[AdamB]

They are all just wild a$$ed guesses and are full of built in bias's inadvertently built into them by the "concerned scientists" that build such things not realizing the "concern" that prompts them to undertake the considerable task taints every decision or parameter they program into the system.

If you can build a better model, build it. If not, you're not qualified to criticise. Back-seat drivers are entirely unnecessary.

No, but commentary from even the amateurs is allowed. Just look at peak oil for examples of that writ large.

[vtsnowedin]

No, but commentary from even the amateurs is allowed. Just look at peak oil for examples of that writ large.

Considering how many times the so called "Experts" have been found to be totally wrong on any number of subjects especially when there is a consensus of experts, I expect the accuracy of amateurs might be as good as these so experts called.
Remember before Nicolaus Copernicus’s 1543 book, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, the consensus of the experts was that earth was the center of the universe.

[AdamB]

No, but commentary from even the amateurs is allowed. Just look at peak oil for examples of that writ large.

Considering how many times the so called "Experts" have been found to be totally wrong on any number of subjects especially when there is a consensus of experts, I expect the accuracy of amateurs might be as good as these so experts called.
Remember before Nicolaus Copernicus’s 1543 book, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, the consensus of the experts was that earth was the center of the universe.

Well, there are experts, and there are amateurs, and there are no facts in the future. As far as amateurs being as good as experts, there is evidence of that, just as there is evidence that amateurs can barely get off the ground when it comes to complex topics, multi-disciniplinary topics, topics that require more expertise than amateurs can acquire in a lifetime of amateurhood.

You really want a McDonalds worker who read a book on "Practical Tips On Brain Surgery" doing any on you? Sort of like, as a local example, Monte Meyers thinking he knew anything about resource economics as it appied to crude oil. Or Matt Savinar. Or Mike Ruppert. Or perhaps we can pick real live experts, like M King Hubbert? Once we establish that there are no facts in the future, where would you like to start? How about the calculated probability of your brain surgeon fixing your inter-cranial blood clot, versus that of the McDonald's worker?

[vtsnowedin]

The facts are facts and still will be facts in the future. What is unknown about the future are events and new discoveries. Sometimes those new discoveries include what was long thought to be fact to be incorrect but most facts like gravity carry on no matter how much we think about them or try to find an alternative.
A skilled surgeon is indeed who you want working inside your head but his thoughts about climate change might well be 100% wrong.

[Newfie]

RE: Accuracy of Pundits

This is addressed in the book Thinking Fast and Slow, but not in detail.

Bottom line conclusions…..
Professionals may actually know better but frequently make emotion guided mistakes. So if a pro programs a computer it does pretty good, better than the pro.

Pundits, on average, do a wee bit worse than Joe 6 Pack.

[AdamB]

The facts are facts and still will be facts in the future.

There will be facts in the future, yes. As soon as it arrives, and instantly becomes the past.

What is unknown about the future are events and new discoveries.

Depends. For example, there is a high probability that there will be new discoveries of something like an oil field in the future. But it is not a fact, because the comet that we didn't spot, impacting the earth in 8 minutes from now, will completely erase all traces of humanity on this planet as it splits it into 2 other component parts, and disturb the orbits of both the Earth and Moon enough that within a billion years or so they might leave the Solar System or impact the Sun.

The future is nothing but infinite possibilities..not facts. Goodness, for all we know The Big Rip could happen in 8 minutes, and THEN where would we be?

A skilled surgeon is indeed who you want working inside your head but his thoughts about climate change might well be 100% wrong.

Good thing you don't ask brain surgeons about climate change then. Or peak oil.

[AdamB]

RE: Accuracy of Pundits

This is addressed in the book Thinking Fast and Slow, but not in detail.

Bottom line conclusions…..
Professionals may actually know better but frequently make emotion guided mistakes. So if a pro programs a computer it does pretty good, better than the pro.

Pundits, on average, do a wee bit worse than Joe 6 Pack.

