On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 6:31:21 PM UTC-3, Piotr wrote:

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:17:24 PM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:28:12 PM UTC-3, Piotr wrote:

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:10:55 AM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:

Nie badalem tematu ale niewykluczone, ze sa jakies matematyczne modele efektywnosci systemow w tym demokratycznych w uzaleznieniu od specyficznych warunkow. A jak nie ma, to by sie przydaly, zamiast dziesiatkow nowych modeli klimatycznych, tak

jakby te czynily na obecnym etapie jakas zasadnicza roznice

.
What you are talking about? There are no "10s of new climatic models" - not the
state-of-the-art GCM global models. And we need more than one because of the importance of the
ACTIONABLE advice to the societies THESE MODELS PROVIDE - if we emit this amount of greenhouse gases - this will be the consequences, if we emit that amount - that would be the consequences.

As OPPOSED to your proposal, that would see shifting the research effort away from the societally important and actionable advice the climate change which reality you deny for your ideological reasons, and onto completely USELESS socially knowledge:

if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
would say - "That's it, the Strak's Model has spoken: we have no choice but listen to the Strak
- let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown J. Kaczynski!

And conversely, if the Model told Russia or Saudi Arabia that the democracy is better for them - I can already see Putin and Saudi crown princes - giving up their power. ;-)

This would have be obvious to the OLD Andrew Strak, the one whose IQ later dropped precipitously
and whose personality and views changed drastically, after what your own Mentor, Dr. Kleczkowski, diagnosed on scp as "Cudowne, CUDOWNE Przejrzenie pana Andrzeja" - and compared to the change of personality and views of St. Paul on the road to

Damascus. Unfortunately for you, as the saying goes - you tell a man by how he finishes, not by how he started.

===
Piotr

You need them in order to stay busy, Mr Trela. Nothing truly more than that as per enclosed citation. Whst is our humanity return on this ‘investment’? Or just mostly spinning the wheels?

Who of us two is spinning the wheels se below:

While the results from only around 40 CMIP6 models have been published so far, it is already evident that a number of them have a notably higher climate sensitivity than models in CMIP5.

You seeing a tree a missed the forest Mr. Strak. 40 groups running in COORDINATION versions/modifications of the SAME same model generation - "CMIP6", Mr. Strak. Part of the exploration of the same single model generation ("CMIP6") and comparing it to

the ensemble average from the PREVIOUS model generation ("CMIP5").

Ergo NEW research required for these new runs/tiny modification of the ALREADY EXISTING MODELS is MINISCULE compared to designing from scratch and testing a COMLETELY NEW GCM model.

Hence the chalenge to YOUR CLAIM - the climate models do not steal resources from other EQUALLY or MORE DESERVING projects, because your Idiot Model Proposal to use
supercomputer to calculate whether democracy or autocracy is better - is neither of them:

1. Politology is NOWHERE NEAR as quantitative as atmospheric science - here you have well-known laws of thermodynamics - there your have ... qualitative, usually subjective and
politically driven OPINIONS of individual politologists, most of whom you would probably
dismiss as "woke". Data/concepts in political "sciences" are malleable and subjective
- a Russian state propagandist would claim that Russia is a democracy. The data
needed for any decent quantitative model - either does not exist, is not collected,
cannot be trusted (ask a Russian what he really thinks about the Russia's war on the Ukraine)
or may be kept as a state secret by the autocratic governments suppressing it or using it to their advantage.

Hence your proposal the use supercomputers on such poorly-defined, subjective, unreliable, incomplete data connected with non-quantitative concepts - is an idiocy, and only tells. Mr. Strak, how far your mind is gone, compared to, say, 20 years ago.

2. MORE IMPORTANTLY, UNLIKE climate models - NO USEFUL, read ACTIONABLE, recommendations can be drawn from your idiot models. See my previous post:

We need more than one GCM climatic model, because of the importance of the ACTIONABLE advice to the societies THESE MODELS PROVIDE - if we emit this amount of greenhouse gases - this will be the consequences, if we emit that amount - that would be the consequences.
As OPPOSED to your proposal, that would see shifting the research effort away from the societally important and actionable advice on the climate change, which reality you deny for your ideological reasons, and onto completely socially USELESS knowledge:
if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
would say - "That's it, the Strak has spoken: we have no choice but follow the Strak
- let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown J. Kaczynski!
And conversely, if the Strak Model told Russia or Saudi Arabia that the democracy
is better for them - I can already see Putin and Saudi crown princes nodding their
heads and ... giving up their power. ;-)
=====

So, sorry, Mr. Strak, but your politically-correct attempt to hijack a COMPLETELY different discussion (whether democracy works or not) to try to discredit ... the science of climate change - did not pan out as you hoped.
But given you mental state in recent years, as reflected in your posts on scp - this outcome
should not be a surprise.

