Yes, I had to accentuate it a bit.
Maybe on the long term? As far as I understood your body first eats the fat cells empty. After that maybe the muscles, but then your goal is already reached and you can start eating a 'normal' (not-American standard junk) diet.
Good luck,
joe
Nobody is arguing that they are.
An approximation to reality. If they are simple enough to be useful, they h ave to be imperfect.
There is no "calibration" and no part of the model is 100% correct. All the "layering" going on, is layers of nonsense inserted by your singularly ina dequate comprehension.
This is known as "over-fitting" and is well known, well-understood and mana geable if you know what you are doing. Sadly, you haven't got a clue, and g o around claiming that serious scientific publications are corrupted by wel l-known beginner's errors.
I got taught about this in "Theory of Computation 1" in Melbourne in 1966 ( as a graduate student taking an undergraduate course to help the computer m odelling side of my Ph.D. work).
You don't know what the mathematical formulation of the models is because y ou are pretty much entirely ignorant. Your opinion of their accuracy is cor respondingly inconsequential.
"Correctness proofs" are for specification which can be expressed as mathem atical assertions - it's a different area.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about, which is a personal defe ct specific to Joey Hey. The fact is that you - personally - spout utter n onsense. It sounds plausible, because you have mined phrases from irrelevan t areas, but it's evident from the obvious howlers (like talking about "cal ibrating" climate models) that you haven't got a clue.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
I guess that if somebody doesn't want to understand, he never will.
Point is, that climate 'scientists' also don't have a clue. They constantly go on 'improving' their models, which is in fact a kind of calibration, or whatever word you want to use for it. It also is an admission that they in fact don't know what they are doing. The adjustments are continued UNTIL the results agree enough with historical results. Not future results, mind you.
Nobody can prove that this 'model fitting' improves the predictive behaviour of the models rather than deteriorating it. If that isn't a philosophical error of the first degree, then I don't know what is.
To me this indicates a math deficiency in your graduate course...
I don't need the uncertain and incorrect details if I can argue about the general structure.
Don't you think we'd need some proof that what the climate lobby comes with is correct before we'll be willing to spend a large part of our income into the carbon tax hole, of which a big part will be used purely for financial speculation purposes by Gore & Blood et al?
}snipped some ridiculous name calling{
which reminds me I closed this discussion already last week.
goodbye
joe
You certainly show no signs of detailed comprehension, and no obvious desir e to acquire a deeper understanding of the stuff you post nonsense about.
You do claim this, but you clearly haven't a got a clue yourself, so the cl aim just reinforces the fact that it's you who is clueless.
Wrong. They are improving their models, but there's no "calibration" involv ed. The models are tested against historical records, as far as they exist, but they are also tested against one another, and rated on the extent to which they produce the same kids of result.
It isn't. They know - as every mathematical modeller does - that their mode ls are imperfect, and could bore you to tears on the nature of the imperfec tions, as well as the real-world implications of those imperfections.
There are idiots - as ill-informed as you are - who might do modelling that way. It's not the way the field actually works. The deviations between the models and the historical records and is information to be understood, not errors to be minimised.
Nobody can "prove" anything about predictive behaviour. If the behaviour be ing predicted hasn't happened yet, there's nothing on which to test the pre dictions.
Your choice of words just reminds us that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about - again.
The philosophical error here is yours in pontificating about stuff you wher e you don't know what is going on.
Australian Ph.D. programs at the time were research degrees - you found out what you needed to know to do the research. The Melbourne University Chemi stry department did appreciate that electronic computers could be useful in specific lines of chemical research, but it was a fairly new idea at the t ime.
Sadly, you haven't got a clue about the "general structure" either, and are too ignorant to realise it.
Science isn't about "proof", but about "disproof". Popper talks about "fals ifiability". Anthropogenic global warming is a hypothesis which has been te sted with some enthusiasm and persistence, largely because the implications of giving up burning fossil carbon as fuel are of considerable economic im portance.
It hasn't been falsified yet, and it looks very unlikely that it ever will be.
The "speculation" you talk about is whether it makes economic sense to make a bigger mess of the climate than we already have by burning even more fos sil carbon as fuel, or whether we should take the - small - economic hit in volved in moving to renewable energy before we've burnt all the (finite) st ocks of fossil carbon we could dig up.
There's nothing ridiculous about ridiculing your pretensions.
