/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15977877
Define perfection

>>15977877
Go learn about complexity theory and chaos again. We will never have perfect weather models. It's the Three Body problem except you have as many bodies as there are atoms in the atmosphere.
No matter how sophisticated your model is, reality is always magnitudes more complex, and your model necessarily always operates on incomplete knowledge and simplistic assumptions.

>>15977877
well here the area is designt in a way that if you would klimb an local mountain you can predict the weather 4-20 hours in advance, during summer its not stalbe enought to make more as 10min-4 hours during the rest of the year it is.

>>15977919
but its very rar, the average prediction by spying clouds from an mounain durting summer is 1.3-3 hours, its very rar a could from rains and storms with in only 10-30 min.

>>15977877
>>15977919
>>15977922
you can predicti it indefinitelly, but its a matter of power you charge into an algorythm.

>>15977924
its about how much work afford intelligence and power you want to invest in it.

resulution and time need power an

>>15977926
as better "more intelligent" your model gets as less power you need.

>>15977927
but i think the human limit, i mean if you realy try like its for surivial is about 0.5 years, after this the towers will comsume so much power, that you cant afford it.

>>15977928
but at that point i expect it to be an industry allreaedy.

>>15977931
i expect cause its this unstable and its resolution this low that its not more as a pocket calculator and no one cares to make it better.

>>15977933
i mean you can run the simulator for eons on high energy then it will eventually reach a point where 1 year prediction is possible evne wiht an common pc.

>>15977935
you can rtun the simulator for eons and enslave mathematicans in university and it will be eventually possible to make a prediction of 0-5-1 year with out making an industrie out of it.

but possible yes its just a matter of energy ressources and intelligence. even now if you have enought money.

>>15977938
this is why data storage is important so you dont need to industrialize certain prediction concepts, cause you can relie on prior knowledge

>>15977945
its realy like this you can energy your stupidity way with basic math geometry and energy, you dont need to be the alpha in the galaxie in math or geometry to do it you jsut can use more energy.

>>15977949
but thats evolution right? if you have 100% more energy, but the alien has an 1 mllion times more advanced fluide simulator you probably still loose.

>>15977951
if this 2 qualities are the only diffrences between the 2 planets the guys with 100% more energy probably loose.

this pdf spells it out pretty well

>>15979039

>>15979039
Weather != climate
Fuck off to one of the dozens of global warming denial threads, this is about weather forecasting.

>>15977877
Generally, weather forecasts beyond 2-3 days are pretty unreliable. What helps is to compare different models to see if there's a consensus. If the models span a wide range of predictions, they're probably just fitting noise.

Also, note how important good measurements are. Assume you measure the wind speed and you're off by 0.1m/s. Also, assume that wind is moving from one high-pressure area to one low-pressure area, spanning 1000km times 1000km each. A day has ~10^5 seconds. So, within a day, your error on the moved air mass is ten times larger than the air mass in each of the areas. It's obvious that models need to be much more complex, but the timescales for weather forecasts are really short.

>>15979197
>reeeeeeeeee!! I used the naughty word that means you have to obey me!!!
grow up

>>15977877
same people who can't predict the weather accurately a few days out are telling you that they can predict the weather accurately in 100 years.

>>15980230
>same people who can't predict the outcome of a dice roll accurately are telling you that they can predict the average over hundreds of rolls

Weather experiments were originally conducted by most Western and Eastern leaderships in the late 1800's and then were later stabilized to the current norms of weather and atmospheric phenomena with computer engineering in the late 1980's.

>>15980756
they're predicting the average roll of the sum of two six sided dice will be 13 in 100 years

>>15980756
>every time we roll this bucket full of thousands of of dice, the number of dice changes by an unknown amount, the number of sides per die changes by an unknown amount, the distribution of weight within each die changes by an unknown amount
>the results of a roll also depend on future behaviour of the surface we roll the dice on and of the human species
>our measurements are fleeting and imperfect
>but we can absolutely model what the average sum of a roll will be in 100 years

Computer modeling is just a complicated form of confirmation bias (I programmed how I think things work into the computer and the computer confirmed that things work the way I think they do), thats why computer modeling is always wrong.

Just had completely unforecasted freezing rain here today. Really screwed things up for a lot of people. Nice job science, way to go

>>15985134
Same here, central belt Western Scotland.

