so, is the failure of covid-19 modelling reason to think that climate modelling is inaccurate, too?

i guess we should have seen that coming, and it's typical in it's characteristic of being so naively stupid that it's actually kind of complicated to coherently correct. it really pulls the rug out from underneath the entire concept of the scientific method, to try and compare modelling for a problem we've been working on with great interest for 40 years to something we've barely understood for 40 days. it's just simply an absurd thing to even try and make a comparison, regarding.

so, i don't want to take the bait and fall into a partisan argument around this, because i can tell you in advance where this is going, too - you'll have these white knight science defenders coming out swinging for the democratic party (most of whom have something like a grade 10 science education), arguing forcefully that the models are incapable of error, because they're science, and science is, like, the truth, and stuff. right. in fact, these idiots on the fake left will be making exactly the same mistake as their mirror-reflected idiots on the fake right, in trying to compare something we've been studying intensely for 40 years to something we've barely understood for 40 days. i'm not wading into this battle to be crowned alpha stupid fucking idiot. you guys can have that debate without me.

unlike climate change, we don't have enough data on covid-19 to create anything more useful than exceedingly speculative models.

we can do this comparison, if you want to do it, though, and the way to do it is to launch up the wayback machine and search for climate change articles written in the late 70s and early 80s. i'll see if i can find the first peer-reviewed paper on climate change, i'm sure somebody has figured this out. how accurate was it? i'd guess it was pretty brutal.

after all, these same geniuses are no doubt well aware of the global cooling scare in the 70s.

i'll leave it to somebody else to work out the details, but it's scary because of the anti-intellectualism underlying it, in the way that it really does completely sidestep the scientific method. you shouldn't need advanced degrees to realize that the comparison is absurd - that should be intuitive, should be completely obvious. so, why don't these people (on both sides of the debate) have basic levels of intuition towards things that any idiot can see are obviously true?