thegmanifesto said:Furthermore, to me it just makes sense that The Gulf is f*cked up.
Pour a quart of Quaker State in a fishtank and see what happens.
G, is this a level of precision you'd accept in measuring out your supps? Since when have quantities stopped mattering?
If you think about the size of the Gulf vs the amount of oil spilled, it's more like "pour an invisibly tiny droplet of Quaker State in a fishtank". And even that turns out to be a terrible analogy because your typical fish tank doesn't have bacterial populations that have evolved to eat Quaker State.
thegmanifesto said:How many economists called the last crash?
No one said anything about prediction here. Indeed, if you look back at the articles I cited, no one believed the Gulf would recover as fast as it did. The recovery has exceeded the most optimistic expectations, because scientists had not previously understood how resilient the ecosystem really is. What they're doing now is describing what is actually going on. Not an easy task, but a much different and easier one than forecasting.
Cattle Rustler said:Some will believe what an economic scientist says but not a nuclear scientist and vice-versa.
Vice versa would be a good bet.
Not all sciences are equal. The amount of quantitative rigor and predictive ability that has been achieved in nuclear physics is something that economists, or say climate scientists, would not even dare to dream about.
There are models and there are "models". The Standard Model of particle physics is probably the best tested scientific theory that has ever existed which has been confirmed in endless experiments to an incredible degree of accuracy.
Plenty of economics or climate "models", on the other hand, are just-so stories with a very thin quantitative veneer slapped on top of them. They can be worse than useless.
Cattle Rustler said:It proves again that people will believe what they want to believe.
That much is clear.