RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 522
- 155
No climate model in existence can recreate the weather we had yesterday you fool. Even with absolutely perfect knowledge of every variable they can't do crap. No climate model has ever predicted ANYTHING! The models are so bad that a recent MIT paper (you know who they are...right?) had this to say about them......The people who believe AGW to be a valid theory have created the most accurate models which have produced the most accurate predictions of any available. You and yours keep going on and on about errors in predictions and screwed up models. Well... WHERE ARE YOURS?
NO CLIMATE MODEL THAT FAILS TO USE AGW HAS EVER RECREATED THE CLIMATE'S BEHAVIOR OF THE LAST 150 YEARS. NONE.
Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?
Robert S. Pindyck
NBER Working Paper No. 19244
July 2013
JEL No. D81,Q5,Q54
ABSTRACT
Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to
estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models
have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the
discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models'
descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical
foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility
of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge
and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading
Quite an accomplishment to hang your hat on.
http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf
The ol' walleyedretard has once again clearly demonstrated that he is a lying troll. At least several times before now he's posted this same silly but very intentional lie where he twists the meaning of a paper about some economic models of climate change consequences by fraudulently claiming the paper is about actual climate models, and it has been debunked at least several times before but he continues to knowingly lie about it. His gross and deliberate misinterpretation of the study he cites was thoroughly and elegantly debunked again just recently on another thread. Here it is.
No, they're not. They are fictitious representations of the world skewed by the abilities (or, in the case of the climate modelers, their INABILITIES) governed by algoreithims that generate the results the climate modelers wish to generate. They bear no resemblance to the real world and as MIT stated in the paper released a few weeks ago they are "CLOSE TO USELESS"Models are small facsimiles of the real thing. Models are used in weather forecasting every day with great success. Are they perfect? No, and no one has said that they are. But every scientific discipline uses them. I've conducted ground water modeling to determine flow direction, contaminant dispersal, and the heterogeneity of permeability of an aquifer in order to make predictions on the fate of those contaminants. The are useful tools that can provide valuable insights that can't otherwise be obtained in complex systems. And until you actually use one, I suggest you keep your uninformed criticisms to yourself.
ABSTRACT
Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to
estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models
have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the
discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models'
descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical
foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility
of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge
and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading.
http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf
That paper does not conclude that all models are useless. His conclusion is that IAMs (generated by economists) are useless in assessing the possibility, for the purposes of policy-making, of a catastrophic (economic) climate outcome. But those models are not the climate models we are discussing here. He also doesn't agree with your apparent conclusion that global warming is not real and is not manmade. In his introduction, he states:
There is almost no disagreement among economists that the full cost to society of burning a ton of carbon is greater than its private cost. Burning carbon has an external cost because it produces CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that accumulate in the atmosphere, and will eventually result in unwanted climate change — higher global temperatures, greater climate variability, and possibly increases in sea levels.
Furthermore, in his concluding remarks, he states:
My criticism of IAMs should not be taken to imply that because we know so little, nothing should be done about climate change right now, and instead we should wait until we learn more. Quite the contrary. One can think of a GHG abatement policy as a form of insurance: society would be paying for a guarantee that a low-probability catastrophe will not occur (or is less likely). Some have argued that on precautionary grounds, there is a case for taking the Interagency Working Group’s $21 (or updated $33) number as a rough and politically acceptable starting point and imposing a carbon tax (or equivalent policy) of that amount.20 This would help to establish that there is a social cost of carbon, and that social cost must be internalized in the prices that consumers and firms pay. (Yes, most economists already understand this, but politicians and the public are a different matter.) Later, as we learn more about the true size of the SCC, the carbon tax could be increased or decreased accordingly.
Did you even read it?
Walleyed is a denier cult troll and a proven liar. You can (easily) refute his misinformation and lies and you probably should mock him for his imbecilic posts and ignorant rants, but don't ever expect a rational response or any acceptance of valid scientific evidence, no matter how well supported and accepted in the world scientific community. He is a hard core denier cult troll who will (assuming he's not a total whore who's just getting paid to spread misinformation) never admit he was wrong, even when the water is up to his knees. He will deny the reality right in front of his eyes if his political/economic puppet-masters tell him to. Don't forget and imagine that you're talking to someone with an actual thinking mind or you'll be in for some massive disappointments.
Last edited: