Azow to realny problem. Neonazistowski pułk opłaca ukraińskie wojsko,
policję i ministerstwa

https://www.gazetaprawna.pl/wiadomosci/artykuly/1439737,pul-azow-ukraina-strefa-wplywow.html

W dniu 19.08.2023 o 10:58, Fischer pisze:
> Azow to realny problem. Neonazistowski pułk opłaca ukraińskie wojsko,
> policję i ministerstwa
>
> https://www.gazetaprawna.pl/wiadomosci/artykuly/1439737,pul-azow-ukraina-strefa-wplywow.html

Po tym jak amerykański polityk zaproponował, by pułk Azow dopisać do
listy organizacji terrorystycznych, na Ukrainie wybuchła burza. Od kilku
tygodni protestują skrajnie prawicowi aktywiści i mainstreamowi
politycy. Przy okazji ujawniono też skalę wpływów tej organizacji we
władzach w Kijowie.
Trzeba naprawdę dużo dobrej woli i wyrozumiałości, by nie widzieć
problemu, jakim jest istnienie Azowa w obecnym kształcie. Zarówno samego
pułku, jak i konfederacji struktur politycznych, które wokół niego
wyrosły. Działająca na południowym wschodzie Ukrainy i walcząca przeciw
separatystom oraz Rosjanom jednostka, z punktu widzenia sztuki wojennej,
jest elitą elit. Jej zdolności można porównać do grup rozpoznania w Navy
Seal czy Force Recon w Korpusie Marines. Gorzej z tradycją, do której
się odwołuje. I nie chodzi jedynie o oklepane przez media eksponowanie
na sztandarze wilczego haka – wolfsangel, który był symbolem niektórych
jednostek Waffen SS, a dziś inspiruje międzynarodówkę neonazistów.

Niewinny początek

– Osobiście jestem nazistą. Mamy jedno zadanie: wyzwolić kraj od
terrorystów – mówił na spotkaniu z reporterem brytyjskiego „Telegrapha”,
Tomem Parffitem, Fantom – jeden z żołnierzy pułku Azow. Jego były
dowódca – Andrij Biłecki – w tej samej rozmowie poszedł w technikalia.
Opowiadał o charakterze jednostki, którą przedstawiał jako „lekką
piechotę do wyzwalania takich miast jak Donieck”. Znany jest też jednak
z bardziej filozoficznego wymiaru rozważań, które spowodowały, że jego
żołnierze obdarzyli go przydomkiem Biały Wódz. „W tym krytycznym
momencie naszą historyczną misją jest przewodzić białej rasie na świecie
w jej ostatecznej krucjacie. Krucjacie, której celem jest przetrwanie.
Krucjacie przeciwko semickim podludziom” – pisał w jednym ze swoich
programowych komentarzy.
Fantom pochodzi ze wschodu Ukrainy i jest rosyjskojęzyczny. Trudno go
zakwalifikować jako typowego „przedstawiciela junty” kreowanego w
rosyjskiej propagandzie. Podobnie zresztą jak urodzonego w 1979 r. w
Charkowie Biłeckiego. Parffit odwiedził ich bazę w nadmorskiej
miejscowości Urzuf w 2014 r. na samym początku wojny na Donbasie. I tuż
po tym jak prorosyjscy separatyści pod patronatem Kremla stworzyli swoje
republiki ludowe.

