McKinsey: Climate risk and response: Physical hazards and socioeconomic impacts

[WetEV]

I don't care for computer models much either. They can be made to show literally anything.
With out the source data or access to the programing there's reason to base major life decisions or changes on it.

The data required is very basic, and not in any reasonable doubt. Some basics of physics and basic measurements.

You get to write the source code, and the programming is spreadsheet level. Still good enough to show the concern.

Talk or walk?

[Oilpan4]

If it's so simple why all the secrecy?
If I was a card game enthusiast I might think they were trying to over play their hand.

[WetEV]

If it's so simple why all the secrecy?
If I was a card game enthusiast I might think they were trying to over play their hand.

What secrecy? Everything you need to know is public information and has been for decades.

I'd like to call your bluff. Talking or walking?

[Oilpan4]

Well its hard to make a computer model that isnt biased when what causes and how to fix the problem have already been determined. And additional possible explanations and remedies are ignored.

[WetEV]

Well its hard to make a computer model that isnt biased when what causes and how to fix the problem have already been determined. And additional possible explanations and remedies are ignored.

Sounds like a walk. Later dude, when you get back in touch with reality.

[Oilpan4]

So knowing that someone's bias can influence the outcome of a study means I'm out of touch with reality?
This is actually really well documented, yet you deny it?
Now that's the pot calling the kettle shinny.

[WetEV]

So knowing that someone's bias can influence the outcome of a study means I'm out of touch with reality?
This is actually really well documented, yet you deny it?
Now that's the pot calling the kettle shinny.

Physics doesn't have bias.
Put a rock in your hand, stand in the middle of the room, think Socialist. Let go of the rock, watch it fall.
Repeat with Fascist, Capitalist, and every other _ist and _ism you can think of.

Rock will fall EXACTLY as it did in every other case.

[Oilpan4]

Wasn't talking about physics, was talking about the humans doing it.
But if you have any more non arguments to add feel free to.

[WetEV]

Wasn't talking about physics, was talking about the humans doing it.
But if you have any more non arguments to add feel free to.

We were talking about physics, that's what drives climate models.

Or rather, I was talking physics. What were you talking about? Not physics.

[DaveinOlyWA]

Wasn't talking about physics, was talking about the humans doing it.
But if you have any more non arguments to add feel free to.

A lot of "studies" are thinly disguised advertising campaigns by the sponsors of the study but that does not apply in all cases. The "Human" aspect should be able to filter that out. Granted, its tough. Big money is paid to be convincing but the task is taking on monumental hurdles in the light of growing evidence to the contrary.

TBH; Anyone who still believes we are not responsible is clinging to 90's era studies that were nothing but BS the day they were published.

Lately, the naysayers argument is predicated on studying a single aspect of the Human existence and presenting evidence on why that single aspect is not enough to create change. That would be fine but we Humans are pushing the change from thousands of different angles. Anyone who denies that is most definitely out of it.