4 ms·

I'm not. Earth will be fine without humans, just as it was millions of years ago, before humans were even a thing. If you believe that climate scientists enjo

I'm not. Earth will be fine without humans, just as it was millions of years ago, before humans were even a thing. If you believe that climate scientists enjoy preaching doom and gloom, you've honestly got a problem. Scientists have every incentive to publish and publicize good science. I suspect you didn't even read the article I linked, much less any of the papers linked within, did you? Tell me: what does your salary depend on you not understanding that makes you unable to even consider the possibility that climate change is real, and it will likely destroy civilization?

the-dude 6y ago
Sure I did : tipping points, Club of Rome, analogies with The Titanic ( that was a real tearjerker ), emergencies. Scary stuff. One won't get funding for modelling non-catastrophic scenarios. I studied CS, which was at least 50% mathematics, worked with mathematicians who were working on models and simulations : 1. They hardly know what they are doing. 2. Models show what you want them to show. If they don't, they will work and mould them until they do.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Which paper did you read? You seem to have criticisms of their methodologies, so I expect you've read at least one of the linked papers, yes?
  - the-dude 6y ago
    I read the paper about The Titanic, would you suggest another one which you feel is better? But please excuse me for a while, as I am off for a walk : we are having blue skies here in nothern NL and I look forward to get radiated by this giant nuclear fusion from the sky.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      As I recall, the Titanic makes no appearance in any of the papers linked in the article. Did you follow any of the links? You can literally "^F paper" and find those links.
      - the-dude 6y ago
        So where did this Titanic story come from? Look, papers are just an opinion, man. Climate 'science' is not science at all : science makes verifiable claims. No such thing with the climate. I am from NL : we have a thing with sealevel for centuries. Did you ever look at the sealevel rise at NL? There is no, I repeat : no change in sealevel rise in the last centuries. The level is steady-as-you-go going up since the ice age.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        Oh, you mean verifiable predictions like these? https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-cli... Had you actually read the article, you would see the Titanic story was referencing a talk one of the scientists gave. You seem to be doing everything you can to avoid reading anything. Are you even interested in this, or just trolling?
        read_if_gay_ 6y ago
        The fact that 10 models were correct doesn't say much unless we also know how many models were wrong. It's easy to cherrypick the best ones in retrospect. If there are enough models, even if all of them are bullshit, some will be correct, the same way a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        How many climate models do you think there are? What evidence do you have that there's been any cherry picking? You have read the study, haven't you?

the-dude 6y ago

Sure I did : tipping points, Club of Rome, analogies with The Titanic ( that was a real tearjerker ), emergencies. Scary stuff. One won't get funding for modelling non-catastrophic scenarios. I studied CS, which was at least 50% mathematics, worked with mathematicians who were working on models and simulations : 1. They hardly know what they are doing. 2. Models show what you want them to show. If they don't, they will work and mould them until they do.

pmiller2 6y ago
Which paper did you read? You seem to have criticisms of their methodologies, so I expect you've read at least one of the linked papers, yes?
- the-dude 6y ago
  I read the paper about The Titanic, would you suggest another one which you feel is better? But please excuse me for a while, as I am off for a walk : we are having blue skies here in nothern NL and I look forward to get radiated by this giant nuclear fusion from the sky.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    As I recall, the Titanic makes no appearance in any of the papers linked in the article. Did you follow any of the links? You can literally "^F paper" and find those links.
    - the-dude 6y ago
      So where did this Titanic story come from? Look, papers are just an opinion, man. Climate 'science' is not science at all : science makes verifiable claims. No such thing with the climate. I am from NL : we have a thing with sealevel for centuries. Did you ever look at the sealevel rise at NL? There is no, I repeat : no change in sealevel rise in the last centuries. The level is steady-as-you-go going up since the ice age.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Oh, you mean verifiable predictions like these? https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-cli... Had you actually read the article, you would see the Titanic story was referencing a talk one of the scientists gave. You seem to be doing everything you can to avoid reading anything. Are you even interested in this, or just trolling?
        read_if_gay_ 6y ago
        The fact that 10 models were correct doesn't say much unless we also know how many models were wrong. It's easy to cherrypick the best ones in retrospect. If there are enough models, even if all of them are bullshit, some will be correct, the same way a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        How many climate models do you think there are? What evidence do you have that there's been any cherry picking? You have read the study, haven't you?