===
Piotr

Mr Trela, are you a compulsory liar? The following info is from 2015 and your ideological cronies keep modeling like crazy. Obviously it consumes lots of money why starving of funding other domains of science at the same time. Is it not long time overdue
to take it under reasonable control by some more sober and practical minds?

CMIP
The climate science community has recognized for some time the need to standardize upon a set of climate change modeling experiments to help compare the different models and improve our understanding of the climate system. This has been termed the
Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). The present generation of CMIP models is called CMIP5 (link is external), since it marks Phase 5 in a successive series of sets of models. This phase is largely complete. Work is beginning on design of CMIP6,
but finalized datasets will not be starting to emerge from this new phase until roughly 2017. At present the CMIP5 effort incorporates 62 different models from 29 different modeling groups.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:31:16 AM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 6:31:21 PM UTC-3, Piotr wrote:

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:17:24 PM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:28:12 PM UTC-3, Piotr wrote:

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:10:55 AM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:

Nie badalem tematu ale niewykluczone, ze sa jakies matematyczne modele efektywnosci systemow w tym demokratycznych w uzaleznieniu od specyficznych warunkow. A jak nie ma, to by sie przydaly, zamiast dziesiatkow nowych modeli klimatycznych, tak

jakby te czynily na obecnym etapie jakas zasadnicza roznice

.
What you are talking about? There are no "10s of new climatic models" - not the
state-of-the-art GCM global models. And we need more than one because of the importance of the
ACTIONABLE advice to the societies THESE MODELS PROVIDE - if we emit this amount of greenhouse gases - this will be the consequences, if we emit that amount - that would be the consequences.

As OPPOSED to your proposal, that would see shifting the research effort away from the societally important and actionable advice the climate change which reality you deny for your ideological reasons, and onto completely USELESS socially

knowledge:

if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
would say - "That's it, the Strak's Model has spoken: we have no choice but listen to the Strak
- let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown J. Kaczynski!

And conversely, if the Model told Russia or Saudi Arabia that the democracy is better for them - I can already see Putin and Saudi crown princes - giving up their power. ;-)

This would have be obvious to the OLD Andrew Strak, the one whose IQ later dropped precipitously
and whose personality and views changed drastically, after what your own Mentor, Dr. Kleczkowski, diagnosed on scp as "Cudowne, CUDOWNE Przejrzenie pana Andrzeja" - and compared to the change of personality and views of St. Paul on the road to

Damascus. Unfortunately for you, as the saying goes - you tell a man by how he finishes, not by how he started.

===
Piotr

You need them in order to stay busy, Mr Trela. Nothing truly more than that as per enclosed citation. Whst is our humanity return on this ‘investment’? Or just mostly spinning the wheels?

Who of us two is spinning the wheels se below:

While the results from only around 40 CMIP6 models have been published so far, it is already evident that a number of them have a notably higher climate sensitivity than models in CMIP5.

You seeing a tree a missed the forest Mr. Strak. 40 groups running in COORDINATION versions/modifications of the SAME same model generation - "CMIP6", Mr. Strak. Part of the exploration of the same single model generation ("CMIP6") and comparing it

to the ensemble average from the PREVIOUS model generation ("CMIP5").

Ergo NEW research required for these new runs/tiny modification of the ALREADY EXISTING MODELS is MINISCULE compared to designing from scratch and testing a COMLETELY NEW GCM model.