So was the book focused on professional pundits, like scientists, making these mistakes because of emotion, or are are we talking about more of the talking bobble head instant experts perhaps never worked in the industry in their lives type pundits?

As just one example, I used to drill horizontal wells. So when I speculate on the doing of it, the theory and practice, the results, timing, sequencing and costs, these decades later, is that punditry on the engineering, physics and mechanics of the system, this book explains how I will out-pundited by a less emotionally involved (and thoroughly inexperienced) Joe Sixpack?

[vtsnowedin]

The future is nothing but infinite possibilities..not facts. Goodness, for all we know The Big Rip could happen in 8 minutes, and THEN where would we be?

You are trying to say that gravity and the periodic table of the elements and the speed of light etc. might all change in the future. That is absurd!

[AdamB]

The future is nothing but infinite possibilities..not facts. Goodness, for all we know The Big Rip could happen in 8 minutes, and THEN where would we be?

You are trying to say that gravity and the periodic table of the elements and the speed of light etc. might all change in the future. That is absurd!

I am saying several things, but none of what you made up on my behalf. I've always been fond of the cosmic collisions myself, on general principles. Followed closely by continental sized flood basalts.

You presuming that all is known is pretty amusing though. You and I have both been alive long enough to see that ridiculous idea come and go. Hell, peak oil alone is enough proof of where pretending to "know" the future gets you.

[vtsnowedin]

You presuming that all is known is pretty amusing though. .

I did not say that. I did say the facts will remain facts and future events will play out obeying the facts, not changing them. An asteroid falls to earth because of gravity. It heats up due to atmospheric friction, How it breaks up or not is determined by it's mass and the elements and compounds it consists of. If it strikes the earth the crater will be determined by it's mass and speed on impact. What is not known is how the flora and Fauna of the planet including you and I will fair if such an event happens but that too will be driven by the facts not wishful thinking.

[AdamB]

You presuming that all is known is pretty amusing though. .

I did not say that. I did say the facts will remain facts and future events will play out obeying the facts, not changing them. An asteroid falls to earth because of gravity. It heats up due to atmospheric friction, How it breaks up or not is determined by it's mass and the elements and compounds it consists of. If it strikes the earth the crater will be determined by it's mass and speed on impact. What is not known is how the flora and Fauna of the planet including you and I will fair if such an event happens but that too will be driven by the facts not wishful thinking.

Ok, I'll give you the laws of physics today, as the laws of physics, will continue to work tomorrow. But those laws don't assure your survival to see tomorrow any more than it does mine. Or this planet's. You are attempting to defend the knowing of tomorrow in the same form as gamblers ruin...because I have been winning at the tables, I will continue to win. But the odds of NOT winning are the same at every spin of the roullette wheel.

So while we all run around presuming that tomorrow will happen for us, us running around cannot be called a fact in the future. Nor the existence of the planet. We certainly hope the spin of the wheel doesn't land wrong though, and it is so instinctual we don't even think about the odds that it won't.

[vtsnowedin]

So while we all run around presuming that tomorrow will happen for us, us running around cannot be called a fact in the future. Nor the existence of the planet.

Well if you are worried about the planet earth not existing in the future there is little hope for you.

[AdamB]

So while we all run around presuming that tomorrow will happen for us, us running around cannot be called a fact in the future. Nor the existence of the planet.

Well if you are worried about the planet earth not existing in the future there is little hope for you.

The planet earth will NOT exist in the future, that is just the consequence of our distance from a Population 1 yellow dwarf star in its main sequence. Lets not confuse the rules of the universe now with someone's irrational fear of the future.

[Doly]

The future is nothing but infinite possibilities..not facts.

Some things about the future can be predicted with an extremely high degree of certainty, though. Like, years are extremely likely to continue having the same number of days, and that sort of thing.

[AdamB]

The future is nothing but infinite possibilities..not facts.

Some things about the future can be predicted with an extremely high degree of certainty, though.

I have never implied otherwise. The odds are quite high that the Sun will rise tomorrow. And in the East.