>>15977910
I will create a perfect model just give me a few weeks

>>15985216
>two more weeks!
Kek

>>15977880
>hmmmmm yes i know what ill do
>ill just play the semantics card
>that means i win the argument
>automatically

>>15982084
its funny because its true

>>15985134
freezing rain can only happen as a result of temperature inversions and to predict temperature inversions you need to understand turbulence and they don't understand that

>>15977877
navier stokes no closed form solution so either wait for computers to become strong enough to simulation until the end of time or solve the million dollar question.

>>15977877
>How far are weather prediction models from perfection
Any weather forecast farther than 3 days out should be treated as a total guess.

>>15988102
Are you illiterate? That article does not say that on January 1st, 2000 the world will end if we haven't stopped climate change. Do you understand the difference between science, journalism, and politics, or has fox news rotted your brain?

>>15989454
>muh Fox News!!!
>muh politics!!!
>>>/pol/

>>15977877
It's really not that unpredictable anymore.
Haven't you see all the planes flying around spraying weather every day for the last 20 years or so?

>>15989454
>has fox news
Why do libtards always default to fox news? You act like fox news has this amazing power or something. It's one news station. You control 99% of the media and fox is basically libtard-lite yet you still complain about fox news constantly.

>>15989454
>>15990365
The only way they can even come close to winning in their head given how illogical their ideads and thoughts are is if they whole cloth disregard the information.
Since they know very little except their little tiny bubble of info, Fox News, is really the quickest route for them to do this.
The don't even watch Fox and have no awareness of what is on Fox.
Only that it's bad and so if they disagree with you, then it's probably on "Fox news".

When I hear "fox news" from these people I think of a baby saying "oh yea you poo pop, YOU POOPOO".

>>15977877
How is weather "unpredictable"? What don't meteorologist understand about it that makes it unpredictable?

>>15990705
It's a chaotic, non-linear system.

>>15990705
Sensitive dependence on initial conditions. A half a degree of temperature difference, a fractional change in albedo, a minute variation in humidity, etc. Tweak any one tiny factor affecting the weather in an area and it changes the outcome in an unpredictable fashion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

>>15977877
>inherently unpredictable?
wrong

>>15991187
What will the pressure, humidity and wind speed be in London in 6 weeks' time?

>>15991796
Around 1 atmosphere pressure, 20-95% rh, between -5 and +15°C and between 3 and 40 km/h of wind.

>>15991800
That's a pretty useless "prediction". Why have you given such a range of outcomes? Are exact conditions unpredictable or something?

>>15990910
>wikipedia
tell me you're a clueless midwit without explicitly stating that you're a clueless midwit

>>15992790
Please tell us in which way you found this Wikipedia article not to live up to your particular knowledge of its subject matter

>>15977877
It's a chaotic system, our models can be as good as theoretically possible but any measurement error input into the model will with time spiral towards massive uncertainty

>>15985698
There's an argument? If you want to act like a dense retard, then the answer is that for all we know, it's impossible for any theoretical model of physics to be perfect

>>15979057
>writingtoiq.com
Holy midwit

>>15979057
This part's cringe.

>>15992892
>wikipedia
plz stop being a pseud

>>15991811
>useless
Absurd reaction.

Anon just told me I should have a coat prepared every day, be ready to not have to wear it, that it rains some times and the signs preceeding rain are probably obvious, and that it's usually not but can get windy enough to be annoying.

Pretty damn useful for the next 6 weeks.

Whether is predictable though. Sunny blue sky means no rain, windy cloudy sky means rain, etc.

>>15993790
you're just jealous of the guy because he has an exceptional resume which you will never be able to match

>>15996800
you're not subtle

>>15996800
Grep doesn't belong on a resume. Nobody throws out a resume "this applicant doesn't even know their ABCs".

>>15995725
None of the information anon gave you has any specificity or is based on any predictive model. It's simply an observation of the range of states in previous years. That is not a prediction, it's a record of temperature highs/lows.
Stop being facetious.

>>15977877
>inherently unpredictable?
its inherently very predictable but nobody has a global weather model, or if they do its top secret and buried under a mountain

>>15993790
>I know whereof I speak

>>15997396
>its inherently very predictable
>>15991796
Perhaps you and I have very different understandings of the word "predictable"

>>15989454
Okay, so what were they saying?

>>15991800
I predict in three weeks time you will ingest between 500kcal and 4500kcal in the day. p < 0.005. oh, and you're going to die if you keep doing that for 30 years.