You claimed to have given up making silly assertions last week. It seems to have been just one more silly assertion.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
}snipped not so very interesting stuff{
Well, I guess every religion has its heretics. Actually, treating opponents as heretics just proves my point.
joe
You want to think that what you believe is a religion, which excuses you from rational analysis.
Sadly, the point is that science isn't a religion, and while you can't prove that a scientific theory is absolutely true, it's entirely possible to prove that non-scientific misconception happens to conflict with the evidence.
You feel that you are free to ignore the evidence that you don't like, which doesn't happen to allowed in scientific discussion. If science were a religion, this would be a heresy, but it isn't, so you are just being stupid, not heretical.
You aren't at any risk of being burnt as heretic, though your opinions do get discarded as trash.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
No no, you got it all wrong again. You are practising religion, I am clearly your heretic.
Science is not a religion... correct. Your AGW is.
Name calling again... Sad sign of bad character.
joe
As I seem to have mentioned, you do have the idea that people who disagree with you do so as a matter of faith and doctrine.
You fail to appreciate that you making demonstrably false claims about matt ers of fact.
Satisfying as it would be to burn a sample of the nonsense you have posted, I merely point out that it's wrong. There's no claim of heresy involved - merely a claim of simple ignorance on your part, coupled to a depressing in capacity to learn anything new about the subjects on which you pontificate.
No, it's your false concept of anthropogenic global warming that seems to h ave most of the trappings of a religion. You only quote from the received t exts posted on denialist web-sites, and you don't seem to have any idea abo ut scientific process that went from ice core data - derived from sampling mile-long cores of ice extracted from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet s - to a fairly coherent picture of why the climate changed from ice ages t o interglacials, and why putting a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere than we 've had in any interglacial for the last few million years is going to lead to higher global average temperatures than we've had for some 20 million y ears.
The problem is that you really are stupid.
Trying to flatter you, by making you feel good about your stupidity, and en couraging you to think that the bad advice you pass out on global warming a nd getting vaccinated was anything but bad advice, would a sign of a consid erably worse character.
You aren't very bright, and you do need to find people to correct your stup id opinions. At the moment you seem to be getting your advice from people w ho are engaged in exploiting your stupidity for their own advantage. This i s foolish of you, but stupid people do do foolish things rather more freque ntly than less stupid people.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
The fact that you keep repeating this shows you do treat this as a religion. You believe, therefore it is true.
-- Rick
Yes of course, otherwise I wouldn't state it.
That last sentence is really creepy... :)
It has priests (climatologists), it has a church ('ng'IPCC), it has an inquisition (Bill Slomen), it has heretics (every non-believer), it has a correctional institution (reduced funding in case of acts of non-believe or doubt by its members--and, if needed, expulsion). It acts like a religion, it smells like a religion and it looks like a religion. And, most importantly, it gives _me_ the feeling of it being a creepy religion.
So, yes, to me it is a believe. And it must be, because the science isn't 'in'.
And a lot of people are going to make a huge profit off of it, supposedly from my money.
joe
You are overly generalizing. I only do this in this case.
I made it clear that we simply disagree on the point of accuracy of predictions by models which can not be proven correct. I even gave you various reasons why I think that is the case, and you respond to that in a disrespectful and asinine way. And it is exactly that kind of behaviour which in the first place is totally counter-productive in trying to convince people of your point of view, but it is also a sign of some underlying desire to force the other to accept your point of view, even if he has another scientific opinion. In other words, you expect an act of believe from your opponent to adopt your way of seeing things, instead of just stepping out of the discussion with a "nah, if you don't understand what I mean, no problem, let's just respectfully conclude that we differ in opinion".
Believers can't do that because they think they have the 'absolute truth' and they find it their duty to 'evangelize' that 'truth' to others until they submit. So I really think it's you who treats the whole AGW as if it were your religion, and I'm merely responding to that.
Oh, don't worry, to me this discussion was quite educational, but didn't convince me that 'the models' are correct. And then there's the financial aspect of it that makes me wary about what exactly is going on here...
