>>10670364>When the bank's model fucks up nothing bad happens because the government bails them out.
Bank “models” are entirely different to scientific theories. What an absurd analogy.> What happens when your climate model fucks up?
Well, we do this wild thing. If a model is discovered to fail.
We do this, get this. It’s fucking crazy.
We try and figure out why it failed, then alter it, or junk it and make a new one.
That’s science.>Who is going to bail us out?
Retarded question you got from your retarded analogy you made up because the word “model” can be used in both contexts.>And trust me, it will fuck up
That’s the whole idea of science, moron. We make theories and we try and refute them constantly until they’re found to be flawed, then we alter them or replace them. This process leads to ever-increasing accuracy to the point where some fields have dominating theories that have little apparent hope of ever being found to falter.>Models without fundamentals based only on fitting data always break eventually.
That doesn’t describe modern climate modeling so it’s a really weird thing to bring up. Maybe you have Alzheimer’s.>Good lord if any country actually passes any significant economic reform based on the current models.
They’re making correct predictions on the scale of decades, so.....why not?
You continue to take issue with “climate models” but never any specific ones and fail to actually explain what’s wrong with their modeling. Did they overestimate the albedo values of Siberia or something?