Hence the chalenge to YOUR CLAIM - the climate models do not steal resources from other EQUALLY or MORE DESERVING projects, because your Idiot Model Proposal to use
supercomputer to calculate whether democracy or autocracy is better - is neither of them:

1. Politology is NOWHERE NEAR as quantitative as atmospheric science - here you have well-known laws of thermodynamics - there your have ... qualitative, usually subjective and
politically driven OPINIONS of individual politologists, most of whom you would probably
dismiss as "woke". Data/concepts in political "sciences" are malleable and subjective
- a Russian state propagandist would claim that Russia is a democracy. The data
needed for any decent quantitative model - either does not exist, is not collected,
cannot be trusted (ask a Russian what he really thinks about the Russia's war on the Ukraine)
or may be kept as a state secret by the autocratic governments suppressing it or using it to their advantage.

Hence your proposal the use supercomputers on such poorly-defined, subjective, unreliable, incomplete data connected with non-quantitative concepts - is an idiocy, and only tells. Mr. Strak, how far your mind is gone, compared to, say, 20 years ago.

2. MORE IMPORTANTLY, UNLIKE climate models - NO USEFUL, read ACTIONABLE, recommendations can be drawn from your idiot models. See my previous post:

We need more than one GCM climatic model, because of the importance of the ACTIONABLE advice to the societies THESE MODELS PROVIDE - if we emit this amount of greenhouse gases - this will be the consequences, if we emit that amount - that would be the consequences.
As OPPOSED to your proposal, that would see shifting the research effort away from the societally important and actionable advice on the climate change, which reality you deny for your ideological reasons, and onto completely socially USELESS

knowledge:

if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
would say - "That's it, the Strak has spoken: we have no choice but follow the Strak
- let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown J. Kaczynski!
And conversely, if the Strak Model told Russia or Saudi Arabia that the democracy
is better for them - I can already see Putin and Saudi crown princes nodding their
heads and ... giving up their power. ;-)
=====

So, sorry, Mr. Strak, but your politically-correct attempt to hijack a COMPLETELY different discussion (whether democracy works or not) to try to discredit ... the science of climate change - did not pan out as you hoped.
But given you mental state in recent years, as reflected in your posts on scp - this outcome
should not be a surprise.

===
Piotr

Mr Trela, are you a compulsory liar? The following info is from 2015 and your ideological cronies keep modeling like crazy.

Mr. Andrew Strak and the best arguments his mind can come up with:
- "Mr Trela, are you a compulsory liar?"
- and venting about "my cronies" from NASA and other Great Global Scientists Conspiracy
insitutions - "[you] keep modeling like crazy"

On behalf of my Cronies From NASA - Ouch!

And all the Brilliant Arguments from the head of Andew Strak come in his response to:

====
PT: NEW research required for these new runs/tiny modification of the ALREADY EXISTING MODELS is MINISCULE compared to designing from scratch and testing a COMLETELY NEW GCM model.

Hence the chalenge to YOUR CLAIM - the climate models do not steal resources from other EQUALLY or MORE DESERVING projects, because your Idiot Model proposal to use
supercomputers to ... calculate whether democracy or autocracy is better - is neither of them:

1. Politology is NOWHERE NEAR as quantitative as atmospheric sciences:
- here you have well-known laws of thermodynamics - there your have ... qualitative, usually
subjective and politically-driven OPINIONS of individual politologists, most of whom
you would probably dismiss as "woke".

- data/concepts to be used in the political "sciences" models are malleable and
subjective, e.g.: a Russian state propagandist would claim that Russia is a democracy.

-the data needed for any decent quantitative model - either do not exist, are not collected,
cannot be trusted (interview a Russian in Russia what he REALLY thinks about the
Russia's war on the Ukraine ... ;-)), or is kept as a state secret by the autocratic governments suppressing it, or using it to their advantage.

Hence your proposal the use supercomputers on such POORLY-DEFINED, SUBJECTIVE, UNRELIABLE, and INCOMPLETA data, connected with POORLY QUANTIFIABLE concepts
- is an Idiocy, and only tells. Mr. Strak, how far your mind has gone in recent years.

2. MORE IMPORTANTLY, UNLIKE climate models - NO USEFUL, read: ACTIONABLE, recommendations can be drawn from your idiot models. See my previous post:

" We need GCM climatic models, because of the importance of the ACTIONABLE advice
to the societies THESE MODELS PROVIDE - if we emit this amount of greenhouse gases
- this will be the consequences, if we emit that amount - that would be the consequences.