I never claimed that you can't accurately measure CO2 in ice and date it 'more or less correctly' (here is one uncertainty). And then you put that data next to the size and number of tree rings... ok... And then there are lots of other data sources and theories about relationships between them all. And in the end you have a huge pile of data and relationships and you make a huge climate model out of it,
*based*on*what*you*know*, you tweak it and lo-and-behold it finally gives more or less a representation of the observations in the past. And then suddenly you claim that you can accurately predict the future with that. And then, when I argue that you can't, that there are a lot of parameter sensitivities and estimates and tweakings involved which make the model a strictly interpolating one, THEN all hell breaks loose.A simple and respectful "Sorry, I disagree with you" would suffice. I have explained this, my point of view, repeatedly in the past, but still you come down full force and with utter disrespect on me because I don't take over your point of view.
Now, that's believe and religion and all that.
Not my fault, be my guest, just saying you know.
Nah, this exactly proves my point. There is no respectful disagreeing with you possible.
That foam-around-the-mouth behaviour that you are showing here is another of the characteristics of those religious fanatics, and you have been displaying that disgraceful characteristic here over an over again. Not a pretty picture at all...
But no problem, apparently that's your way of talking to people, but I wouldn't feel happy if I had to revert to that kind of behaviour. It would give me the feeling that somewhere I wasn't able to explain everything clear enough or that somebody just didn't want to listen to me, and then that's where I would stop talking.
joe
Bill's bitter.
Here's a newly-discovered negative feedback--iron-laden air-borne dust is seeding algae blooms that gobble CO2:
If algae eat all our carbon, some day our biggest problem will be figuring out how to get it back. (Algae-farming!)
A second negative feedback: It's entirely possible clouds increase, reflect more sun, and Armageddon falls off the radar, too.
Cheers, James Arthur
And likely to bite harder if provoked.
James Arthur hasn't yet noticed that UK right-wing newspapers publish denia list propaganda as way of sucking up to advertisers.
He's also unaware that iron fertilisation isn't "newly discovered"
There have a been a couple of small-scale trials that didn't work the way t hey were expected to, and the idea is one of a number of "geo-engineering" proposals that essentially want to add to the Great Experiment with Extra C O2 new Great Experiments with Extra Iron or whatever.
Prudent people favour reducing CO2 outputs rather than adding extra inputs.
gBig if.
ct
It didn't happen during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, but James Art hur has an ideological commitment to letting the people who make money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel, keep on doing it, no ma tter how much damage the practice does to the planet. Anything different wo uld be socialism, and scientific facts that get in the way have to be ignor ed.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Not as creepy as the way you reiterate your nonsense
It may look that way to Joey Hey - who is, as we have been forced to notice , really very stupid, but climatologists aren't priests but scientists and while 290 of the top climatologists do accept climate change, the ten who d on't haven't been exposed to any kind of heresy trial, and two of them - Sp encer and Christy - seem to be doing fine. Richard Lindzen did retire - at
73 - but doesn't seem to have been pushed out of his job.The IPCC is appointed by politicians to review the scientific literature an d report on it to the politicians. This isn't any kind of church. It's a pi ty that the IPCC reports are pitched a bit above Joey Hey's comprehension l evel - if he could read them he might understand that they aren't touted as the revealed truth.
It looks like a religion to Joey Hey, who can't tell shit from shinola. It' s actually science - based on research published in peer-reviewed scientifi c journals, which Joey hey could read for himself if he got educated (which does seem to be unlikely to happen).
Joey Hey may find this important. The rest of the us value this piece of in formation as evidence that Joey Hey is a half-wit.
Science is never "in" - that's the core point about science - but the scien tific basis for anthropogenic global warming has been tested with some enth usiasm (because a few very rich people make a lot of money out of digging u p fossil carbon and selling it as fuel, and taking anthropogenic global war ming seriously involves slowing this down a lot).
This, of course, gets the whole thing the wrong way around. The people who are making a lot of money out of the rest of us by digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel, (and promoting anthropogenic global warming in the process) are spending some of that money on persuading gullible half-wits like Joey Hey that anthropogenic global warming isn't really a problem....
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Not that I've noticed.
Since predictive models can't be "proved" correct or incorrect until the ev ents predicted have happened, this is a particuarly foolish formulation.
You gave me "reasons" that made it clear that you didn't know what you were talking about - nobody "calibrates" climate models, so you have to be gene ralising from irrelevant experience. That kind of asinine mindless rhetoric positively calls for a disrepectful response, and the fact that you still haven't got the message makes it clear that my response wasn't sufficnetly disrespectful,
You haven't got any kind of "scientific opinion". You are an ignorant sucke r who has been taken in by dumb denialist propaganda, and wants to convert the rest of the world to this moronic creed.
