Tippaporn

Again, it's so typical of you, placeholder, to find a single point upon which you can then dismiss the entire article and the evidence it provides. I call that disingenuous. ABSTRACT In this paper, I highlight a problem that has become ubiquitous in scientific applications of machine learning methods, and can lead to seriously distorted inferences about the phenomena under study. I call it the prediction-explanation fallacy. The fallacy occurs when researchers use prediction-optimized models for explanatory purposes, without considering the tradeoffs between explanation and prediction. Climate change predictions are based on astrology? Tarot cards? Or computer modeling? This shouldn't be a difficult question to answer. It's obvious you still did not read the entire paper. Which goes back again to your screaming demands of countering evidence only to dismiss such evidence by skimming to find the single point which you can use to discredit or dismiss the evidence. You're playing a game, here, placeholder.

Of course Bill Gates is an outlier in the billionaire class who believes that Big Green is not a money maker.

You forgot your TM. Someone's gonna steal that from you one day and you'll have to pay to use it. Just sayin'. They are men with household names like Jeff Bezos (net worth: $113 billion, according to Forbes), Mike Bloomberg ($77 billion) and Bill Gates ($106 billion), along with other billionaires who have lower profiles but equally large climate ambition. Their role as shadow policymakers has grown amid the evolution of the Biden administration climate agenda and the recent U.N. Climate Change Conference in Egypt, known as COP27, where their projects were on prominent display. From one of you're most venerable and trusted sources, the Washington Post. So eat it up. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/12/12/billionaires-climate/ "Do you understand that by making such an allegation you only confirm that your thought processes are risibly conspiratorial?" Now what were you saying?

Published in Towards Data Science Marco Del Giudice University of New Mexico The Prediction-Explanation Fallacy:  A Pervasive Problem in Scientific Applications of Machine Learning ". . . the thought processes behind your objections are so clearly irrational." Yes, these people are irrational lunatics thinking only irrational thoughts. But then isn't anyone who counters your narrative? Isn't discrediting your go-to tactic? Discrediting for the mere crime of having countering evidence? Debunking for the sole sake of being right? Are you at all interested in truth, placholder? I don't see it. You ask for countering evidence, placeholder, and then disingenuously dismiss it out of hand giving faulty, illogical reasons. You truly must think we're stupid here.

". . . vast worldwide conspiracy . . . " Of course not. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Still haven't read what I linked to. Typical. Isn't it fraudulent to demand evidence for opposing claims only to then ignore that evidence entirely out of hand? Are you pulling my leg here?

Have you ever noticed that fact-checkers most always go in one direction? They're not really in the business of discerning any truth. Their business model is strictly to "debunk" any and all opposing narratives. Just a silly question, I know, but have you personally "debunked" that yourself? Did you do any research with the actual raw data and objectively determine for yourself whether or not these older models actually did correctly predict global warming? Or, is this what they're telling you and as you have no way of fact checking yourself you simply accept what they tell you at face value. Surrendering all of your precious trust? Actually, the two questions are rhetorical as we already know the answers.

I guess you didn't read any of the links. Typical. Your trademark punchline: You've got nothing.™ But when someone does provide rational counter arguments you don't even bother reading any of it. What a joke. Everyone here is hip to it, though. You're only here to parrot what the MSM convinces you to be the truth. You're not a climatologist, nor a researcher, nor do you have access to any of the raw data. So all of your information comes from sources you trust. And as long as you trust it (trust being another holy assumption) then what they tell you is Gospel. It is beyond your comprehension that anyone dare not trust your "trusted" sources.

My God, life carries risks. When did you discover that?

Predictions can be possible but only if and when conditions do not change. And as nothing ever remains the same the validity of such predictions are limited to the very near term future. Most long term predictions are predicated on nothing changing in the long term. An impossibility. Again, the ecosystem is a highly complex system and I would heartily laugh at anyone claiming they understand it so thoroughly that they are able to make long term predictions. Predictions out to 2050, let alone 2300, are worthless. But for the uninitiated they do the trick of fooling them to believe such nonsense to be possible. There are a number of posters here who believe in this fallacy of prediction. I won't name names as it's unnecessary to do so.

You couldn't have had time to read all of the linked materials before reacting with a laugh. Typical.

"Manufacturing firearms is not especially harmful." Why the qualifier?

