Manmade Computer Climate Models That Spell Doom and Gloom a Century From Now

[Weatherman2020]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

 

[Weatherman2020]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

Yeah, let's destroy the global economy because of a wild ass guess.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

Did you really read what he wrote?

He never said don't try at all, he was talking about how little we know and that the science of weather forecasting is still in the early stages.

Daily Satellite coverage of weather events came on in the mid 1960s, but not for regional coverage until the 1970's.

LINK

 

[frigidweirdo]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

Did you really read what he wrote?

He never said don't try at all, he was talking about how little we know and that the science of weather forecasting is still in the early stages.

Daily Satellite coverage of weather events came on in the mid 1960s, but not for regional coverage until the 1970's.

LINK

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

 

[skookerasbil]

We still don't know dick about the climate.... anyone who thinks otherwise is a sucker.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

Did you really read what he wrote?

He never said don't try at all, he was talking about how little we know and that the science of weather forecasting is still in the early stages.

Daily Satellite coverage of weather events came on in the mid 1960s, but not for regional coverage until the 1970's.

LINK

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

The problem comes when idiots try to make predictions and tell us all that we must be poor and live in caves to keep the planet alive when they do not have the facts to support that assessment.

Its the political Assessment that is the problem.. Your telling us that someone doing VoDo is to be trusted and followed..

 

[Sunsettommy]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

Did you really read what he wrote?

He never said don't try at all, he was talking about how little we know and that the science of weather forecasting is still in the early stages.

Daily Satellite coverage of weather events came on in the mid 1960s, but not for regional coverage until the 1970's.

LINK

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

Research that can't be verifiable is a complete waste of time. There is a reason why good thinkers keep in mind if this particular hypothesis is testable to continue the research or change the hypothesis if possible or drop it completely.

Surely you knew this?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

Did you really read what he wrote?

He never said don't try at all, he was talking about how little we know and that the science of weather forecasting is still in the early stages.

Daily Satellite coverage of weather events came on in the mid 1960s, but not for regional coverage until the 1970's.

LINK

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

Research that can't be verifiable is a complete waste of time. There is a reason why good thinkers keep in mind if this particular hypothesis is testable to continue the research or change the hypothesis if possible or drop it completely.

Surely you knew this?

What's the point in making a hypothesis?

If you know everything already, you don't need to make a hypothesis.

We can't predict the weather 100% accurately, but we can predict it accurately enough to tell people what might happen.

Some people take weather forecasts as solid, others realize the limitations. Being able to understand this is important in effectively utilizing this information.

Simply said, Science would have got nowhere had everyone waited until they were 100% sure of something before testing it.

 

[Darkwind]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

Did you really read what he wrote?

He never said don't try at all, he was talking about how little we know and that the science of weather forecasting is still in the early stages.

Daily Satellite coverage of weather events came on in the mid 1960s, but not for regional coverage until the 1970's.

LINK

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

Research that can't be verifiable is a complete waste of time. There is a reason why good thinkers keep in mind if this particular hypothesis is testable to continue the research or change the hypothesis if possible or drop it completely.

Surely you knew this?

What's the point in making a hypothesis?

If you know everything already, you don't need to make a hypothesis.

We can't predict the weather 100% accurately, but we can predict it accurately enough to tell people what might happen.

Some people take weather forecasts as solid, others realize the limitations. Being able to understand this is important in effectively utilizing this information.

Simply said, Science would have got nowhere had everyone waited until they were 100% sure of something before testing it.

How about we increase our understanding of climate by a couple orders of magnitude before we start bankrupting whole economies. That is the bottom line.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

Did you really read what he wrote?

He never said don't try at all, he was talking about how little we know and that the science of weather forecasting is still in the early stages.

Daily Satellite coverage of weather events came on in the mid 1960s, but not for regional coverage until the 1970's.

LINK

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

Research that can't be verifiable is a complete waste of time. There is a reason why good thinkers keep in mind if this particular hypothesis is testable to continue the research or change the hypothesis if possible or drop it completely.

Surely you knew this?

What's the point in making a hypothesis?

If you know everything already, you don't need to make a hypothesis.

We can't predict the weather 100% accurately, but we can predict it accurately enough to tell people what might happen.