You opinions aren't respectable, and to treat them as worthy of serious con sideration would be unfair to you (and anybody else exposed to them).
Perhaps. But I don't imagine that I've got access to any absolute truth. I do have access to enough scientific evidence to know that you are peddling a brand of nonsense that you don't actually understand. If it comforts you to think that you are being treated as heretic rather than a moron, you are taking the kind of comfort that only a moron could find comforting.
You do, but that's because you are really very stupid.
Not wary enough. The twaddle you peddle is spread by people who want to kee p on making money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it a fuel. Th is isn't any kind of conspiracy theory, but well-document fact
But you fail to understand what it means.
k...
Mann did use tree ring data, but only for the most recent thousand years, w here the ice-core data is less useful - the snow takes a while to compress into solid ice.
The point about Mann's "hockey-stick" - which you won't find on any deniali st web-site - is that it has been replicated more than a dozen times now wi th a wide variety of temperature proxies, and your complaining that you don 't like tree rings just means that you are too dim and ill-informed to know about all the other proxies.
lists " ice cores, tree rings, sub-fossil pollen, boreholes, corals, lake a nd ocean sediments, and carbonate speleothems."
The lake and ocean sediments have to be from anoxic areas - where worms dig through the sediment, the layering gets shot to hell.
Nobody claims that they can "accurately predict the future" on the basis of the various models they have put together. Everybody is convinced that put ting more CO2 into the atmosphere at the current - accelerating - rate is g oing to make the world warmer, and enough warmer that we won't like the con sequences, but numerous models predict different degrees of warming. None p redicts no warming and most of them cluster around more warming than we can live with.
That's because you don't what you are talking about. The modelers know a lo t more about parameter sensitivities and estimating them than you do, and t hey have worked out ways to cope with them. You keep on claiming that they may be making beginner's mistakes, like over-fitting their data to longer p olynomials than the data can specify, and seem to think that this means tha t you understand what's going on, rather than that you been exposed to an e xtremely elementary version of the mathematics involved.
You haven't earned any respect - in fact you deserve a considerably more co ntemptuous put down than I can be bothered to generate.
The disrespect is entirely a response to the blatant defects of your childi sh and gullible point of view. You can't expect to e taken seriously when a ll you do is recycle dumb non-arguments from denialist web-sites.
You clearly haven't been exposed to true believers.
"Revert"? That is exactly the way you are behaving.
But you don't stop talking.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
That's because you can't stop.
My simple conclusion is that we disagree. But apparently you don't want to simply disagree, you want to dominate. Like all religious fanatics.
Merry Christmas, if even possible with your mental mindset...
joe
People who put down this kind of language mostly have little--if any--self respect. I feel sorry for you...
(just kidding, I don't)
joe
Not really. You keep on trying - rather inexpertly - to explain stuff, and I jeer at you bumbling failures.
Wrong conclusion - not for the first time. What you need to conclude is tha t you are ill-informed and need to learn more. It isn't the disagreement th at matters, but rather that we are disagreeing about stuff to which there i s a right answer (which I happen to know) but you don't have a clue about.
I really don't want to "dominate". As soon as I've educated you enough that you realise that you've got a lot more to learn I've done all that I'm int erested in doing. This does seem to be taking a while.
I had Christmas dinner with my younger brother and a fair bit of his family . My wife and I had brought along wine made by two of ours cousins (hers an d mine respectively) and we all had a good time. My brother and I disagree about Australian politics, but quite enjoying talking about it. My brother does know what he's talking about there, having met a rather more extensive selection of the key players than I have.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
If that was an attempted put-down, it didn't work. My self-respect barely c omes into it. You have an exaggerated idea of your own competence, as evide nced both by the fact that you post total nonsense, and the fact that you m aintain your mistaken opinions after the errors in your point of view have been pointed out to you.
So you have a pathologically high - and totally unjustified - self-respect.
All I've got is enough to allow me to point out that you are posting nonsen se. That doesn't take much. If I had less, I might not have the confidence to point out the defects on your points of view.
I should care?
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
}snipped some even less interesting 'stuff'{
Indeed, being ignorantly dismissive doesn't take much. Totally true.
Well, you failed regarding 'the model'.
joe
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.