Whenever you see complexity, that is a red flag. Complexity is often used to deceive. And complexity invites human error. When you see complex models that claim to predict the future, stay skeptical, especially when humans are making assumptions that influence the results.
“Complexity is often used to deceive.”
Scott Adams writing about deceiving people is the supermassive black hole calling the pot black. Also, that quote is idiotic (much like everything else Scott has to say). Computer science is highly complex; does not make it any less true.
I don’t know about anyone else but I’ve joined the Church of Climate Change and converted to ClimateChangeianism.
Those human beings – those horrible, horrible human beings – who use oil-based fuels need to be punished!
Don’t they realize that sun-based power is far superior? Don’t they?
Don’t they realize that the earth will be rescued by the sun’s power?
So, those horrible, disgusting human beings – those sinners! – who emit carbon, then they must pay a price for their sins.
So, how about governments around the world slap on a $30 per tonne carbon tax on every person and every business and every organization?
No, wait! Let’s make it $45.
No, wait! I have a better idea! Let’s slap on a $75 per tonne carbon tax! That’ll teach ’em.
$120? $200?
I don’t know. What do you think?
Adams should have mentioned that it is those that are in favour of warming who don’t want to debate. Those that are opposed or sceptical will debate them anytime anywhere.
yet another red flag
I was sure that all those melting glaciers would have lowered the worlds ocean temperatures to the point that Atlantic and other hurricanes would not be able to form. We are always told that warm water allows the hurricanes to gain strength before making landfall, but the gulf stream carries that cool northern water southward and should have an influence on water temps and therefore the formation of hurricanes.Could be that we are being conned.
What do I think…eh.
Well the money disincentive just is too much a regressive ta. What is needed is something that hits everyone the same. How about something like a equivalency between transportation and a daily food limit. If you drive to work over 20K then you have to cut out part of your lunch. If you have a convoy to get here or there you give up lunch altogether. And well if you have to take the private jet to a save the earth conference then no food for a week.
What do you think of that… made in Canada – save the world from its miscreants idea.
Perhaps you definition of Complex fails the Einstein Test
“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough” Albert Einstein
“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality”. Albert Einstein
No, he’s just misrepresenting what Adams said. Adams didn’t say “complexity means mendacity”, he said “complexity is often used to deceive” and that we should be skeptical of complex models with human input.
There are a great many complex models in computer science that are completely bogus, by the way. Anything relating to software engineering methodology, for one.
I scrubbed a post taking you down LASS, but I see now it have been done, and much better than I would have. Your “intellect” is your undoing!
Forecasting with computers is still just a lame attempt to predict the distant future, they are the crystal balls of the 21st century. Everyone here, including the mentally bunkered leftards, knows how grossly inaccurate they have proven thus far. Funny how these models still always seem to dovetail perfectly with the warmists’ scaremongering narrative, though. Which of course….. is their real purpose.
In other words, climate models have little scientific value but are invaluable propaganda tools.
Anyone who could possibly convince themselves that human input into these “super-complex” climate computer models is anywhere near %100 accurate is an outright FOOL. Any input that is less than completely accurate makes the output virtually useless.
Scott Adams is a class act, which is why leftards attack him personally instead of arguing his points.
lots and lots of variables.
part of the current issue as I found out teaching programming decades ago, it is/was common for some students to have difficulty differentiating between the
-name
-data type and
-current value of the variable.
I blame the edjukashun cystem for emphasizing all the ways of avoiding answers to mathematical problems and for instance all the mathematical combinations of relationships depending on sexual orientation, as opposed to REAL math and REAL WORLD concepts of rational organized thinking.
Scripture pointed this out many, many years ago…
Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
UnMe: “To err is human, but to really screw up requires a computer.” Anyone who works with computers and their programs will testify to the truth of that adage.
He did not say everything complex is not true, he said it is often used to deceive.
Have you ever read the fine print behind every freakin documents we sign from opening a bank account to a cell phone contract?
Have you ever sat with a financial adviser or an insurance salesman?
those things are made complex for the purpose of making sure you don’t know what you are agreeing to.
making things complex is OFTEN used by people who want to deceive, and used by Charlatans.
There used to be such a person here at smalldeadanimals, she posted super complex explanations – usually in defense of islam – because she was hoping she would get us lost in the details.
she was using layers upon layers of complexity in hopes she would fool us into thinking she had just said something brilliant, so brilliant but that we would have no choice but to agree.
she even often insulted us, was claiming we could not understand because we were to ignorant or too simple minded.
Actually the ones who thought she was brilliant an was right were the truly ignorant and the not so bright ones.
many here have handed her her 4ss several times, because she was all “wrapping and no gift”, all glitter but no substance, because despite her talent for writing, despite her eloquence, she was not the sharpest tool in the shed, logic and truth were not her ” forte”
On the rare occasions she was right about something, she had simply stolen someone else’s idea and had re-written it in her own words and then acted as if she was the genius behind the idea.
She got caught doing that regularly.
She was a person of low morals.
she was using complexity, eloquent complexity, to deceive.
maybe you know her? hahaha!
” “complexity is often used to deceive””
This is all the more hilariously ironic coming from Scott Adams. This guy will stop at nothing to frame everything Trump does as 4D-chess. Trump could crap his pants and not a day later Scott Adams would write a convoluted column filled with babble about ‘psycho-linguistics’ explaining that this is really brilliance on the part of Trump.