Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
You miss the point.
If I take 1,000,000 measurements:
Within 24 seconds to predict the next second the prediction is based on past results.
Within 24 hours to predict the next 24 hours the prediction is based on past results.
Within 24 days to predict the next 24 days the prediction is based on past results.
or if my measurements are used to predict increments that don't match the period of my data collection the prediction is based on past results, however the key is getting a meaningful match and then the accuracy of the prediction is based on either the consistency in the past results or in nailing any assumptions I make.
|
Yes, and people try to generate knowledge try to go through a great deal of trouble to ensure consistency. So again, the outcome of your position is that knowledge has to be generated anew every moment.
Quote:
There are some known predictable constants and there are variables. to understand how the variables interplay with the constants and with the other variables is a challenge.
I have not debunked anything, nor have I tried. I simply believe climate changes have more to do with natural phenomenon than with human activity. My believe is primarily based on what we think we know about the history of this planet, not 100 years of data.
|
Ah, so again, as always, this thread becomes a discussion about how you "feel" about things.
At least you are consistent in your radical relativism.