>>15982561
Yes

>>15996800
Damn. Alex Mahan must be history's greatest computer programmer

>>15989454
If the change doesn't happen within 25 years of such a prediction, then the change probably isn't due to any human causes.
"Entire nations will be wiped out!"
This suggests such a massive change in sea level that it should be ridiculously obvious.

>>15998320
Weather and climate are not reducable systems. They are not dice rolls. They are not random patterns that you can average out either. You cannot break them down into constituent parts to predict their behaviour.
Pic related is what a weather or climate system actually looks like over time. It's not a dice roll that averages out to a predictable outcome. It can oscillate wildly for no discernable reason - that's a feature of the system, not a sign of collapse. It has patterns, and sometimes even looks like it's repeating, but if you zoom in close enough you see that its never an exact match.
A dice roll only ever has 6 possible results. Each roll is discrete, self-contained, self-limiting. It doesn't affect the next roll. A dice roll 30 years ago doesn't affect a dice roll today.
/sci/ is meant to like Saporsky.
Watch the first half of this lecture before you ever comment on anything to do with weather or climate again.
https://youtu.be/o_ZuWbX-CyE

>>15977910
> tl;dr science isn’t magic and can’t predict the future

>>15998410
you have to go back

>>15998332

>>15998430
>you have to go ACK

>>15997131
you're just jealous of the guy because he has an exceptional resume which you will never be able to match

>>16000217
I'm jealous that you two can find joy in repeating yourselves.

>>15977877
Requirements for believing that computer modeling is good:
1. no experience with computer modeling i
2. inability to do math
3. lack of critical thinking ability

>>15988102
>>15998480

>>15998324
No, its Neil Ferguson

>>15998430
It's how you quote in shiichan.

>>15998386
So basically climate change is fake and gay and scientists are only after gubrment gibs nothing more

>>15998480
The West Side Highway is still above water

>>15977877
Infinitely far

>>16004218
too bad, we'd all be better off if manhattan were drowned

>>15979211
>What helps is to compare different models to see if there's a consensus.
a consensus of garbage tier idiocy is still garbage tier idiocy

>>15979211
>What helps is to compare different models to see if there's a consensus
Why assume multiple models will coalesce around a correct answer when they are all built on the same faulty assumptions? This isn't a diversity of different expert opinions, it's the same group think and apriori simplification about how the climate works.

>>16007774
Computer modeling will never be any better than the programmers' understanding of what is being modeled and given that modeling is a crude substitute for analytical understanding of an issue, the models will always tend to be fairly bad.

>>16008663
correct, reliance on brute force numerical solutions indicates a lack of understanding the issue thats being addressed. computer modeling is like handing a mediocre ESL student a thesaurus and telling them to try and sound sophisticated.

Just because weather is chaotic doesn't mean you cant make right predictions Notice how in pic related the double pendulums will have approximately the same behavior for a time period before diverging chaotically. Same principle with weather, any forecast you make will be accurate for a certain time period, but over time the small differences in initial conditions means that the weather will diverge over time.

>>15996800
as a html programmer/PHD I will tell you, those credentials are incredible

>>15982561
Imperfect measurements doesn't mean that it's not good enough for all intents and purposes.
>>every time we roll this bucket full of thousands of of dice, the number of dice changes by an unknown amount, the number of sides per die changes by an unknown amount, the distribution of weight within each die changes by an unknown amount
You don't know anything about chaotic systems.

>>16009774
What is that time period?

>>16009887
Depends a lot on how chaotic the system is. Generally the more chaotic the shorter the time period, but I'm not aware of any mathematics which quantifies that exactly.

>>16010499
The Lyapunov time would more or less quantify it

>>16010499

>>16010537
>>16010546
>ODEs
Yeah, didn't read. Stupidest subject in math tbqh.

>>16009783
How do you get a PhD in HTML? Its not even a real programming language.

>>16012189
>getting a phd in madlibs

>>15977877
Pretty far; we're running on statistical models mostly not any genuine prediction models.

>>15992927
Thanks for your concession.

>>16012189
academia has been dumbed down to the point that a phd in html is entirely possible, as long as you're a gay, a woman or shitskin

>>16009774
so predicting the weather centuries in advance is completely irrational

>>15977877
Just feed all of the information into a machine learning model. We have over a hundred years worth of data. Tell me why this wouldn't work?

