re: What are your reasons for believing climate change is "a hoax"

quote:

---

How did you post this response from your dramatically slow down internet caused by net neutrality?

---

Huh?

quote:

---

If science is remotely related, it's time to run for the hills.

---

Wish that were different.

It's a fairly easy and logical walk down the scientific path to show that climate models are vastly oversold and vastly underwhelming. Too bad there's 32 pages of bullshite mixed in the fray.

quote:

---

climate models are vastly oversold and vastly underwhelming

---

I'd have to agree with this. But then I also believe the conspiracy theories are similarly oversold and underwhelming.

All of that said, there could actually be AGW, but the burden of proof is on those who make the claim. Unfortunately, if it actually does exist, our technology may not advance quickly enough to prove it before it's too late to do anything about it except flee the coasts.

But I never thought Climatology would make so many people so emotional.

Is it getting hot in here, or is it just me?

quote:

---

Wish that were different.

---

Me too. I actually tried to have actual tech discussions when I started posting. But it didn’t take long to understand that wasn’t going to be a very productive approach. Too many just aren’t capable of it. Hey canny even populate the energy balance much less get into boundary conditions, residuals, sensitivity analysis or flow models.

Stochcastics and non-continuous state variables (my specialty) are waaay out of reach. Look elsewhere. We’re just “conspiracy theorists” over here.

quote:

---

our technology may not advance quickly enough to prove it

---

The modeling tech already exists. It’s “difficult” to model, because it’s chasing a causality that doesn’t exist. As one of my mentors one noted “if you’re struggling to model something, it’s probably your model that’s broke, not the real world.”

quote:

---

tl;dr That's not how this works

---

ok, school me. I will absolutely read any information you have on the mechanics of research funding. Go for it.

Let’s face it. It’s much easier to shout “conspiracy theorist” than defend a IPCC model.

quote:

---

Well you are.

---

weak. I’ll be happy to hear your take on circulation errors caused by poor grid scaling in the GCM any time you like.

Until you can demonstrate some ability to discuss the issue intelligently, I’m going to presume it’s actuallu you blindly buying into other’s theories.

quote:

---

The modeling tech already exists

---

Not really, not to the resolution they need.

And without searching for context, Ill just re-post what was posted earlier:

quote:

---

Given that the current generation of global climate models represents the Earth in terms of grid-points spaced roughly 200 km apart, many features observed on smaller scales, such as individual cloud systems and cloud geometry, are not explicitly resolved.

---

And this...

quote:

---

As one of my mentors one noted “if you’re struggling to model something, it’s probably your model that’s broke, not the real world.”

---

...doesn't seem to support your point. Perhaps if he had said, "It's probably your hypothesis that's broke." then that would've supported your point better.