Probably a good idea Hmmmm...reminds me of that yada yada yada episode of Seinfeld. Whoa Nelly! Chemistry and physics were among my favorite college classes and the Science Channel is one of my favorite TV channels. It's the politically motivated so called "scientists" I have a problem with.
Rather than break down each argument I'll just sum all three of your previous posts (Drj's most recent post excepted, as he was reduced to building a strawman argument so he could defeat it): All the scientists who are proponents of anthropogenic global warming are "politically motivated." Since this argument really isn't about global warming, but guessing the motivations behind other's actions which is a psychological issue, I'll let an unrelated paragraph from Psychology Today respond on my behalf: "If we label the motivation âevil,' we label it with no true understanding of - nor any attempt to understand - what goes on inside the mind of the perpetrator and, satisfied with our overly simplistic evaluation, we move on. Such labels are seductive because they provide us with a quick, easy explanation, freeing us from being burdened by complexities." Yes, it was easy for you three to unburden yourselves of complexities of the issue, but for the outside reader it simply doesn't make a compelling argument at all.
1a) Actually, I didn't. Please re-read my post. I said that u do not have enough data for a relevant sample, and the 4.5 bil years is the estimated age of the Sun, not an arbitrary number. Since I was referring to TSI from your link then u can see how it is relevant to the point I am trying to make, and goes hand in hand with my example. (Which in fairness, is not apples to apples to yours.) Also, I never stated that the ENTIRE population is relevant, just much more than what u have. 1b) Naturally I haven't because I said nothing of the sort. Also are u implying that with your "correct %", that u can predict the climate? 1c) I have no idea, nor any desire to research it, how is that for "intellectual cowardice". I will also explain why. The seasons are an observation, and all the relevant info is known, our distance from the Sun, how long 1 rotation is around the Sun, and the tilt of our axis. That is like "predicting" day and night, an observation of reality not a prediction of the future. You are comparing apples to hand grenades if you believe u have the same depth of information for global warming predictions, as u do for the seasons. 2a) You do not have enough info to predict anything, even with an option u do not have enough data to calculate historic vol, I guess u could use IV, but that has nothing to do with stats. BTW I also addressed how asinine it would be to attempt to predict the future price of any financial market/security/derivative using only historical statistics as they are not solely priced by math. Also, in the financial markets all of the rules are known (govt intervention aside), in nature they are not. 2b) I agree about having a propotion relative to your time frame in cases where eveything is uniform/linear (ie my manufacturing example). I disagree otherwise (as some factors are unknown). My whole point is that you do not know the full history of the sun's output, nor of our own climate, so your assumptions about their correlation, and historical norm are just guesses. 3) already addressed 4a) Whatever... 4b) Nope, my argument is that what we don't understand can't be PREDICTED. Certainly not using historical stats when most of the stats are missing. It seems to me that u believe that u can predict the future. If so... PROVE IT and I will believe everything u say...
Yep it is. I know over a dozen profitable traders and have sat right next to some of them, 5 of which have had multiple 7 fig years and none of them can predict the future. They may try but their trading isn't based on it. Here's a clue: NO ONE CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE. No. One. I think you have revealed that you are full of shit.
I think it's quite illustrative of human nature how people accept what suits them for whatever reason at the drop of a hat, but will bend over backwards to deny unpleasantless that stares them in the face. They will require a higher standard of evidence to dispute their chosen beliefs than the standard of evidence they require to support them. Double down, anyone?
I agree with your statement, and hope u aren't referring to me. I did not "choose" any belief. Those stats are not proof, are not relevant, and don't answer my original questions. If they were/did I would accept them.
Is there something wrong with u? I really don't give a fuck about this guys opinion. The majority of the planet believes in an almighty being, the majority of the planet believed the Earth was flat, the majority of the planet believed the universe revolved around us. Science proved them wrong, but the flawed "overwhelming evidence" being discussed in this thread is not proof. THE FUTURE CANNOT BE PREDICTED. Notice none of the other hard sciences predict anything, they use the scientific method to create hypothesis and math to prove themselves correct, they have practical application in reality. Climatologists do not. If you make a claim, then u must prove it not the other way around.