Jan 28

Stupidest question asked by a Congressman of Al Gore: "What does your modeling tell you about how long we’re going to be around as a species?"

By Editor Al Gore, computer modeling Comments Off on Stupidest question asked by a Congressman of Al Gore: "What does your modeling tell you about how long we’re going to be around as a species?"

He wasn’t kidding.

I’m not sure who asked it, the name was mangled in the audio, the camera didn’t show his name plate in front of him, and I didn’t recognize him. Lucky for him. He’ll avoid some measure of ridicule by not being named here. If anybody knows, please leave his name in the comments.

When people start asking computer models to give us obviously unknowable knowledge, clearly the predictive power of computer models is vastly over-estimated by laymen who’ve been duped by people like Al Gore into believing you can feed just about anything into a computer model, and out pops your answer.

I won’t go into Gore’s rather lengthy answer in this post, but it’s in the video here, at about 2:08:30. Even Gore chuckled after the question was asked.

UPDATE:

Matt Drudge thought this was a ridiculous question too, and his link to the WaPo indicates that the question was asked by Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho).

R?!?!?!?

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Oct 03

If computer models didn’t work for Wall Street, why should we rely on them to predict the climate?

By Editor computer modeling Comments Off on If computer models didn’t work for Wall Street, why should we rely on them to predict the climate?

Our financial crisis has many pieces, i.e. the risky mortgages, Fannie and Freddie Mac who bought and securitized those same mortgages, which led to the Wall Street firms that invested in them.

We now learn via The New York Times that the crisis experienced by these same Wall Street firms “traces back to a key meeting on April 28, 2004 of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). At that meeting, the SEC acquiesced to a request by big investments banks to change the regulation limiting the amount of debt such banks could accumulate.”

A lone voice objected. The Times:

“…a software consultant from Valparaiso, Ind., who said the computer models run by the firms — which the regulators would be relying on — could not anticipate moments of severe market turbulence.“With the stroke of a pen, capital requirements are removed!” the consultant, Leonard D. Bole, wrote to the commission on Jan. 22, 2004. “Has the trading environment changed sufficiently since 1997, when the current requirements were enacted, that the commission is confident that current requirements in examples such as these can be disregarded?”

Watts Up With That commenter Les Johnson (who inspired this post) asks:

Now, my question to the believers of Climate Models:

Should we invest 40 trillion in these models?

Les, that’s a very good question, and I’d say certainly not.

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Sep 07

American Thinker: "Yes, kids, science is a wonderful thing. But not nearly as wonderful as climate modeling, which can perform…miracles. Honest."

By Editor computer modeling, Nature Comments Off on American Thinker: "Yes, kids, science is a wonderful thing. But not nearly as wonderful as climate modeling, which can perform…miracles. Honest."

This article in Nature, prompted James Lewis at The American Thinker to write:

Yes, kids, science is a wonderful thing. But not nearly as wonderful as climate modeling, which can perform supernatural miracles. Honest! Climate modeling can raise the level of the oceans (even without Obama’s intervention), it can burn up the planet a hundred years from now, and Shazzam! — the models can save us again — all without leaving your video games, and without the benefit of the real-world data that you need for boring old regular science.

I won’t waste precious bytes with the boring details, but if you just have to read more click the link to the Nature article mentioned above.

Lewis continues his smack down of computer modeling:

In no other field of science can you create a garbage-in/garbage-out video game about one of the most complex nonlinear systems known to science, the earth climate, and make wild guesses and get paid for it — not to mention being celebrated in the pages of Nature. You just take a data point from fifty years ago, add another point from the 1990s, project it all to 2030, make inferences from chlorine to ozone to global warming, publish the result, and get celebrated for your non-existent proof of current pop orthodoxy about Armageddon.

And no, this is not “a big signal” in climate evidence, Professor Pyle. It’s a big signal in your model. If you tweak a dozen other variables you could change that result without ever leaving your desk. And what’s more, you and all the other global warming frauds out there know that perfectly well.

This is a sad reflection of the corruption of the scientific enterprise. Non fingo hypothesi, said Newton when he was urged to perform a similar miracle in his time: I do not make wildly speculative hypotheses. Today we do perform miracles of prediction, and earn Nobel Peace Prizes for superannuated politicians, not to mention billions of dollars to support fraudulent superstition in the name of science.

Today’s climate modeling has gone far beyond Isaac Newton. Or beyond any other scientist in history, for that matter. Today, we can not only predict the things that will happen to Planet Earth a hundred years from now within a few degrees Centigrade, we can also tell you about all the terrible things that woulda happened if our Green politicians hadn’t passed the Montreal Protocol.

Whoever said scientists don’t believe in miracles?

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
preload preload preload