3 ms·
Climate models have a well-understood track record. Judging the utility of models is useless if you don't prepend them with a range of certainty. Anyone who k
by Daishiman 6y ago
Climate models have a well-understood track record.
Judging the utility of models is useless if you don't prepend them with a range of certainty.
Anyone who knew about pandemic models knew from the start that there's a lot of unknown underlying variables, and thus initial models made too many assumptions.
Climate models have been running for decades of fine iteration, with fairly well understood limitations.
- Supermancho 6y ago> Climate models have a well-understood track record. Disease vectors and management are less well understood, or better? I would argue, they are better understood and the understanding is deeper (to the core of the physics). Climate modeling relies on large forces that vary a bit, but have not had to withstand any variability at the scales predicted by climate change alarmists (ie hocket stick off the charts) enough to understand how most aspects of the environment will resolve over time, imo. Climate and medicine is not comparable at a predictive level.
- Daishiman 6y agoDisease vectors are well understood from the theoretical point of view, but rely on variables that can only be explained by sociological and anthropological notions that are not only extremely difficult to quantify, but also that can change dynamically as societies react in response to pandemics. Physical models may be extremely complex but physical constants do not change unpredictably over time.