==> <i> "Jo$hua, The GHE is just another model. Basic to complex physics equations are models used to explain how things work as well as to predict. Basic to complex chemical equations are models of how materials interact. Energy balance is just another model. Simple models become more complex as you consider more variables. Simple models become more complex when you start correcting for inconsistencies or anomalies. So when I talk about models, I am including models we use all the time to describe our physical world. <i>"
Well, like I said, basically all of our reasoning employs modeling. So yes, without <i><strong>any</i></strong> modeling, there is little reason to to anything, let alone employ the precautionary principle. But unlike you, my sense is that Taleb was referring to the potential implications of <i>climate models</i> being erroneous w/r/t the need to address risk (regardless of that potential).
==> <i>" Maybe you find this is taking what Taleb says to an extreme..."</i>
Well. In a word....yes. Kind of seemed to me a bit like the ol' rediction ad absurdum....
==> <i>" What I find wrong about Talebs premise is where do you draw the line between one model representation and another? "</i>
Well, a fine question...but given the large amount of focus on potential for error in climate modeling from "skeptics" who claim that they don't doubt the physics of the GHE (a claim that I find logically inconsistent with the arguments that many of those same folks put forth), I don't really think that it's so much important for Taleb to clarify that distinction as it is for the "skeptics" who argue policy on the basis of potential error in GCMs to make that distinction.
==> <i>"Why are GCM’s the only types of models Teleb decided in their absence we would still need to apply the precautionary principle?"</i>
My guess is because of the "skeptics" who leverage the potential for error in GCM's to be a foundational plank in policy development even as they argue (by virtue of an appeal to consensus, ironically), that dismissal of the GHE is not meaningfully influential on the policy debate.
==> <i>" Why only consider the complex models when talking about ‘models’? "</i>
In my answer above, I think I've addressed that question and much of what follows.
==> <i>" Just understanding the GHE alone does not, IMO, tell us anything about what kind of danger we may or may not be in. "</i>
Again, this seems to me to suggest the CAGW strawman. The GHE doesn't tell us <strong>exactly</strong> what of what danger we may be facing,, but it suggests the potential of risk, which in turn is presented as a rationale for employing the precautionary principle.
==> <i>"The GHE based on CO2 alone does not get you to dangerous."</i>
It gets us to the <strong>risk</strong> of danger... which suggests investigating the implications of a precautionary response.
==> <i>" When compared to the observable record, the overall conclusion is most run too hot. "</i>
Well, not being inclined to an appeal to your authority, I will note that there are "expert" sources that disagree with that assessment of yours. But either way, now <i><strong> you </i></strong> are going back to pointing to the potential for error in the modeling whereas Taleb is saying that in the real world, we can't allow that potential to derail our policy evaluation process, because the potential for risk exists irrespective of the potential for error in climate modeling.
Now you might see that as a way of duckng the potential error in climate modeling (a frequent refrain from "skeptics")....well, OK, maybe so. But such an accusation would have to be proven with evidence of a sort I see lacking (unless one tends towards conspiratorial thinking)....
==> <i>"“THE POLICY DEBATE with respect to anthropogenic climate-change typically revolves around the accuracy of models. Those who contend that models make accurate predictions argue for specific policies to stem the foreseen damaging effects;..." </i>
I don't think that is inclusive enough to be accurate. Some think that their potential for accuracy provides a rationale for policies to address potential risk. Not everyone on the "realist" side says that they are necessarily accurate so as to make accurate predictions <i>without the inclusion of confidence intervals</i>. I am unpersuaded by arguments from the "skeptics" side that fail to acknowledge that the vast majority of the "realist" science comes in the context of confidence intervals and ranges of probabilities...
==> <i>" those who doubt their accuracy cite a lack of reliable evidence of harm to warrant policy action.” </i>
Right. And unfortunately, they do so without acknowledging the probabilistic foundation of the modeling outputs.
==> <i>"Besides, you don’t understand the science anyway…. so why do you question my authority on the matter? :0) "</i>
I never let not understanding what I'm talking about prevent me from expressing my opinions. :-)
