it. But they are based on science; they are based on sound physics and mathematics. And may I point out that one of the earliest efforts at numerical modeling was in meteorology? The computational methods that MEs use to design your carbon bike frame owe a great deal to the efforts of early NWP practitioners like Richardson.