Po pięciu latach konfliktu Azow w żaden sposób nie stępił swojej
orientacji światopoglądowej. Wręcz przeciwnie. Stał się punktem
odniesienia dla sieci paramilitarnych, skrajnie prawicowych ugrupowań na
całej Ukrainie. Sympatyzuje z nim charkowski Freicorp, neonazistowska,
stołeczna S14 (C14) czy Karpacka Sicz działająca w graniczącym ze
Słowacją Użhorodzie. Ludzie związani z pułkiem trzon struktury oparli na
trzech filarach – wojskowym (pułk), politycznym (partia Korpus Narodowy)
i ulicznej bojówce (Drużyny Narodowe, swego rodzaju miejskiej milicji).
Mają kontakty z podobnymi grupami na Zachodzie. Takimi jak włoska
faszyzująca Casa Pound, węgierski Jobbik, niemiecka AfD czy amerykańscy
biali supremacjoniści. Organizują koncerty i walki MMA. Dorobili się
swojego radia – AzovFM, w którym można wysłuchać podcastów o kryzysie
NATO czy szerzej upadku świata Zachodu.
Choć w wyborach ich poparcie stale oscyluje wokół błędu statystycznego,
udaje im się oplatać instytucje państwowe, które z wyborów nie pochodzą:
ministerstwa, policję i wojsko.
List do Pompeo
Jesienią, dzięki zasiadającemu po raz pierwszy w amerykańskiej Izbie
Reprezentantów 33-letniemu Maxowi Rose’owi, o Azowie zrobiło się
naprawdę głośno. Pochodzący z Nowego Jorku Amerykanin przekonał 39
demokratycznych deputowanych, by podpisali się pod listem do szefa
Departamentu Stanu Mike’a Pompeo. Zażądali w nim, by organizacja – razem
ze szwedzkim neonazistowskim Nordyckim Ruchem Oporu i zdelegalizowaną w
Wielkiej Brytanii Akcją Narodową – została dopisana do listy
zagranicznych grup terrorystycznych. W ten sposób znalazłaby się obok
takich tuzów jak Hezbollah, Islamski Dżihad, Boko Haram czy Państwo
Islamskie.
„Jak pan wie, kryteria Departamentu Stanu przy wpisywaniu na Listę
Zagranicznych Organizacji Terrorystycznych (FTO) są proste: udział w
zagranicznej organizacji utrzymującej zdolność i intencję, by
zaangażować się w terroryzm oraz zagrozić bezpieczeństwu obywateli USA,
bezpieczeństwu narodowemu, stosunkom zagranicznym i interesom
ekonomicznym (USA – red.). Jest wiele przykładów zagranicznych grup
białych nacjonalistów, które wypełniają te kryteria. Amerykańscy
obywatele zasługują na wyjaśnienie, dlaczego te grupy nie są na FTO (…)
Batalion (poprawnie pułk – red.) Azow to doskonale znana
ultranacjonalistyczna milicja” – pisał do Pompeo Rose.
List, choć zawierał kilka istotnych błędów merytorycznych, otarł się o
Komisję Spraw Zagranicznych Izby Reprezentantów, a sam deputowany w
komunikacie prasowym zapowiedział, że będzie dążył do tego, by z mediów
społecznościowych – głównego kanału komunikacji skrajnej prawicy –
usuwane były treści, które propagują działalność organizacji takich jak
Azow. Jak twierdzi, żołnierze pułku od lat „rekrutują, radykalizują i
szkolą obywateli amerykańskich”, sugerując równocześnie z grubą
przesadą, że inspirowali oni zabójców, którzy zaatakowali meczety w
nowozelandzkim Christchurch czy synagogę w niemieckim Halle.