Like, years are extremely likely to continue having the same number of days, and that sort of thing.

Sure. And it is unlikely that our planet and species will be blasted out existence before dawn tomorrow. But the odds of it happening exist. They just happen to be low.

[Doly]

To clarify my position on models, experts and amateurs, when it comes to climate change models: I don't have a problem with amateurs making comments or asking questions about models, and I definitely respect any amateur that tries to come up with their own models (I'm in that club myself). But I do have a problem with people making claims that models are wrong and in the self-interest of experts without providing any specific issues that they have a problem with, just some general comment about experts being self-interested bastards. To anybody that wants to come with that argument, show me your better model. If you can't come up with a better idea, it sounds suspiciously like being jealous of the people that can do better than you.

[AdamB]

But I do have a problem with people making claims that models are wrong and in the self-interest of experts without providing any specific issues that they have a problem with, just some general comment about experts being self-interested bastards.

I am quite familiar with this attitude, within my own family no less. I have found it best to just nod as though in agreement when one of these types of conversations begins.

To anybody that wants to come with that argument, show me your better model. If you can't come up with a better idea, it sounds suspiciously like being jealous of the people that can do better than you.

There is some component of jealousy mixed in here, in part because someone with 20 years of practical experience (say, in hands on bridge inspections?) is required to get their snot nosed engineer boss 15 years their junior and making more money to boot who doesn't know squat sign off on their work, and lecture them on some detail that might be important to a pencil pushing bureacrat boss, but the person with 20 years experience knows is just non-essential nonsense.

It isn't that uncommon of an attitude in general, actually.

[vtsnowedin]

To clarify my position on models, experts and amateurs, when it comes to climate change models: I don't have a problem with amateurs making comments or asking questions about models, and I definitely respect any amateur that tries to come up with their own models (I'm in that club myself). But I do have a problem with people making claims that models are wrong and in the self-interest of experts without providing any specific issues that they have a problem with, just some general comment about experts being self-interested bastards. To anybody that wants to come with that argument, show me your better model. If you can't come up with a better idea, it sounds suspiciously like being jealous of the people that can do better than you.

But I do have a problem with people making claims that models are wrong and in the self-interest of experts

To be more precise I said that none of the existing models work well enough to be called accurate . Not that someone might build a truly accurate model, just that it hasn't happened yet. And it is not "self interest" that gets in the way of building better models as they are not skewing things to enhance their paychecks but rather their interest in the subject makes them a bit blind to any evidence that goes against what they hope to show with their model. This willingness to believe any data that goes their way while always making excuses for data that does not, skews their results and is not intentional and they will deny they let any such bias effect their figures. But being truly objective about a project or experiment you have designed or built is a hard thing for any human being to actually do.

[Doly]

This willingness to believe any data that goes their way while always making excuses for data that does not, skews their results and is not intentional and they will deny they let any such bias effect their figures. But being truly objective about a project or experiment you have designed or built is a hard thing for any human being to actually do.

That's the sort of question that statistics is meant to help with. If you actually do your best to obtain unbiased results, according to what statistics textbooks recommend, you can be rather confident of them.

[AdamB]

This willingness to believe any data that goes their way while always making excuses for data that does not, skews their results and is not intentional and they will deny they let any such bias effect their figures. But being truly objective about a project or experiment you have designed or built is a hard thing for any human being to actually do.

That's the sort of question that statistics is meant to help with. If you actually do your best to obtain unbiased results, according to what statistics textbooks recommend, you can be rather confident of them.

Ah yes.....the confidence in using the language of science. You are, of course, correct. Sort of. I can recall a spirited conversation with the board review members of the ASA about not whether or not the statistics demonstrated the proper level of confidence in the results, or rather hadn't even been applied to the proper part of the system being modeled. Peak oilers were quite enthusiastic about their prediction accuracy, many equations and much data were used, scenarios of all sorts, and look where that got them.

Was it because they didn't know statistics? Or was it because they didn't know much about the underpinnings of the system they were trying to analyze?