Some people take weather forecasts as solid, others realize the limitations. Being able to understand this is important in effectively utilizing this information.

Simply said, Science would have got nowhere had everyone waited until they were 100% sure of something before testing it.

You are apparently clueless on this since you show no understanding on what is Falsifiable in research.

Climate Models to year 2100 is a good example of failing the Falsifiability test, since there is negligible data to work with.

From Wikipedia
Falsifiability

A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability or refutability if there is the possibility of showing it to be false. It is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an empirical observation which could refute it.[1]

For example, the universal generalization that All swans are white is falsifiable since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single swan that is not white.[2]

The concern with falsifiability gained attention[according to whom?] by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology referred to as "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

Did you really read what he wrote?

He never said don't try at all, he was talking about how little we know and that the science of weather forecasting is still in the early stages.

Daily Satellite coverage of weather events came on in the mid 1960s, but not for regional coverage until the 1970's.

LINK

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

Research that can't be verifiable is a complete waste of time. There is a reason why good thinkers keep in mind if this particular hypothesis is testable to continue the research or change the hypothesis if possible or drop it completely.

Surely you knew this?

What's the point in making a hypothesis?

If you know everything already, you don't need to make a hypothesis.

We can't predict the weather 100% accurately, but we can predict it accurately enough to tell people what might happen.

Some people take weather forecasts as solid, others realize the limitations. Being able to understand this is important in effectively utilizing this information.

Simply said, Science would have got nowhere had everyone waited until they were 100% sure of something before testing it.

You are apparently clueless on this since you show no understanding on what is Falsifiable in research.

Climate Models to year 2100 is a good example of failing the Falsifiability test, since there is negligible data to work with.

From Wikipedia
Falsifiability

A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability or refutability if there is the possibility of showing it to be false. It is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an empirical observation which could refute it.[1]

For example, the universal generalization that All swans are white is falsifiable since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single swan that is not white.[2]

The concern with falsifiability gained attention[according to whom?] by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology referred to as "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.

Ah yes, come out with the attacks.

Sorry, I really can't be bothered with people who can't even make their point without attacks. Try again, or don't. I don't care.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

Did you really read what he wrote?

He never said don't try at all, he was talking about how little we know and that the science of weather forecasting is still in the early stages.

Daily Satellite coverage of weather events came on in the mid 1960s, but not for regional coverage until the 1970's.

LINK

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

Feel free to explain to the class how you can write a computer model predicting the future when you only know 1% of the variables involved.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Did you really read what he wrote?

He never said don't try at all, he was talking about how little we know and that the science of weather forecasting is still in the early stages.

Daily Satellite coverage of weather events came on in the mid 1960s, but not for regional coverage until the 1970's.

LINK

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

Research that can't be verifiable is a complete waste of time. There is a reason why good thinkers keep in mind if this particular hypothesis is testable to continue the research or change the hypothesis if possible or drop it completely.

Surely you knew this?

What's the point in making a hypothesis?

If you know everything already, you don't need to make a hypothesis.

We can't predict the weather 100% accurately, but we can predict it accurately enough to tell people what might happen.

Some people take weather forecasts as solid, others realize the limitations. Being able to understand this is important in effectively utilizing this information.

Simply said, Science would have got nowhere had everyone waited until they were 100% sure of something before testing it.

You are apparently clueless on this since you show no understanding on what is Falsifiable in research.

Climate Models to year 2100 is a good example of failing the Falsifiability test, since there is negligible data to work with.

From Wikipedia
Falsifiability

A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability or refutability if there is the possibility of showing it to be false. It is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an empirical observation which could refute it.[1]

For example, the universal generalization that All swans are white is falsifiable since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single swan that is not white.[2]

The concern with falsifiability gained attention[according to whom?] by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology referred to as "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.

Ah yes, come out with the attacks.

Sorry, I really can't be bothered with people who can't even make their point without attacks. Try again, or don't. I don't care.

Translation: I got slammed by a valid point with evidence.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

Research that can't be verifiable is a complete waste of time. There is a reason why good thinkers keep in mind if this particular hypothesis is testable to continue the research or change the hypothesis if possible or drop it completely.

Surely you knew this?

What's the point in making a hypothesis?