Kampania antydefamacyjna
Jednak to nie sam list do Pompeo był najciekawszym punktem w krucjacie
przeciw ukraińskiej skrajnej prawicy. Raczej reakcja na ten dokument. I
to, co w trakcie zamieszania ujrzało światło dzienne. Od kilku tygodni
na Ukrainie trwa kampania w obronie dobrego imienia Azowa. Spina ją
hasło „Obrona ojczyzny to nie terroryzm”, a biorą w niej udział zarówno
aktywiści skrajnie prawicowych, neonazistowskich organizacji, jak i
mainstreamowi politycy i wysocy rangą urzędnicy. Choćby tacy jak szef
MSW Arsen Awakow, który nazwał inicjatywę Rose’a „żenującą kampanią
informacyjną”, czy wiceszef MSZ Wasyl Bodnar. Kilkudziesięciu
deputowanych z proprezydenckiej partii Sługa Narodu wysłało do Izby
Reprezentantów list, w którym przypominają, że pułk Azow oficjalnie
działa w strukturach ukraińskiej Gwardii Narodowej, która jest szkolona
przez armię amerykańską. Z kolei weterani i sympatycy jednostki wysłali
do prezydenta Wołodymyra Zełenskiego petycję z żądaniem potępienia tez,
które zawarł w swoim liście Rose. Efekt działań Amerykanina jest
odwrotny od zamierzonego. Przesada, do której odwołał się polityk,
pozwoliła Azowowi zająć wygodną pozycję ofiary. I zaciemnić realny problem.
Tymczasem, jak napisał w poniedziałek serwis śledczy Bellingcat, również
urzędujący do 13 listopada szef Departamentu Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego
USA Kevin McAleenan przyznał niedawno, że podległe mu służby od
dłuższego czasu śledziły związki między amerykańskimi supremacjonistami
a przedstawicielami Azowa. Wcześniej Departament Stanu rekomendował
wyłączenie związanego z nim Korpusu Narodowego i neonazistowskiej
organizacji S14 (C14) z listy podmiotów, które mogą otrzymywać od USA
pomoc, a wiosną ubiegłego roku Kongres podjął decyzję o zakazie
dostarczania broni dla pułku Azow. Negatywne opinie na temat tego
środowiska wydał również amerykański Freedom House, który od lat działa
na rzecz transformacji ustrojowej na Ukrainie.
Jak wynika z informacji DGP, dyplomaci kilku krajów zachodniej Europy
przekonują władze w Kijowie do ograniczenia rosnących wpływów środowiska
Azowa w ministerstwie ds. weteranów, MSW, ministerstwie obrony i w Ruchu
Weteranów Ukrainy. Jak twierdzi nasz rozmówca, samo MSW to przypadek
szczególny. Azow, Korpus Narodowy i Drużyny Narodowe cieszą się w nim
pełnym poparciem ministra Awakowa. I ze wzajemnością. Awakow jako jedyny
polityk ukraiński piastuje stanowisko ministerialne nieprzerwanie od
2014 r. Co wynika przede wszystkim z konsekwentnego patronatu nad
zmilitaryzowanym środowiskiem skrajnej prawicy, które może zamienić się
w istotną siłę w razie wybuchu niepokojów społecznych na Ukrainie
(Patriot Ukrajiny – organizacja, z której powstały pułk Azow i Korpus
Narodowy – odegrał również ważną rolę na Majdanie w 2014 r.). Zdaniem
naszych rozmówców poprzez nieusuwalnego Awakowa, ministerstwo ds.
weteranów i przychylność resortu obrony Azow, Korpus i Drużyny
legitymizują się w mainstreamie politycznym i wokół premiera Ołeksija
Honczaruka, po którym spodziewano się, że ograniczy wpływy tych organizacji.
Dyplomaci przekonują również, że niepokojąca jest też aktywność
międzynarodowa skrajnej prawicy ukraińskiej i jej źródła finansowania.
Pełniąca funkcję sekretarza ds. zagranicznych w Korpusie Narodowym Ołena
Semeniaka regularnie wyjeżdża na konferencje organizowane przez włoskich
faszystów z Casa Pound, którzy są oskarżani o związki finansowe z
Kremlem. W przeszłości gościła na Marszach Niepodległości w Warszawie i
na konferencjach organizowanych w polskim Sejmie promujących idee
międzymorza. Jej nazwisko figuruje w ujawnionym przez Bellingcat
fragmencie raportu FBI poświęconym związkom między ukraińską a
amerykańską skrajną prawicą. To ona miała zaprosić na Ukrainę członków
kalifornijskiej ultraprawicowej organizacji Rise Above Movement na
spotkania i szkolenia z przedstawicielami pułku Azow. Ta sama Semeniaka
wspiera również norweskiego neonazistę Joachima Furholma, który
wielokrotnie zapowiadał organizację zamachów przeciw władzom w Oslo.

sobota, 19 sierpnia 2023 o 10:58:53 UTC+2 Fischer napisał(a):
> Azow to realny problem.

Taki sam, jak Wagner w Rosji.
Tylko, że Azow na dobrą sprawę już nie istnieje, a przyszłość Wagnera dopiero się waży.

niedziela, 20 sierpnia 2023 o 07:52:34 UTC+2 Jakub A. Krzewicki napisał(a):
> sobota, 19 sierpnia 2023 o 10:58:53 UTC+2 Fischer napisał(a):
> > Azow to realny problem.
>
>
> Taki sam, jak Wagner w Rosji.
> Tylko, że Azow na dobrą sprawę już nie istnieje, a przyszłość Wagnera dopiero się waży.