>>16009774
>just because it's chaotic and unpredictable, doesn't mean you can predict it
>as evidence, consider this infinitely simpler yet still chaotic and unpredictable thing
What did he mean by this

>>15977877
Despite now having incredible supercomputers, they still can't predict the weather a week from now any better than they could 50 years ago.

Weather is chaotic and the data fed into the models is woefully incomplete. It won't get better.

>>15990365
Libtards get all their opinions from media and assume that everybody else must as well. Since Fox News is the most notable media that breaks rank from libtardism, is only slightly, they naturally assume that Fox News is the source of all opinions counter to libtardism.

t. don't watch fox news, don't even have a TV

>>15990729
that literally doesn't mean its not predictable
>>15990910
you are greatly misattributing a problem in sample resolution to the system itself. yes its a big problem, but no weather model is even remotely tried. the average spacing between NOAA weather stations is hundreds of miles, GOES satellites are also about 100 miles of resolution. When in reality I can travel 10 miles in any direction and the weather will objectively be a little bit different
>>15997322
you're just assuming he didn't look at any data without even trying replicate his outcome yourself, shut up pseud

>>16016019
It's not a problem of sample resolution, it's not a bug, it's a feature of the system itself. There will never be high enough resolution data for long term weather prediction. When you zoom in farther, the pattern is the same. You go forom 100m resolution to 10m resolution and it just means you have 100 interacting areas of uncertainty instead of 1.

>>16015450
The fitness landscape would be way too rough to be able to train a NN.

>>16015563
>they still can't predict the weather a week from now any better than they could 50 years ago.
not better, but easier

>>16015563
>they still can't predict the weather a week from now any better than they could 50 years ago
anon this is literally just false

>>15990365
Fox News says global warming is real. Fox also says that trans women are legitimately female. Fox is far, far to the left of even average normal people. Rupert Murdoch is George Soros' business partner, they're co-owners of vice.com

>>15977910
its measurement problem retard

>>16017206
It's not a measurement problem.
>>16016032

>>15989454
its already a full quarter of a century past then an still no sea level rise

>>16018417
Global warming predictions have always been false

>>16018798
and they always will be, co2 is not a greenhouse gas

>>16019720
Even if it was one, which it is not, it wouldn't be a significant one

>>15977877
they're already good enough. soience should just admit that they can't predict the weather accurately 3 days in advance let alone hundreds of years into the future.
we can just deal with the weather when it happens, thats why why air conditioning and heat and umbrellas and all sorts of other wonderful inventions

>>16018798
>major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is
>plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020.

>>16018798
>Britain will be Siberian in 20 years
Nobody said this.

>>16022892
>t. climate change denialist

>>15977877
Computer modeling is pretty much always wrong. Short term weather forecasting by models is only somewhat accurate because near term conditions can't generally diverge all that much from current conditions. Actual human weather forecasters who have experience in their home regions are still always more accurate than the computers are.

>>16024514
You are such a fucking idiot...

>>16024517
emotionally trigger'd by the inarguable facts of reality

>>16025721
>Mechanic tells fucktard clown if he keeps driving his car its gonna blow up
>>Fucktard clown says you're just a doom n gloomer
>>You're a chicken little
>>You hate humanity
>>You hate progress
>>I need muh drivethru burgers!!!

Pottery
Fucktard clowns want the dark ages back
Fucktard clowns can have exactly that

>>16025741
Agreed. Until now, we've lived in a total dystopia where the standard of living worldwide has been raised to unprecedented levels, where education and medicine have been accessible like never before, and the globe is connected through air travel and internet access to for the first time erase the borders of nation, language, and culture. The horrible dark age, which has allowed the stars to finally be in reach within the span of only two decades, must be fought against at every level.

First, energy must be restricted and rationed for the good of everyone. Power plants must be demolished, especially nuclear power plants, in order to create the pretext for brownouts, rationing, and mandatory blackout periods.

Next, food must be restricted for the good of everyone. Ration cards, for this is a war against dystopia, must be handed out; at first reducing the amount of meat and luxury foods before eliminating them entirely.

Next, science must be progressively destroyed and made irrelevant. Truths of the past must be muddled and replaced with fads and ambiguity. Today Pluto is a planet, tomorrow it isn't, and the day after the definition will once more 'evolve' to create the impression of progress without achieving it. Windmills will be brought back, medieval era technology, in order to provide electricity for the masses at barely a subsistence level; while the rich are of course allowed whatever the wish. Air travel, cruises, entertainment. The higher classes shall have so that the lower classes may envy, and be easily led.

