Comments by "" (@DanielSMatthews) on "Bushfire royal commission hands down more than 80 recommendations" video.

  1. The report justifies its findings by mentioning climate change 67 times, while pointing at the output of provably flawed climate simulations as "evidence". Climate simulations cannot be accurately run on computer systems because the climate system is chaotic and computers use discrete mathematics, even their floating point numbers are really just a form of approximation. Only a simulation using real numbers, i.e. true pure symbolic computation, can have a hope of approximating reality. This is a fundamental aspect of mathematics itself, and even with a full set of inputs and relevant physics the model will still diverge over time. It is delusional to believe that mathematics and science can predict the future state of natural systems, the current simulations are not even computationally asymmetrical, they can't be run backward from today to generate known past data from a century ago. Some recent work on using neural networks claimed to be better (but how can that be if current systems are accurate? hmmm...) however the output of those neural networks simply produce chaotic data with the same fractal dimensions as recorded data would without actually predicting it exactly, i.e. it could mimic the texture of the data but not give you an accurate snapshot of the real data for some point in the future. But I can give you a much simpler and pragmatic proof that the CSIRO people cannot predict the future, they would be billionaires if they could, because the mathematics is no more complex for a climate system than it is for an economic system, i.e. the stock market.
    3
  2.  I Jameson  You should be ashamed for making such a lame attack on me, an ad hom. without addressing a single word I wrote. Do you really think I give a shit about moronic comments like yours, do you think anyone else reading it will think that you are intelligent? No, you betray your own cause with such idiocy, try again using logic and facts. But perhaps first go and learn how computers really work and how mathematical calculations are done on systems that can only switch between binary states. Then go and learn what discreet and real numbers are, and why that is relevant to chaos theory, and why that set of theories is applicable to climate models.
    2
  3.  I Jameson  No they can't, such models always diverge due to the fundamental characteristics of the mathematical systems that humans use and how they are applied on computers, of which you clearly know nothing (you pathetic fake). Furthermore there is inadvertently evidence of this in the actual report. I suggest you take a look at it. LOL, you idiot.
    2
  4.  I Jameson  No amount of you repeatedly talking out of your ass makes your comments correct and relevant to the observations that I have made which are entirely founded in verifiable facts. If you know anything about chaotic systems you would know that we can model their characteristics, but never actually predict their future state. You are clearly an innumerate fool but I will try to give you the simplest example possible, one that even works with discrete maths. Take a simple rewrite system that has a set of simple operations or rules where one pattern is replaced with another then the entire dataset has the rules applied again, now give me the formula to predict the future state of that dataset at time X without iterating through all of the steps between now and X, then explain how you can do that if there are unknown variables also changing the state of the dataset between now and X. That is it, one simple formula, do that and you will get a Nobel Prize, because it is not possible using the mathematics that humans currently have.
    2
  5. Do you really want the likes of Anthony Albanese to be handed those sorts of powers at some point in the future? Because it will not be just for fires it will be for any "disaster" even potentially confected ones. Surely it is safer to require that a majority of the states vote for each intervention as the need arises rather than have the federal government have such powers with no oversight at all?
    1
  6.  I Jameson  Trends are not predictable over scales that are useful i.e. actionable where you have a trade-off between the cost of acting or not acting, assuming you even can prove that your actions matter which is a separate but related argument. Do you even know how the IPCC arrives at a consensus? Why do you persist in your lies and avoidance of what I have actually pointed out, none of your comments directly and honestly address my observations. You are a complete fraud. I bet you can't even direct me to a complete, symbolic, physics description of the Earth's energy systems that includes all relevant variables, laws of physics, inputs and outputs. Do what I ask, they are reasonable requests, or GTFO.
    1
  7.  @mrbillhilly343  CO2 is the carrier of carbon through the biosphere as life on earth is carbon based, therefore what they are seeking to do is place a tax on life itself.
    1
  8.  I Jameson  A sufficiently vague claim cannot be proven wrong, yeah I know, but it can't be proven right either. If you actually knew anything about mathematics or computer science you would also know that some things are not computable and other things are computable but in an unknowable amount of time. Mate you are clearly way out of your depth. The video is useless as the true test of any science is its replication and application. As I have already pointed out the models can't even replicate the past they don't run backwards correctly. I asked you for some very specific information that applies very directly to that above point and you failed to provide it. I will as you one last time, show me the actual science or GTFO. (see specific requests in previous comment)
    1
  9.  I Jameson  Take a look, fascinating and specialised work, but Hossenfelder has not done any applied science, ever, https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/S.-Hossenfelder/8850699
    1
  10.  @Cooliemasteroz  The fires are not historically worse. There is no clear trend in fire scale changes, but there are a lot more people living in areas that have always burned and some of them set fires while others suffer from them. Climate doesn't even need to come into the argument about the need for better fire management.
    1
  11.  @dignoh2144  Care to actually address the points I have made rather than your puerile attempt at a coward's indirect Ad Hom. attack?
    1
  12.  @dignoh2144  Yeah amazing what a kid from a dysfunctional home growing up on the wrong side of the city and going to some of the worst public schools there were at the time can eventually achieve, isn't it? As for incactuate computer maths, ever heard of the butterfly effect, and know why it is relevant? BTW I made more than one point, look at my observation regarding the empirical signs of if a person can predict the future. :-)
    1
  13. That coincidentally will allow them to justify a radical shift of power relations between the states and the federal government.
    1
  14. https://naturaldisaster.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/2020-10/Royal%20Commission%20into%20National%20Natural%20Disaster%20Arrangements%20-%20Report%20%20%5Baccessible%5D.pdf
    1