PS. Obecnie odradzające się tendencje narodowosocjalistyczne to nie jest wyłącznie zmora Rosji, Ukrainy czy Polski. Stanowią one część większego, ogólnoświatowego procesu sypania się demokracji, którego skutki mogą być na koniec żałosne.

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:00:33 AM UTC-3, Jakub A. Krzewicki wrote:
> niedziela, 20 sierpnia 2023 o 07:52:34 UTC+2 Jakub A. Krzewicki napisał(a):
> > sobota, 19 sierpnia 2023 o 10:58:53 UTC+2 Fischer napisał(a):
> > > Azow to realny problem.
> >
> >
> > Taki sam, jak Wagner w Rosji.
> > Tylko, że Azow na dobrą sprawę już nie istnieje, a przyszłość Wagnera dopiero się waży.
> PS. Obecnie odradzające się tendencje narodowosocjalistyczne to nie jest wyłącznie zmora Rosji, Ukrainy czy Polski. Stanowią one część większego, ogólnoświatowego procesu sypania się demokracji, którego skutki mogą być na koniec żałosne.
Dzialaja

Juz tyle demokracji w historii mielismy i wszystkie padly. Dzialaly dobrze w mniejszych, homogenicznych spolecznosciach. I tak czesto jest i teraz, kiedy male, lokalne jednostki administracyjne funkcjonuja lepiej niz calosc.

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 10:37:29 AM UTC-3, Russet Bulba wrote:
> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:00:33 AM UTC-3, Jakub A. Krzewicki wrote:
> > niedziela, 20 sierpnia 2023 o 07:52:34 UTC+2 Jakub A. Krzewicki napisał(a):
> > > sobota, 19 sierpnia 2023 o 10:58:53 UTC+2 Fischer napisał(a):
> > > > Azow to realny problem.
> > >
> > >
> > > Taki sam, jak Wagner w Rosji.
> > > Tylko, że Azow na dobrą sprawę już nie istnieje, a przyszłość Wagnera dopiero się waży.
> > PS. Obecnie odradzające się tendencje narodowosocjalistyczne to nie jest wyłącznie zmora Rosji, Ukrainy czy Polski. Stanowią one część większego, ogólnoświatowego procesu sypania się demokracji, którego skutki mogą być na koniec żałosne.
> Dzialaja
>
>
>
> Juz tyle demokracji w historii mielismy i wszystkie padly. Dzialaly dobrze w mniejszych, homogenicznych spolecznosciach. I tak czesto jest i teraz, kiedy male, lokalne jednostki administracyjne funkcjonuja lepiej niz calosc..

Nie badalem tematu ale niewykluczone, ze sa jakies matematyczne modele efektywnosci systemow w tym demokratycznych w uzaleznieniu od specyficznych warunkow. A jak nie ma, to by sie przydaly, zamiast dziesiatkow nowych modeli klimatycznych, tak jakby te czynily na obecnym etapie jakas zasadnicza roznice.

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:10:55 AM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:

> Nie badalem tematu ale niewykluczone, ze sa jakies matematyczne modele efektywnosci systemow w tym demokratycznych w uzaleznieniu od specyficznych warunkow. A jak nie ma, to by sie przydaly, zamiast dziesiatkow nowych modeli klimatycznych, tak jakby te czynily na obecnym etapie jakas zasadnicza roznice
..
What you are talking about? There are no "10s of new climatic models" - not the
state-of-the-art GCM global models. And we need more than one because of the importance of the
ACTIONABLE advice to the societies THESE MODELS PROVIDE - if we emit this amount of greenhouse gases - this will be the consequences, if we emit that amount - that would be the consequences.

As OPPOSED to your proposal, that would see shifting the research effort away from the societally important and actionable advice the climate change which reality you deny for your ideological reasons, and onto completely USELESS socially knowledge:
if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
would say - "That's it, the Strak's Model has spoken: we have no choice but listen to the Strak
- let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown J. Kaczynski!