As OPPOSED to your proposal, that would see shifting the research effort away from the
societally important and actionable advice on the climate change, which reality you deny
for your ideological reasons, and onto ... completely socially USELESS knowledge:

if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
would say - "That's it, the Strak has spoken: we have no choice but follow the Strak
- let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown J. Kaczynski!

And conversely, if the Strak Model told Russia or Saudi Arabia that the democracy
is better for them - I can already see Putin and Saudi crown princes nodding their
heads and ... giving up their power. ;-)
=====

So, sorry, Mr. Strak, but your post only illustrates the sad reality of your progressing
symptoms of your condition:
- aphasia - troubles with formulating a cogent, non-repetitive, argument, finding a
correct word, and understanding what others are saying,
- tangential thinking - can't hold on the topic at hand and mind drifting onto loosely-related, or completely unrelated, topics: here, your brain drifted from your
original musings that sometimes democracy works and sometimes not, onto
your unmasking ... a global conspiracy of scientists to study ... climate change.

Doesn't it sound like somebody you know and "admire" ? ;-)
===
Piotr

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 11:29:04 AM UTC-3, Piotr wrote:

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:31:16 AM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 6:31:21 PM UTC-3, Piotr wrote:

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:17:24 PM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:28:12 PM UTC-3, Piotr wrote:

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:10:55 AM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:

Nie badalem tematu ale niewykluczone, ze sa jakies matematyczne modele efektywnosci systemow w tym demokratycznych w uzaleznieniu od specyficznych warunkow. A jak nie ma, to by sie przydaly, zamiast dziesiatkow nowych modeli klimatycznych,

tak jakby te czynily na obecnym etapie jakas zasadnicza roznice

.
What you are talking about? There are no "10s of new climatic models" - not the
state-of-the-art GCM global models. And we need more than one because of the importance of the
ACTIONABLE advice to the societies THESE MODELS PROVIDE - if we emit this amount of greenhouse gases - this will be the consequences, if we emit that amount - that would be the consequences.

As OPPOSED to your proposal, that would see shifting the research effort away from the societally important and actionable advice the climate change which reality you deny for your ideological reasons, and onto completely USELESS socially

knowledge:

if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
would say - "That's it, the Strak's Model has spoken: we have no choice but listen to the Strak
- let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown J. Kaczynski!

And conversely, if the Model told Russia or Saudi Arabia that the democracy is better for them - I can already see Putin and Saudi crown princes - giving up their power. ;-)

This would have be obvious to the OLD Andrew Strak, the one whose IQ later dropped precipitously
and whose personality and views changed drastically, after what your own Mentor, Dr. Kleczkowski, diagnosed on scp as "Cudowne, CUDOWNE Przejrzenie pana Andrzeja" - and compared to the change of personality and views of St. Paul on the road to

Damascus. Unfortunately for you, as the saying goes - you tell a man by how he finishes, not by how he started.

===
Piotr

You need them in order to stay busy, Mr Trela. Nothing truly more than that as per enclosed citation. Whst is our humanity return on this ‘investment’? Or just mostly spinning the wheels?

Who of us two is spinning the wheels se below:

While the results from only around 40 CMIP6 models have been published so far, it is already evident that a number of them have a notably higher climate sensitivity than models in CMIP5.

You seeing a tree a missed the forest Mr. Strak. 40 groups running in COORDINATION versions/modifications of the SAME same model generation - "CMIP6", Mr. Strak. Part of the exploration of the same single model generation ("CMIP6") and comparing it

to the ensemble average from the PREVIOUS model generation ("CMIP5").

Ergo NEW research required for these new runs/tiny modification of the ALREADY EXISTING MODELS is MINISCULE compared to designing from scratch and testing a COMLETELY NEW GCM model.

Hence the chalenge to YOUR CLAIM - the climate models do not steal resources from other EQUALLY or MORE DESERVING projects, because your Idiot Model Proposal to use
supercomputer to calculate whether democracy or autocracy is better - is neither of them:

1. Politology is NOWHERE NEAR as quantitative as atmospheric science - here you have well-known laws of thermodynamics - there your have ... qualitative, usually subjective and
politically driven OPINIONS of individual politologists, most of whom you would probably
dismiss as "woke". Data/concepts in political "sciences" are malleable and subjective
- a Russian state propagandist would claim that Russia is a democracy. The data
needed for any decent quantitative model - either does not exist, is not collected,
cannot be trusted (ask a Russian what he really thinks about the Russia's war on the Ukraine)
or may be kept as a state secret by the autocratic governments suppressing it or using it to their advantage.

