patrick.net

CBOEtrader says

www.pBbvehbomrY

"The unreliability of the models widens out over time. 50 years out we cant measure the consequences of either our positive or negative actions"

This innate modeling flaw is exactly what global warming psuedo-scientists fail to understand.

You meant climate change pseudoscientists.
They used to call it global warming until things cooled down.

marcus says

It was one of the least impressive answers to a question I've seen.

Ok. Well, I havent seen a model successfully predict empirical changes. Neither has the american people.

marcus says

AS someone that used to carry options positions, certainly you understand risk analysis. Nobody is claiming anything with anthing close to certainty about where things are at 50 years from now. It's about risks versus costs).

Ah ok. Discuss cost next, but the efficacy of the models hasn't been proven. Am I wrong? Please show me the paper from 5/10/15 years ago w the predictions and error bands you mention?

The options models are INCREDIBLY simple compared to climate change. It is appropriate to question the climate models. More likely you get a bunch of specialized genius general idiot types in an intellectual circle jerk. Ask the 2008 housing crash how well egg-head math can model a complex real world

Onvacation says

They used to call it global warming until things cooled down.

THat's a total lie. Threres been a micro blip down wit the uptrend in tact. But that blip is what the past two years at the most.

The term climate change, which should have never been used (becasue of the idiocracy we live in), was gained in popularity because storms and yes even cold weather in one region simultaneous with for example the pole or poles being warmer is an actual effect of global warming. But actually the term climate change has been used in reference to global warming for decades.

And it was grew in popularity in the media over global warming more than a decade before this little down blip you're referring to ?

Knowingly lying seems to be a key component of being a right winger.

The IPCC was formed in 1988. Guess what CC stands for.

CBOEtrader says

Well, I havent seen a model successfully predict empirical changes

I agree with this somewhat. For example the melting of arctic ice has happened MUCH faster than most models predicted (not withstanding Gores quote of some guy about possibilities )

Actually I think the options trading and risk management comparison is fitting. Nobody predicts with accuracy what markets are going to do or what volatility is going to do. But people make decisions based on probabilities and risk.

If the best argument you have for inaction is that we don't know precisely enough what's going to happen ? I find that surprising.

We have proven science that tells us what increasing carbon in the atmosphere does. We have data on air and ocean temperatures.

But we also have an idiocracy that thinks politics is a my team against your team sport, and unfortunately democrats believe climate change is one of the biggest risks risks humanity. I really wish it had been republicans, but it's hard to imagine such a world.

marcus says

If the best argument you have for inaction is that we don't know precisely enough what's going to happen ? I find that surprising.

The models arent accurate enough to even know what is positive or negative, what is good or bad.

They are currently discussing spraying particles into the atmosphere. Does this sound like a good idea to you. Or may, just MAYBE, human nature will be proven to be consistent again and we're experiencing major hubris in these scientific communities.

The question isnt just action yes or action no. What do you suggest we do?

If you are spending resources, where and how much?