Finally, we shall eliminate elections under the understanding that the populace cannot choose their own leaders. "Scientists", "experts", and "AI models" know far better. This will usher in the final utopia, where no one is allowed to question for to do so would be "denialist" or "anti-science." It will be a glorious age, a post-enlightenment age, an age that will finally banish darkness because we have redefined what 'light' means.

>>16025954
I wonder if a fuctard clown like you has the attention span for this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZA9Hnp3aV4

Probably not... if you did you wouldn't be constantly spewing the kind of fuctard clown drivel that you constantly spew.

>>16025954
go somewhere else if you want to do religion vs science trolling, its banned on this board.
>>>/b/ is where you belong

>>16025986
Malthusianims: Predicting the inevitable end of the world and demanding luddite policies since 1798.
It'll happen eventually! Any day now!

>>16026965
The entire board is just trolling covid, climate and christians. That's the ultimate legacy of science.

>>16026980
>You're a malthusian
>You're a luddite
>You hate humanity
>You're a communist
All you've got is name calling and labels.
You have no math, no physics, and no data whatsoever.

>>16015561
All chaotic systems are reducible to the double pendulum. This is not a joke, all chaotic behavior is mathematically the same, whether it's in a pendulum, the weather, lightning, or whatever may have you, and that's sensitivity to initial conditions.

>>16027199
Please point to one point in world history where a prediction of peak oil was correct. Please point to one point in world history where we saw ocean levels rise to the point of flooding anything due to CO2 induced climate change.
I'm sure there is one, since you're so confident about it.
>BUT MODELS PREDICT
How many times have those models been accurate? Never? Okay, I think we can dismiss them then.

>>16027237
>muh ABIOTIC OIL
>YOU'RE A COMMIE
>YOU HATE HUMANITY
>NOM NOM NOM
>NOM NOM

No point in wasting any time on the likes of you

>>15977877
>weather is inherently unpredictable
It's literally the opposite, weather is inherently predictable (unless you're claiming it changes through ad-hoc divine miracles)

>>16027297
Meds. Also abiotic oil is a commie theory.

>>16027388
>Also abiotic oil is a commie theory.
Tell that to >>16027237

>>16027408
I am he. Peak oil has been predicted since the 1950's, and has been wrong since the 1950's. We do not need to drag aboitic woo into it. The fact is that estimates are wrong and assume "profitable" oil production, which of course improves with technology. It's the same kind of malthusianism that predicted we'd all be eating ration bars out of recycled corpses

>>16027415
Oh Ok so oil is effectively infinite because of technology, not because it's "abiotic", "abiotic oil" is communism.

k that makes sense
if you're a fucktard

>>16027418
>make prediction
>it is wrong
>insist you were never wrong, just change when the world is supposed to end
>insist it will end eventually, this time for sure, regardless of what happens or what changes
Definition of a pseudoscience. Try >>>/x/ for schizophrenia, and >>>/pol/ for politics.

And yes, oil is hypothetically infinite because it's just long change hydrocarbons made of hydrogen - most carbon element in the universe - and carbon - fucking soot - but the production process is currently unprofitable. Not that phrase. "Currently unprofitable". Currently. As in, "one day it won't be". So just like we aren't currently eating human protein ration bars as malthusians predicted, neither will we just "run out of oil", throw up our hands, and give up because hurr durr we just would never be capable of making long chain hydrocarbons.

>>16027422
>"Currently unprofitable". Currently.
>As in, "one day it won't be".
Despite what your bible the Good Book of Economics says, the latter does not necessarily follow the former.
Of course you'll dismiss that argument as "communist woo".

>>16027425>>16027422
*argument should say fact
It's a fact that the following is retard tier nonsense
>"Currently unprofitable". Currently.
>As in, "one day it won't be".
But to you I'm sure facts are "communist woo"

>>15977877
The only method of weather prediction i trust is a weather stone. Thats how accurate.

>>16027425
>>16027428
The reality is that technology improves, it is just far easier to get oil out of the ground than it is to make it ourselves. Seethe. Malthusianism is a cult, not science.

>>16027439
>"Currently unprofitable". Currently.
>As in, "one day it won't be".
>Technology improves
>Malthusianism is a cult, not science.

Keep talking out your ass bruh its funny.