Hence your proposal the use supercomputers on such poorly-defined, subjective, unreliable, incomplete data connected with non-quantitative concepts - is an idiocy, and only tells. Mr. Strak, how far your mind is gone, compared to, say, 20 years ago.

2. MORE IMPORTANTLY, UNLIKE climate models - NO USEFUL, read ACTIONABLE, recommendations can be drawn from your idiot models. See my previous post:

We need more than one GCM climatic model, because of the importance of the
ACTIONABLE advice to the societies THESE MODELS PROVIDE - if we emit this amount of greenhouse gases - this will be the consequences, if we emit that amount - that would be the consequences.
As OPPOSED to your proposal, that would see shifting the research effort away from the societally important and actionable advice on the climate change, which reality you deny for your ideological reasons, and onto completely socially USELESS

knowledge:

if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
would say - "That's it, the Strak has spoken: we have no choice but follow the Strak
- let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown J. Kaczynski!
And conversely, if the Strak Model told Russia or Saudi Arabia that the democracy
is better for them - I can already see Putin and Saudi crown princes nodding their
heads and ... giving up their power. ;-)
=====

So, sorry, Mr. Strak, but your politically-correct attempt to hijack a COMPLETELY different discussion (whether democracy works or not) to try to discredit ... the science of climate change - did not pan out as you hoped.
But given you mental state in recent years, as reflected in your posts on scp - this outcome
should not be a surprise.

===
Piotr

Mr Trela, are you a compulsory liar? The following info is from 2015 and your ideological cronies keep modeling like crazy.

Mr. Andrew Strak and the best arguments his mind can come up with:
- "Mr Trela, are you a compulsory liar?"
- and venting about "my cronies" from NASA and other Great Global Scientists Conspiracy
insitutions - "[you] keep modeling like crazy"

On behalf of my Cronies From NASA - Ouch!

And all the Brilliant Arguments from the head of Andew Strak come in his response to:

====
PT: NEW research required for these new runs/tiny modification of the ALREADY EXISTING MODELS is MINISCULE compared to designing from scratch and testing a COMLETELY NEW GCM model.

Hence the chalenge to YOUR CLAIM - the climate models do not steal resources from other EQUALLY or MORE DESERVING projects, because your Idiot Model proposal to use
supercomputers to ... calculate whether democracy or autocracy is better - is neither of them:

1. Politology is NOWHERE NEAR as quantitative as atmospheric sciences:
- here you have well-known laws of thermodynamics - there your have ... qualitative, usually
subjective and politically-driven OPINIONS of individual politologists, most of whom
you would probably dismiss as "woke".
- data/concepts to be used in the political "sciences" models are malleable and
subjective, e.g.: a Russian state propagandist would claim that Russia is a democracy.

-the data needed for any decent quantitative model - either do not exist, are not collected,
cannot be trusted (interview a Russian in Russia what he REALLY thinks about the
Russia's war on the Ukraine ... ;-)), or is kept as a state secret by the autocratic governments suppressing it, or using it to their advantage.

Hence your proposal the use supercomputers on such POORLY-DEFINED, SUBJECTIVE,
UNRELIABLE, and INCOMPLETA data, connected with POORLY QUANTIFIABLE concepts - is an Idiocy, and only tells. Mr. Strak, how far your mind has gone in recent years.
2. MORE IMPORTANTLY, UNLIKE climate models - NO USEFUL, read: ACTIONABLE, recommendations can be drawn from your idiot models. See my previous post:
" We need GCM climatic models, because of the importance of the ACTIONABLE advice
to the societies THESE MODELS PROVIDE - if we emit this amount of greenhouse gases
- this will be the consequences, if we emit that amount - that would be the consequences.

As OPPOSED to your proposal, that would see shifting the research effort away from the
societally important and actionable advice on the climate change, which reality you deny
for your ideological reasons, and onto ... completely socially USELESS knowledge:
if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
would say - "That's it, the Strak has spoken: we have no choice but follow the Strak
- let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown J. Kaczynski!

