Is Modeling Bull?

[Masterofreality]

It has been proven through this pandemic that the models developed by "scientists" have been ridiculously inaccurate.

Which Model Do you think is more Wrong?

[CSS85]

It has been proven through this pandemic that the models developed by "scientists" have been ridiculously inaccurate.

Which Model Do you think is more Wrong?

Not sure if you can choose one over another. This is an interesting article explaining why they are so wrong, both in terms of ignoring actual data and in why that bias to be wrong exists.

https://unherd.com/thepost/nobel-pri...r-exponential/

[Masterofreality]

Not sure if you can choose one over another. This is an interesting article explaining why they are so wrong, both in terms of ignoring actual data and in why that bias to be wrong exists.

https://unherd.com/thepost/nobel-pri...r-exponential/

That is extremely interesting. This was amazingly pertinent:

"More generally, he complains that epidemiologists only seem to be called wrong if they underestimate deaths, and so there is an intrinsic bias towards caution. “They see their role as scaring people into doing something, and I understand that… but in my work, if I say a number is too small and I’m wrong, or too big and I’m wrong, both of those errors are the same.”

He believes the much-discussed R0 is a faulty number, as it is meaningless without the time infectious alongside.

He describes indiscriminate lockdown measures as “a huge mistake,” and advocates a “smart lockdown” policy, focused on more effective measures, focused on protecting elderly people."

And this:
"There is no doubt in my mind, that when we come to look back on this, the damage done by lockdown will exceed any saving of lives by a huge factor."

He sure seems to have solid math on his side. And anyone needs to listen to his interview. It truly is remarkable and he is definitely no Quack but a Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry!

[XU 87]

I naturally had to go with the Global Warming projections. Nothing can top how wrong those have been. A lot of people have actually died from Corona. So those models are at least partly correct, albeit way off.

[Muskie in dayton]

It has been proven through this pandemic that the models developed by "scientists" have been ridiculously inaccurate.

Which Model Do you think is more Wrong?

Modeling done correctly is not bull and is a great tool. But garbage in, garbage out. COVID-19 modeling is garbage in as discussed in another thread.

[Muskie in dayton]

I naturally had to go with the Global Warming projections. Nothing can top how wrong those have been. A lot of people have actually died from Corona. So those models are at least partly correct, albeit way off.

It is not possible to realistically model global warming. The earth is too large and complex of a system to define, plus there are many variables to consider- some of which are poorly understood. Also the amount of historical data available (temperature, %CO2) to use to calibrate is so small, it’s irrelevant.

That doesn’t change the fact that atmospheric CO2 is increasing due to fossil fuel consumption, causing a net warming effect. How much and what it all means we won’t know for centuries.

[Masterofreality]

It is not possible to realistically model global warming. The earth is too large and complex of a system to define, plus there are many variables to consider- some of which are poorly understood. Also the amount of historical data available (temperature, %CO2) to use to calibrate is so small, it’s irrelevant.

That doesn’t change the fact that atmospheric CO2 is increasing due to fossil fuel consumption, causing a net warming effect. How much and what it all means we won’t know for centuries.

“Centuries? WE DON’T HAVE CENTURIES!! WE HAVE 8 YEARS!! GREEN NEW DEAL NOW!!!!!”- Alexandria Ocasio Cortez probably.

[bobbiemcgee]

Cheryl Tiegs is 72 yrs. old and looks like crap.

[xeus]

Cheryl Tiegs is 72 yrs. old and looks like crap.

Nihilism is trending.

[paulxu]

And this:
"There is no doubt in my mind, that when we come to look back on this, the damage done by lockdown will exceed any saving of lives by a huge factor."

He sure seems to have solid math on his side. And anyone needs to listen to his interview. It truly is remarkable and he is definitely no Quack but a Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry!

This may finally answer that age old question of how much is a human life worth. The court system would appreciate that statistic.

Also the amount of historical data available (temperature, %CO2) to use to calibrate is so small, it’s irrelevant.

I think they have ice core samples on CO2 going back about 800,000 years from Antarctica.