>>15977877
>>15977910

I know a guy who works at a quant hedge fund making prediction models all day.
His PhD at MIT used chaos to get (theoretically unlimited but in practice 15x) the measurement precision when compared to that of Kalman Filters and other techniques.
In chaotic systems, states that are near to each other at one point in time become exponentially farther apart from each other as the system evolves in time so theoretically you can get arbitrary precision by waiting for the system to evolve, and then determining the initial state that must have led to the final state.

>>16027529
Reality isn't very identifiable. The double pendulum angle time series can be fitted by adjusting the initial position or the lengths. Hopefully he used arbitrary precision arithmetic.

>>16027415
Even if the term "peak oil" was invented in the 50s, the idea is older. Other resources have run out. Hypocrisy by the Malthusian priests does not make frugality a sin.

>>16027693
>Other resources have run out
Name five.

>>16003381
it isn't fake but it is gay
and yes scientists are mostly out for gibs, but so is 90% of the population

>>16028486
its fake

>>16027740
Mines close and a hundred years later their tailings become the cheapest ore. Fisheries and forests weren't managed and some are gone.

>>16029781
Facts are "communist woo" to these fucktard fanatics.

So what do we do now?

>>16029781
so you can't name anything specific

>>16029781
A single coal mine being exhausted is not equivalent to "all coal has been exhausted".
Try again. What resources have run out?

>>16027693
There are no oil field that have ever run dry. Even the western Pennsylvania field that kicked off the start of the petroleum industry in 1870 is still producing robustly.

>>16003381
yes

>>16031318
Coal mines don't get "exhausted" they get too deep and the remaining coal becomes unprofitable to retrieve

>>16027415

>>16033510
Energy return on investment (EROI) is also interesting. Wages lead to energy use. Part of the energy used by the town of Ft McMurray might be an input to oil sands. Some energy industries might be scams in the sense that the total inputs energy exceeds the output.

>>16034772
sneed goyls might not have that much of a return, but fuel or animal feed are it's only valid use.

>>16033510
There we have that word again. "Profitability". So it's not "gone", it's just waiting for technology to improve.

>>16035978
Technology has limits.
If you weren't some science and math illiterate fucktard you'd intuitively understand this.

>>16036310
Okay, when have we encountered these limits in such a way that resource extraction stops and the economy crashes?
Never?
Okay, I guess you have no argument.

>>16036343
>muh abiotic oil
>again
You are aggressively ignorant.
Ignorant by choice.
Like some big huge fatso that freaks out and starts throwing furniture around when they're told by a doctor they might die of a coronary if they keep eating so much.
Quite a feat that you've achieved that level of stupidity. It must have taken quite some effort.

>>16035973
Animal fat and especially milk fat composition changes with feed comparison.

>>16036405
Who mentioned abiotic oil? Didn't we go through this last time?
>>16027297
>>16027388
>>16027408
>>16027415
The fact is that no resource has EVER run out completely because technology always improves either in the area of production or extraction. If nature can produce something, so can humans. It is simply a matter of research, profitability, and effort. We can already make artificial diamonds that are just as good as natural ones. But oh no! Butane and Pentane! It's so complex! Completely beyond human capacity to replicate! In fact, I'm going insane from its Cthulhu-like nature! AAAAAAAAA SAVE ME, GRETA!

>>16033510
>oh no we're running out of coal
meanwhile in china

>>16037366
You seem to be the kind of person who is willing to convince themselves that mining the same ground twice is possible.
Meanwhile biodiversity loss is accelerating and a layer of nutrient rich, metal rich sediment is building on the abyssal plain.
You are truly sick.

>>16037954
>pic is me btw

>>16003295
>Neil Ferguson
lol
why are computer modeling faggots so incredibly incompetent?

>>15982084
They're guessing that the number of sides on the dice will change radically in 100 years

>>16037954
Malthusianism is yours to prove correct. You can name call all you want, that only makes me laugh harder at your immaturity.

>>15977877
computer models all suck balls

>>16037884
The fact that the global warming evangelists never complain about China shows who it is thats in control of shilling the global warming narrative

>>16041905

>>16027740
nobody can name even one

>>16043763
Thats because resource scarcity rumors all all lies, they're an effective class of lies because they play into greedy people's fear of "oh no what if theres not enough for me"

>>16027529
>you can predict the future by waiting for it and seeing what happens

>>15977877
computer models are all terrible, the premise that computer modeling is useful is a false premise that was created to justify "you have to obey me because the computer model says so" reasoning

>>16046032
The Neil Ferguson example leaps to mind

>>16046032
ESLchama...