Talk-Polywell.org

Looks like none of them are.

MSimon wrote:

Looks like none of them are.

It does, doesn't it.

None of them is ever going to be exactly, precisely "right."

Not only that but most of them are run with different starting points, to explore different scenarios; and furthermore, climate is chaotic so the models that would describe it must necessarily be so as well.

Wait until you see strong force models of the hadrons and of the interactions of quarks inside them and of such esoterica as pentaquarks. They are also chaotic. Are you claiming they're wrong, too?

Finally, you do not know the difference between true randomness, stochastic behavior, and deterministic chaos. You really should go to the trouble to learn if you're going to pretend to know anything about physics.

Dude, you claim to be a physicist and to disbelieve in models.

The Standard Model of Particle Physics is the first and most obvious rebuttal to your foolishness.

And in fact the Standard Model is so solid that other branches of physics and astronomy are starting to refer to it.

ΛCDM for example is being referred to as "The Standard Model of Cosmology."

Models seem to work really well, actually, enough to be naming things after them because they're famous for working really well.

Are you sure you're all for tossing them out?

Really?

Or is this more bullpucky you're pretending you believe because you're a racist in your political beliefs? You can't possibly believe this stuff if you're a real physicist.

Regarding these lies about climate models that get repeated over and over:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

You should stick to "Basic." It's more your speed.