Everything you say applies to _any_ approach to climate science except for one, AIT, about which you are obviously and egregiously mistaken in this respect:
The whole point of AIT is the idea that you don't _need_ out-of-sample data to do causal inference. Indeed, this is the reason I am so adamant about pursuing AIT: The powers that be, by violating consent of the human subjects upon which the perform social experiements, aren't even permitting control groups with which to infer causality. We can ignore for the moment the ethical implications of applying social policies that haven't gone through safety and efficacy trials at small scale, and think simply about the _scientific_ consequences of disallowing experimental controls implicit in uniform law across multiple jurisdictions. These controls are the _only_ way to get "out-of-sample data" on human ecologies. What I'm trying to adapt to is the supremacist de facto theocracy's inability to permit anyone to escape from its experiments which could supply "out-of-sample data". Why do I bother? I mean, it is quite clear that the outcome of the modern equivalent of a Thirty Years War will be killing off the fanatics following the supremacist de facto theocracy in far greater numbers than the de facto protestant forces. Why don't I just sit back and watch with glee from my rural backwoods acreage growing chlorella with my posse of war veterans some of whom were MIT grads? Because I care about people. ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T100f708e32ae7327-M129cec4887ea1c9f010b5781 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