And conversely, if the Model told Russia or Saudi Arabia that the democracy is better for them - I can already see Putin and Saudi crown princes - giving up their power. ;-)

This would have be obvious to the OLD Andrew Strak, the one whose IQ later dropped precipitously
and whose personality and views changed drastically, after what your own Mentor, Dr. Kleczkowski, diagnosed on scp as "Cudowne, CUDOWNE Przejrzenie pana Andrzeja" - and compared to the change of personality and views of St. Paul on the road to Damascus. Unfortunately for you, as the saying goes - you tell a man by how he finishes, not by how he started.
==Piotr

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:28:12 PM UTC-3, Piotr wrote:
> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:10:55 AM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:
>
> > Nie badalem tematu ale niewykluczone, ze sa jakies matematyczne modele efektywnosci systemow w tym demokratycznych w uzaleznieniu od specyficznych warunkow. A jak nie ma, to by sie przydaly, zamiast dziesiatkow nowych modeli klimatycznych, tak jakby te czynily na obecnym etapie jakas zasadnicza roznice
> .
> What you are talking about? There are no "10s of new climatic models" - not the
> state-of-the-art GCM global models. And we need more than one because of the importance of the
> ACTIONABLE advice to the societies THESE MODELS PROVIDE - if we emit this amount of greenhouse gases - this will be the consequences, if we emit that amount - that would be the consequences.
>
> As OPPOSED to your proposal, that would see shifting the research effort away from the societally important and actionable advice the climate change which reality you deny for your ideological reasons, and onto completely USELESS socially knowledge:
>
> if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
> would say - "That's it, the Strak's Model has spoken: we have no choice but listen to the Strak
> - let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown J. Kaczynski!
>
> And conversely, if the Model told Russia or Saudi Arabia that the democracy is better for them - I can already see Putin and Saudi crown princes - giving up their power. ;-)
>
> This would have be obvious to the OLD Andrew Strak, the one whose IQ later dropped precipitously
> and whose personality and views changed drastically, after what your own Mentor, Dr. Kleczkowski, diagnosed on scp as "Cudowne, CUDOWNE Przejrzenie pana Andrzeja" - and compared to the change of personality and views of St. Paul on the road to Damascus. Unfortunately for you, as the saying goes - you tell a man by how he finishes, not by how he started.
> ===
> Piotr

You need them in order to stay busy, Mr Trela. Nothing truly more than that as per enclosed citation. Whst is our humanity return on this ‘investment’? Or just mostly spinning the wheels?

While the results from only around 40 CMIP6 models have been published so far, it is already evident that a number of them have a notably higher climate sensitivity than models in CMIP5. This higher sensitivity contributes to projections of greater warming this century – around 0.4C warmer than similar scenarios run in CMIP5 – though these warming projections may change as more models become available. Researchers are still working to assess why sensitivity values appear higher in the latest generation of models.

In this explainer, Carbon Brief provides an overview of the future emissions scenarios that are being used in CMIP6. This includes an examination of the climate sensitivity, past and future warming in CMIP6 models released so far, and a look at how they compare with the prior generation of models in CMIP5. Finally, this article will summarise the different experiments that climate models are undertaking in CMIP6.

Update 3 November 2020: With many additional CMIP6 runs now available from the ScenarioMIP project, this post has been updated to reflect the results. The original version of this article included only 14 CMIP6 model runs; this update now includes 42 historical runs and up to 35 runs in some future emission scenarios. All of the figures in both the “CMIP6 historical simulations” and “Future warming in CMIP6” sections have been updated to reflect the latest results. The original charts can be viewed at this archived version of the article.

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:17:24 PM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:
> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:28:12 PM UTC-3, Piotr wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:10:55 AM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:
> >
> > > Nie badalem tematu ale niewykluczone, ze sa jakies matematyczne modele efektywnosci systemow w tym demokratycznych w uzaleznieniu od specyficznych warunkow. A jak nie ma, to by sie przydaly, zamiast dziesiatkow nowych modeli klimatycznych, tak jakby te czynily na obecnym etapie jakas zasadnicza roznice
> > .
> > What you are talking about? There are no "10s of new climatic models" - not the
> > state-of-the-art GCM global models. And we need more than one because of the importance of the
> > ACTIONABLE advice to the societies THESE MODELS PROVIDE - if we emit this amount of greenhouse gases - this will be the consequences, if we emit that amount - that would be the consequences.
> >
> > As OPPOSED to your proposal, that would see shifting the research effort away from the societally important and actionable advice the climate change which reality you deny for your ideological reasons, and onto completely USELESS socially knowledge:
> >
> > if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
> > would say - "That's it, the Strak's Model has spoken: we have no choice but listen to the Strak
> > - let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown J. Kaczynski!
> >
> > And conversely, if the Model told Russia or Saudi Arabia that the democracy is better for them - I can already see Putin and Saudi crown princes - giving up their power. ;-)
> >
> > This would have be obvious to the OLD Andrew Strak, the one whose IQ later dropped precipitously
> > and whose personality and views changed drastically, after what your own Mentor, Dr. Kleczkowski, diagnosed on scp as "Cudowne, CUDOWNE Przejrzenie pana Andrzeja" - and compared to the change of personality and views of St. Paul on the road to Damascus. Unfortunately for you, as the saying goes - you tell a man by how he finishes, not by how he started.
> > ===
> > Piotr
> You need them in order to stay busy, Mr Trela. Nothing truly more than that as per enclosed citation. Whst is our humanity return on this ‘investment’? Or just mostly spinning the wheels?