That report, developed by several federal agencies – including NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Geological Survey – expect significant sea level rise over the next 30 years by region. They projected 10 to 14 inches (25 to 35 centimeters) of rise on average for the East Coast, 14 to 18 inches (35 to 45 centimeters) for the Gulf Coast, and 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters) for the West Coast. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3232/nasa-study-rising-sea-level-could-exceed-estimates-for-us-coasts/ Let's meet again in 27 years. The new estimates . . . Revisions, revisions and more revisions as the crystal ball is in a never ending state of being massaged and tweaked with new data replacing old data, new theories replacing old theories, and the entire predictive modeling in constant flux. The high-end global mean sea-level rise is now projected to be up to 1.3-1.6 meter for strong warming in 2100. We focus on the year 2100 because there is significantly more information available for this time horizon than for any other date in time. Moreover, the physical understanding decreases significantly (LOL) after this time horizon. https://www.uu.nl/en/news/new-high-end-estimate-of-sea-level-rise-projections-for-2100-and-2300 Let's meet again in 77 years. Table 2 indicates that the projected temperature has a large effect on the projected high-end SLR during the 21st century and beyond. It also shows that the long timescales associated with slow processes in the ocean and ice sheets provide a strong incentive for mitigation. An SLR of 10 m by 2300 would be extremely challenging and costly, suggesting the need for a near-universal retreat from the present coastline including the most developed and valuable areas, or alternatively, protection/advance on a scale that is hard to envisage, even where artificial protection is the norm today. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022EF002751 Let's meet again in 277 years. Note: Let's not forget that the assumption is that this rise is due strictly and only due to climate change. What's the old axiom? Assumption is the mother of all f-u's. You and others, placeholder, love and worship your assumptions and take them to be the absolute word of God Science. The Prediction-Explanation Fallacy: A Pervasive Problem in Scientific Applications of Machine Learning However, previous authors have focused mainly on the other side of the issue—namely, the fact that “classical” statistical models optimized for accurate explanation tend to perform badly in prediction tasks (more on this later). My goal is to redress this imbalance, by explicitly discussing the limitations and pitfalls of predictive models when they are used in the context of scientific explanation. As I demonstrate below, the prediction-explanation fallacy can lead to distorted and misleading conclusions—not only about the results of a single analysis, but also about the robustness and replicability of the phenomenon under study. The Fallacy of Forecasting in a Complex World “Statistical prediction is only valid in sterile laboratory conditions, which suddenly isn’t as useful as it seemed before”- Gary King Another holy assumption you guys like to make - despite the fact that the global ecosystem is barely understood it is understood well enough to make claims of climate change due to human activity with absolute certainty.

The technology isn't here yet. But never you mind. We'll go full bore ahead anyway and ignore any disastrous consequences. Tell me that's not cultish behaviour. BTW, if I ever owned an EV, and I never will, I wouldn't be so stupid as to park it anywhere near my house knowing that if the battery lights up, and there's no guarantee that it can't happen, and if parked in my garage then my house would catch on fire, too. Som nam na. Shouldn't EV's be considered fire hazards and laws passed to prohibit parking them anywhere where they could catch anything on fire? Nah. Of course not. People might not want to buy them and we can't have that. From Fortune: Electric-vehicle fires have burned down homes after Hurricane Ian saltwater damage. Florida officials want answers

Credit where credit is due. You certainly have a knack for taking your punishment and carrying on unperturbed. Though none the wiser. In a macabre sort of way you're a funny fellow. Also, credit for possessing infinite patience. Which you'll need.

Moral of the story? Records are meant to be broken.

I'll let you know when my memory comes back. It worked for you, right?

You needn't link. I know where to find it. You answered only after your denial of the truth was exposed. Too little too late.

". . . like I said I deal in facts and evidence only." Except when the facts and evidence say that I did ask you numerous times to answer the question of whether or not consensus equates to truth. All of a sudden you had a memory lapse and when confronted with facts and evidence you denied the truth of it. So we are now to take you on your word? You must think we're all stupid here. Zero credibility, my friend. You've squandered it.

Gee, Bkk Brian. I don't remember you asking me straight up. Of all people, I'm sure you're the perfect one to understand.

Not meaning to step in on you, Yellowtail but I just want to let Bkk Brian know that he's proving the point I made in my previous post about feigning ignorance because he's claiming you didn't give any other reasons for the mosquito migration when I, as a third party, see that you did. Bkk Brian is also proving your point, too.

I always find it amazing that people who come off as amazingly intelligent and perceptive then at other times feign being dumb as rocks and incapable of understanding even the simplest things. I just now showed the two images to my 11 year old daughter and she got the answer straight away.

Uhm . . . er . . . hmm . . . ah . . . psy op?

Well, seeing as I don't own a person spacecraft then why heed the warnings? Besides, even if I did where would I fly to? What a ridiculous analogy.

These people used to be thought of as crazy. Now they want to be taken seriously.