re: Biden tapping Bill Nye the 'not really a' science guy

quote:

---

posts of drivel.

---

In fairness, he came with some interesting stuff. Unfortunately, it was overdosed with loads of snide stupidity.

E.g., I'd have enjoyed discussing the Friedman equations because as opposed to their addressing relative balance of dark energy, matter, radiation, curvature, my understanding was they only relate how those components influence expansion and evolution of the universe, not the component proportions or balance. But at this point, that discussion sure ain't happening.

In the end, it was like sitting down with someone for a nice dinner, only to find they have godawful table manners. After one too many views of open-mouthed chewing, smacking, and talking with their mouth full, you just finally shake your head, push your plate away, and bid adieu.

It was an enjoyable discussion. Then you go distracted by the word "concern"? Remember?

More accurate to say the Friedman equations give us the expansion rate and then it's trivial to plug that into the cosmological equations of state to get the relative balance.

quote:

---

What's a "perturbed physics ensemble" ?

---

I'm gonna go on a limb and guess you know nothing about boundary conditions, residuals, or discontinuity handling in climate models either. But I'm sure you trust them.

What you guys don't seem to get, is the rest of the world has kinda moved on. As with everything in science, the acceptance of AGW is provisional. But we would need some evidence to the contrary to re-open the question. For the same reason, astronomers don't feel the need to debate over whether or not the Earth is flat.

You reject scientific modelling as if you are oblivious to the central role it plays in science and without even bothering to understand how those models are built or how to interpret the results.


You cite random facts like "CO2 not the primary driver of natural climate change" as if you've proven something, but you're really just revealing that you were too lazy to educate yourself on the arguments behind AGW.

You fail to understand 3rd grade level science by declaring CO2 cannot possibly have any effect on anything because its volume relative to the other constituents of the atmosphere is too low, as if the rates of all physical processes depend on volume and volume alone.


You quote journalists and politicians as if they are original sources of scientific information, and when you do actually bother to cite a scientific source, you haven't even read it except *maybe* the abstract but usually not.

You trust scientists with undisclosed funding sources, some of who are known liars like Willie Soon, more than you do scientists with transparent government funding sources because ---- uga uga government bad big corp good!


And you cherry pick the most dire climate predictions of the past, completely ignoring the fact the contingency the model was based on did not actually happen.


You are ignorant of the most basic facts regarding science driven environmentalism, which leads you to say things that just sound so dumb to anyone who has done even an hour of reading on the topic. My favorite is "Well what happened to the ozone hole ?!?"


You keep bringing back the same old arguments that have been repeatedly debunked as if they should be given time.

And your mind is completely and utterly closed to the possibility you may be wrong. You have zero sense of self-skepticism. That is the primary difference between the armchair scientist and the entire rest of science, including professionals and amateurs.




So, the rest of us are moving on from the "debate" and unless you got some evidence ***and an argument that goes with it*** that ain't already been trotted out before, you can stomp your feet all you want we don't care. And by "we" I mean everyone but you, the flat Earthers, and the creation "science" people.

This includes insurance companies. You should be aware of that and plan accordingly. Don't come whining to me when your policy gets yanked. A lotta states have laws that require insurance companies base their risk assessments on **past** events. Well that ain't good enough anymore, the climate is changing too quickly. So they are just withdrawing from markets altogether. I don't know what insurance laws are in Louisiana, but either way, there's always plenty of incentive for politicians on both sides to try and keep insurance rates low, even if that means insurance companies lose money. So they'll just withdraw.


Have fun.

quote:

---

I'm gonna go on a limb and guess you know nothing about boundary conditions, residuals, or discontinuity handling in climate models either. But I'm sure you trust them.

---

I'd actually love to know your criticism regarding boundary conditions. That would elevate this discussion from "useless" to "potentially worthwhile"

quote:

---

I'm not answering stupid questions. Sorry.

---

You never answer questions alter troll.

quote:

---

I don’t have a criticism on boundary conditions.

---

Then why did you throw out the term as if there was something I might be missing?

quote:

---

They are necessary to run a model.

---

Wow that's insightful. Can you tell the class how important it is that we use the ***correct** boundary conditions?

quote:

---

So your request doesn’t seem to even make sense.

---

It kinda does actually. You used the term as if it pertained to some particular criticism of AGW you might have, but I guess not. What was the point then? Just to show us you know some jargon?

quote:

---

One could only discuss the boundary conditions of specific models,

---

Yeah, well I figured you had one in mind, since you brought it up. I figured you probably also had in mind a particular BC within that model to discuss. But you don't. So again, what was the point of your statement?

quote:

---

which is well beyond the scope of a message board post.

---

That's OK they have these things called "links"

Guess that answers my questions. Have fun with your crayons.

quote:

---

why I should waste my time with something like that?

---

message boards are hard!

Way to sell your point of view.