>>10671624>when you haven't given even a single example of any climate model being inaccurate or overfitI didn't need to, one of you guys did it for me. Above someone posted an article where some researchers tested 15 climate models against recent data and found some that (still) worked, and some that had SEVERELY overestimated the rising temperatures compared to current levels (i.e. grifters). Just read that, I even said that the research was well done. Though I must add that that is the kind of research I'd expect from a mediocre undergrad thesis, God knows why some serious scientists even bothered. That is the kind of statistical analysis you do on R on the weekends out of curiosity and then maybe mention to your colleagues in casual conversation once or twice. But they got published (see my point about easy publications?).
>You just spent the whole thread conflating the climate with marketsAs I said, financial markets have the best-recorded history of events when statistical models worked for a long time and then just stopped working and then everyone got fucked in the ass. I never said climate = finance. I am saying that finance is the only field with good data regarding these types of events. As I said, if you want to ignore the lessons of history then you do you.