Who of us two is spinning the wheels se below:

> While the results from only around 40 CMIP6 models have been published so far, it is already evident that a number of them have a notably higher climate sensitivity than models in CMIP5.

You seeing a tree a missed the forest Mr. Strak. 40 groups running in COORDINATION versions/modifications of the SAME same model generation - "CMIP6", Mr. Strak. Part of the exploration of the same single model generation ("CMIP6") and comparing it to the ensemble average from the PREVIOUS model generation ("CMIP5").

Ergo NEW research required for these new runs/tiny modification of the ALREADY EXISTING MODELS is MINISCULE compared to designing from scratch and testing a COMLETELY NEW GCM model.

Hence the chalenge to YOUR CLAIM - the climate models do not steal resources from other EQUALLY or MORE DESERVING projects, because your Idiot Model Proposal to use
supercomputer to calculate whether democracy or autocracy is better - is neither of them:

1. Politology is NOWHERE NEAR as quantitative as atmospheric science - here you have well-known laws of thermodynamics - there your have ... qualitative, usually subjective and
politically driven OPINIONS of individual politologists, most of whom you would probably
dismiss as "woke". Data/concepts in political "sciences" are malleable and subjective
- a Russian state propagandist would claim that Russia is a democracy. The data
needed for any decent quantitative model - either does not exist, is not collected,
cannot be trusted (ask a Russian what he really thinks about the Russia's war on the Ukraine)
or may be kept as a state secret by the autocratic governments suppressing it or using it to their advantage.
Hence your proposal the use supercomputers on such poorly-defined, subjective, unreliable, incomplete data connected with non-quantitative concepts - is an idiocy, and only tells. Mr. Strak, how far your mind is gone, compared to, say, 20 years ago.

2. MORE IMPORTANTLY, UNLIKE climate models - NO USEFUL, read ACTIONABLE, recommendations can be drawn from your idiot models. See my previous post:

We need more than one GCM climatic model, because of the importance of the
ACTIONABLE advice to the societies THESE MODELS PROVIDE - if we emit this amount of greenhouse gases - this will be the consequences, if we emit that amount - that would be the consequences.

As OPPOSED to your proposal, that would see shifting the research effort away from the societally important and actionable advice on the climate change, which reality you deny for your ideological reasons, and onto completely socially USELESS knowledge:

if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
would say - "That's it, the Strak has spoken: we have no choice but follow the Strak
- let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown J. Kaczynski!

And conversely, if the Strak Model told Russia or Saudi Arabia that the democracy
is better for them - I can already see Putin and Saudi crown princes nodding their
heads and ... giving up their power. ;-)
====
So, sorry, Mr. Strak, but your politically-correct attempt to hijack a COMPLETELY different discussion (whether democracy works or not) to try to discredit ... the science of climate change - did not pan out as you hoped.
But given you mental state in recent years, as reflected in your posts on scp - this outcome
should not be a surprise.

