Tippaporn

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.

Oh, I'm not ignoring you, Bkk Brian. I just understand fully who I'm dealing with.

There you go again using fallacies of argument again. Experts can be lying, cheating scumbags, too. The label of expert in and of itself is meaningless. And what real expert would claim that what people read was misrepresented? When climate scientists say, in writing, that they made up data then how can that by misinterpreted and then misrepresented? I'd say those "experts" are lying, cheating scumbags and the only thing that is being misrepresented is labeling them "experts."

No, for you it's a pity that I refuse to play your game. And what follows naturally is the typical disingenuous made up accusations of deflection, trolling and beliefs.

Belief? You call reading the actual emails with my own eyes "belief." Who are you trying to gaslight?

Zero credibility, Bkk Brian. And that won't change. As I said, by refuting cold, hard facts you left not a shred of doubt as to who I'm dealing with.

Dictating how I must live my life due to combating global warming, and how I must pay for the effort, is not related to global warming? Come again?

Bkk Brian, you refuted evidence that I did not ask you numerous times the direct question of whether or not consensus equates to truth despite the hard evidence I showed you. At this point, Bkk Brian, I take you as one who will say anything, truth be damned, just so that you can make yourself right. You've less than zero credibility with me.

Climategate was real. It happened. You have to be in serious denial to brush that aside as if it never happened.

Climategate. Nothing to see there, right? Science can goal seek anything they want. I don't trust them on climate change and Covid certainly supports the legitimacy of my distrust.