Hacker News Reader

It's not clear to me what you're attempting to convey.

Those in applied math are pretty clear about what can and can't be modelled.

The majority of people I've met understand that almost nothing is stationary, the planet moves about the sun which moves about a galactic core which in turn moves through the universe all the while as molecules vibrate within various forms of matter.

None of which negates the AGW position.

View on HN

The first part implies that we cannot model something we don't have a good picture of. The data collected for climate modeling scaling back millennia first, then on to the decem mil; etc. Going back an aeon it becomes even more unsubstantiated.

The second part implies that while certainly many in academia and beyond are fully aware of our constant change, we tend to lend society a belief that time stands still. Same as it ever was, the moon follows the sun, the north star is essentially stationary. These types of conventional take generally wreak havoc in large scales.

And if we naive humans know anything worth knowing at all, we certainly know our perception of large scales lacks in enormous context.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com