And conversely, if the Strak Model told Russia or Saudi Arabia that the democracy
is better for them - I can already see Putin and Saudi crown princes nodding their
heads and ... giving up their power. ;-)
=====
So, sorry, Mr. Strak, but your post only illustrates the sad reality of your progressing
symptoms of your condition:
- aphasia - troubles with formulating a cogent, non-repetitive, argument, finding a
correct word, and understanding what others are saying,
- tangential thinking - can't hold on the topic at hand and mind drifting onto
loosely-related, or completely unrelated, topics: here, your brain drifted from your
original musings that sometimes democracy works and sometimes not, onto
your unmasking ... a global conspiracy of scientists to study ... climate change.

Doesn't it sound like somebody you know and "admire" ? ;-)
===
Piotr

Mr Trela, how many models are enough? It appears there is no end to them. But which one is true? Are they new world religions? And unlike those cults all of them have been financed one way or another from the governmental budgets i.e. from our taxpayers
money but without our consent? Possibly we need some referendum on those initiatives?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 2:07:34 PM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 11:29:04 AM UTC-3, Piotr wrote:

Mr Trela, how many models are enough?

As I explained above - it depends on
a) can we even make a model that would have any sense - i.e. is the problem tractable numerically (do the numerical relationships exist, do we know them, and do the data
needed for such relationship exist and are reliable)?

b) do the results of the models have social RELEVANCE, i.e. can they inform important societal decisions?

c) if a) and b) - how complex it is the problem?

In case of your Idiot Model that would decide whether for a given nation - democracy or autocracy is better - the answer to both a) and b) is NO, becasue:

a) the problem is NOT tractable numerically (few if any clear quantitative relationships, absence,
or unreliability of data) - hence no way to construct a reliable model

b) results of such model, if any, would have ZERO policy applicability, as already
explained to you:

[your Idiot Model would produce ] completely socially USELESS recommendations:
- if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
would say - "That's it then, the Strak has spoken: we have no choice but follow
the Strak - let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown
J. Kaczynski!
And conversely, if the Strak Model told Russia or Saudi Arabia that the democracy
is better for them - I can already see Putin and Saudi crown princes nodding their
heads and ... giving up their power. ;-) "

=====

In contrast - the climate change models are
a) numerically tractable - use known physical relationships between data that are
infinitely more reliable than the poli-sci data in your "model"

b) Their recommendation to societies are RELEVANT - because consequences of action or inactions may cost trillions of dollars and may make a difference between massive
disruption or even destruction of the human civilization, and not.

c) The studied system is VERY complex - not only we need a few km grid over the entire
Earth, with a short time step over decades or centuries, but on top of it each grid element
has many vertical levels (depth in the ocean and altitude in the atmosphere) and various
physical, chemical and biological processes happening in these layers.

Since the processes/variability _within_ grid element cannot be resolved - the sub-grid
processes have to be parametrized. This parametrization is not unique - hence different
versions of the models would differ in this parametrization, and consequently may
have different outcomes.

Therefore, only an idiot would base the advice with potential huge societal implications,
on one or even a few versions of a model. Instead, climatologists use ensemble statistics, in which output of a given model is just one data point in meta analysis -
from these individual data points we can get the ensemble mean - and from their
differences - the standard deviation of these individual-study data points - giving us a metric of the variability/precision of that ensemble-mean.
So if you care about the costs of WRONG predictions, you should want as many different versions of the model as practical.

Finally, and that argument should be close to your heart - if the UN restricted
modelling to one or a few selected groups, then the same Trumpist nuts who complained about having TOO MANY models, would call cry CENSORSHIP
and SUPPRESSION of independent groups that could have challenged, to question the woke "orthodoxy."

A. Strak: > It appears there is no end to them. But which one is true? Are they new
world religions?

Your equating the scientific method with religious beliefs says to me that you have
no idea about either. Your ignorance of science has been well established above,
but you ignorance of religions is a new one.

What credit would get from Good if you "believed" ONLY what you can prove?
The very nature of religious FAITH is in the Belief in the absence, or even in spite, of
the falsifiable proofs. What did you think the phrase: "LEAP OF FAITH" meant, Mr. Strak?
===
Piotr

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)