[digitalzombie]

These modeling are base statistic which takes into account random errors.

Just cause you did computer modeling doesn't grant you magic power to understand machine learning or the vast swarth of area in statistic, mathematical modeling, etc...

And it certainly doesn't give you power over the dozen of experts in different fields that spend their whole lives in it and saying global warming is a thing.

If you're so skeptic about "computer modeling", then why google, apple, and many other are banking on Machine Learnin such as Neural Network?

The foundation of data science, some argue, is computational statistic. Which falls under this so call computer modeling you're bringing up.

[exclusiv]

I never said it grants you magic power to understand machine learning. You're putting that in my mouth.

What I was putting forth was an understanding on why some techies may be skeptical of the computer modeling which is the evidence of AGW and the near immediate doom and gloom. Machine learning is not infallible. We're very much in the infancy. And all of a sudden scientists are experts at modeling the sun, earth, moon, currents, etc? This is not social network / ad network / ecommerce optimization we are talking about.

Of course the models account for random errors but they also include a lot of assumptions. You can doctor any model to fit your agenda.

Computer models and neural networks have incredible potential and application, but to suggest that everyone should accept these models of the universe from scientists as if they are infallible makes no sense.