Everyone knows you can't predict the average temperature with precision a hundred years in the future. The alarmist argument is more along the lines of "every model shows dire temperature increases, so that much we know for sure." Except the Russian one, perhaps.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
The point is, we can't "know" it for sure. As in "impossible" due to that pesky thing called chaos. Have you read "Chaos" by Gleick? Only the solar cycles offer some predictability in the short term. The Grand Solar Minimum hypothesis is gaining ground.
6 replies 26 retweets 83 likes -
Replying to @EcoSenseNow
I did financial modeling for a living. You don't need to convince me that 80-year predictions are bullshit. But if EVERY model pointed to doom, albeit at different rates, that would concern me.
20 replies 7 retweets 28 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @EcoSenseNow
@nntaleb suggests that we should avoid mistakes that might kill us. Whether all the models or none of the models predict disaster, who disagrees that more natural, clean, and efficient solutions aren't preferable, all things being equal? A lot of us just don't like being lied to.4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheRealLeejo @EcoSenseNow
That's a bad argument unless you only have one risk that can kill you or you have unlimited resources. If you have multiple extinction risks (which we do) and limited resources (as we do), you have to allocate resources across risks.
2 replies 2 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @EcoSenseNow
We can't do any of that if we aren't being honest with each other about the risks or the resources. I'm not sure that's even possible given the subjective nature of reality you've discussed. Instead
@nntaleb argues, I believe, that we deviate from natural solutions at our peril.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
What does "deviate from natural solutions" mean? I prefer managing risk.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
L. “Guapo” Jordan Retweeted
Antifragile asserts that favoring nature manages risk by maximizing nature's inherent resiliency while minimizing exposure to black swan events. I think my initial point was misunderstood; simply, not supporting AGW theory <> drill baby drill. https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1105142188558745602 …
L. “Guapo” Jordan added,
This Tweet is unavailable.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheRealLeejo @ScottAdamsSays and
As you have discussed and as Mr. Moore shows here, the intensely political IPCC and "near-unanimous" climate scientists reliance on models, which they manipulate and discussion about which they shut down, undermines everything they claim to stand for because it destroys trust.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheRealLeejo @ScottAdamsSays and
Flip it - suppose the air were turning brown and 100% of the models predicted no cause for concern. Your original point that long-term models are unreliable would remain valid. My point that we should pollute as little as possible regardless of any model's prediction would too.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Is someone in favor of more pollution?
-
-
That’s an odd take, but I’ll play. I know I am. I’m going to be cranking my car up soon and my home furnace is running. I might even fart later. Why do you ask?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.