If you know everything already, you don't need to make a hypothesis.

We can't predict the weather 100% accurately, but we can predict it accurately enough to tell people what might happen.

Some people take weather forecasts as solid, others realize the limitations. Being able to understand this is important in effectively utilizing this information.

Simply said, Science would have got nowhere had everyone waited until they were 100% sure of something before testing it.

You are apparently clueless on this since you show no understanding on what is Falsifiable in research.

Climate Models to year 2100 is a good example of failing the Falsifiability test, since there is negligible data to work with.

From Wikipedia
Falsifiability

A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability or refutability if there is the possibility of showing it to be false. It is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an empirical observation which could refute it.[1]

For example, the universal generalization that All swans are white is falsifiable since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single swan that is not white.[2]

The concern with falsifiability gained attention[according to whom?] by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology referred to as "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.

Ah yes, come out with the attacks.

Sorry, I really can't be bothered with people who can't even make their point without attacks. Try again, or don't. I don't care.

Translation: I got slammed by a valid point with evidence.

Nope, but you do have the right to be wrong. I just don't care for people who act like this.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Research that can't be verifiable is a complete waste of time. There is a reason why good thinkers keep in mind if this particular hypothesis is testable to continue the research or change the hypothesis if possible or drop it completely.

Surely you knew this?

What's the point in making a hypothesis?

If you know everything already, you don't need to make a hypothesis.

We can't predict the weather 100% accurately, but we can predict it accurately enough to tell people what might happen.

Some people take weather forecasts as solid, others realize the limitations. Being able to understand this is important in effectively utilizing this information.

Simply said, Science would have got nowhere had everyone waited until they were 100% sure of something before testing it.

You are apparently clueless on this since you show no understanding on what is Falsifiable in research.

Climate Models to year 2100 is a good example of failing the Falsifiability test, since there is negligible data to work with.

From Wikipedia
Falsifiability

A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability or refutability if there is the possibility of showing it to be false. It is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an empirical observation which could refute it.[1]

For example, the universal generalization that All swans are white is falsifiable since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single swan that is not white.[2]

The concern with falsifiability gained attention[according to whom?] by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology referred to as "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.

Ah yes, come out with the attacks.

Sorry, I really can't be bothered with people who can't even make their point without attacks. Try again, or don't. I don't care.

Translation: I got slammed by a valid point with evidence.

Nope, but you do have the right to be wrong. I just don't care for people who act like this.

Facts vs Model.. Dr N Scafetta does an excellent job of falsifying the models.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

Research that can't be verifiable is a complete waste of time. There is a reason why good thinkers keep in mind if this particular hypothesis is testable to continue the research or change the hypothesis if possible or drop it completely.

Surely you knew this?

What's the point in making a hypothesis?

If you know everything already, you don't need to make a hypothesis.

We can't predict the weather 100% accurately, but we can predict it accurately enough to tell people what might happen.

Some people take weather forecasts as solid, others realize the limitations. Being able to understand this is important in effectively utilizing this information.

Simply said, Science would have got nowhere had everyone waited until they were 100% sure of something before testing it.

You are apparently clueless on this since you show no understanding on what is Falsifiable in research.

Climate Models to year 2100 is a good example of failing the Falsifiability test, since there is negligible data to work with.

From Wikipedia
Falsifiability

A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability or refutability if there is the possibility of showing it to be false. It is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an empirical observation which could refute it.[1]

For example, the universal generalization that All swans are white is falsifiable since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single swan that is not white.[2]

The concern with falsifiability gained attention[according to whom?] by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology referred to as "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.

Ah yes, come out with the attacks.

Sorry, I really can't be bothered with people who can't even make their point without attacks. Try again, or don't. I don't care.

Translation: I got slammed by a valid point with evidence.

FrigidWierdo is oh-so-sensitive about personal slights when you're dicing up his idiotic claims with facts and logic.

 

[bripat9643]

Research that can't be verifiable is a complete waste of time. There is a reason why good thinkers keep in mind if this particular hypothesis is testable to continue the research or change the hypothesis if possible or drop it completely.

Surely you knew this?

What's the point in making a hypothesis?

If you know everything already, you don't need to make a hypothesis.

We can't predict the weather 100% accurately, but we can predict it accurately enough to tell people what might happen.

Some people take weather forecasts as solid, others realize the limitations. Being able to understand this is important in effectively utilizing this information.

Simply said, Science would have got nowhere had everyone waited until they were 100% sure of something before testing it.

You are apparently clueless on this since you show no understanding on what is Falsifiable in research.

Climate Models to year 2100 is a good example of failing the Falsifiability test, since there is negligible data to work with.

From Wikipedia
Falsifiability

A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability or refutability if there is the possibility of showing it to be false. It is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an empirical observation which could refute it.[1]

For example, the universal generalization that All swans are white is falsifiable since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single swan that is not white.[2]

The concern with falsifiability gained attention[according to whom?] by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology referred to as "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.

Ah yes, come out with the attacks.

Sorry, I really can't be bothered with people who can't even make their point without attacks. Try again, or don't. I don't care.

Translation: I got slammed by a valid point with evidence.

Nope, but you do have the right to be wrong. I just don't care for people who act like this.

Yep, you don't care for people who beat you over the head with facts and logic.

 

[skookerasbil]

Did you really read what he wrote?

He never said don't try at all, he was talking about how little we know and that the science of weather forecasting is still in the early stages.

Daily Satellite coverage of weather events came on in the mid 1960s, but not for regional coverage until the 1970's.

LINK

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

Research that can't be verifiable is a complete waste of time. There is a reason why good thinkers keep in mind if this particular hypothesis is testable to continue the research or change the hypothesis if possible or drop it completely.

Surely you knew this?

What's the point in making a hypothesis?

If you know everything already, you don't need to make a hypothesis.

We can't predict the weather 100% accurately, but we can predict it accurately enough to tell people what might happen.

Some people take weather forecasts as solid, others realize the limitations. Being able to understand this is important in effectively utilizing this information.

Simply said, Science would have got nowhere had everyone waited until they were 100% sure of something before testing it.

You are apparently clueless on this since you show no understanding on what is Falsifiable in research.

Climate Models to year 2100 is a good example of failing the Falsifiability test, since there is negligible data to work with.

From Wikipedia
Falsifiability

A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability or refutability if there is the possibility of showing it to be false. It is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an empirical observation which could refute it.[1]

For example, the universal generalization that All swans are white is falsifiable since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single swan that is not white.[2]

The concern with falsifiability gained attention[according to whom?] by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology referred to as "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.

Ah yes, come out with the attacks.

Sorry, I really can't be bothered with people who can't even make their point without attacks. Try again, or don't. I don't care.

Hey s0n.... still waiting on those links showing us where the consensus science is mattering in the real world. C'mon now.... all we ask for is a single link.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Research that can't be verifiable is a complete waste of time. There is a reason why good thinkers keep in mind if this particular hypothesis is testable to continue the research or change the hypothesis if possible or drop it completely.

Surely you knew this?

What's the point in making a hypothesis?

If you know everything already, you don't need to make a hypothesis.

We can't predict the weather 100% accurately, but we can predict it accurately enough to tell people what might happen.

Some people take weather forecasts as solid, others realize the limitations. Being able to understand this is important in effectively utilizing this information.

Simply said, Science would have got nowhere had everyone waited until they were 100% sure of something before testing it.

You are apparently clueless on this since you show no understanding on what is Falsifiable in research.

Climate Models to year 2100 is a good example of failing the Falsifiability test, since there is negligible data to work with.

From Wikipedia
Falsifiability

A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability or refutability if there is the possibility of showing it to be false. It is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an empirical observation which could refute it.[1]

For example, the universal generalization that All swans are white is falsifiable since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single swan that is not white.[2]

The concern with falsifiability gained attention[according to whom?] by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology referred to as "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.

Ah yes, come out with the attacks.

Sorry, I really can't be bothered with people who can't even make their point without attacks. Try again, or don't. I don't care.

Translation: I got slammed by a valid point with evidence.

Nope, but you do have the right to be wrong. I just don't care for people who act like this.

"Translation: I got slammed by a valid point with evidence."

I gave you a good description of what Falsification is, you ignore it with a bogus complaint about an unspecified attack.

Being called clueless and you whine about it, while ignoring the sources rebuttal is hilarious.