===
Piotr

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 6:31:21 PM UTC-3, Piotr wrote:
> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:17:24 PM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:28:12 PM UTC-3, Piotr wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:10:55 AM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nie badalem tematu ale niewykluczone, ze sa jakies matematyczne modele efektywnosci systemow w tym demokratycznych w uzaleznieniu od specyficznych warunkow. A jak nie ma, to by sie przydaly, zamiast dziesiatkow nowych modeli klimatycznych, tak jakby te czynily na obecnym etapie jakas zasadnicza roznice
> > > .
> > > What you are talking about? There are no "10s of new climatic models" - not the
> > > state-of-the-art GCM global models. And we need more than one because of the importance of the
> > > ACTIONABLE advice to the societies THESE MODELS PROVIDE - if we emit this amount of greenhouse gases - this will be the consequences, if we emit that amount - that would be the consequences.
> > >
> > > As OPPOSED to your proposal, that would see shifting the research effort away from the societally important and actionable advice the climate change which reality you deny for your ideological reasons, and onto completely USELESS socially knowledge:
> > >
> > > if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
> > > would say - "That's it, the Strak's Model has spoken: we have no choice but listen to the Strak
> > > - let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown J. Kaczynski!
> > >
> > > And conversely, if the Model told Russia or Saudi Arabia that the democracy is better for them - I can already see Putin and Saudi crown princes - giving up their power. ;-)
> > >
> > > This would have be obvious to the OLD Andrew Strak, the one whose IQ later dropped precipitously
> > > and whose personality and views changed drastically, after what your own Mentor, Dr. Kleczkowski, diagnosed on scp as "Cudowne, CUDOWNE Przejrzenie pana Andrzeja" - and compared to the change of personality and views of St. Paul on the road to Damascus. Unfortunately for you, as the saying goes - you tell a man by how he finishes, not by how he started.
> > > ===
> > > Piotr
> > You need them in order to stay busy, Mr Trela. Nothing truly more than that as per enclosed citation. Whst is our humanity return on this ‘investment’? Or just mostly spinning the wheels?
> Who of us two is spinning the wheels se below:
> > While the results from only around 40 CMIP6 models have been published so far, it is already evident that a number of them have a notably higher climate sensitivity than models in CMIP5.
> You seeing a tree a missed the forest Mr. Strak. 40 groups running in COORDINATION versions/modifications of the SAME same model generation - "CMIP6", Mr. Strak. Part of the exploration of the same single model generation ("CMIP6") and comparing it to the ensemble average from the PREVIOUS model generation ("CMIP5").
>
> Ergo NEW research required for these new runs/tiny modification of the ALREADY EXISTING MODELS is MINISCULE compared to designing from scratch and testing a COMLETELY NEW GCM model.
>
> Hence the chalenge to YOUR CLAIM - the climate models do not steal resources from other EQUALLY or MORE DESERVING projects, because your Idiot Model Proposal to use
> supercomputer to calculate whether democracy or autocracy is better - is neither of them:
>
> 1. Politology is NOWHERE NEAR as quantitative as atmospheric science - here you have well-known laws of thermodynamics - there your have ... qualitative, usually subjective and
> politically driven OPINIONS of individual politologists, most of whom you would probably
> dismiss as "woke". Data/concepts in political "sciences" are malleable and subjective
> - a Russian state propagandist would claim that Russia is a democracy. The data
> needed for any decent quantitative model - either does not exist, is not collected,
> cannot be trusted (ask a Russian what he really thinks about the Russia's war on the Ukraine)
> or may be kept as a state secret by the autocratic governments suppressing it or using it to their advantage.
>
> Hence your proposal the use supercomputers on such poorly-defined, subjective, unreliable, incomplete data connected with non-quantitative concepts - is an idiocy, and only tells. Mr. Strak, how far your mind is gone, compared to, say, 20 years ago.
>
> 2. MORE IMPORTANTLY, UNLIKE climate models - NO USEFUL, read ACTIONABLE, recommendations can be drawn from your idiot models. See my previous post:
>
> We need more than one GCM climatic model, because of the importance of the
> ACTIONABLE advice to the societies THESE MODELS PROVIDE - if we emit this amount of greenhouse gases - this will be the consequences, if we emit that amount - that would be the consequences.
> As OPPOSED to your proposal, that would see shifting the research effort away from the societally important and actionable advice on the climate change, which reality you deny for your ideological reasons, and onto completely socially USELESS knowledge:
> if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
> would say - "That's it, the Strak has spoken: we have no choice but follow the Strak
> - let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown J. Kaczynski!
> And conversely, if the Strak Model told Russia or Saudi Arabia that the democracy
> is better for them - I can already see Putin and Saudi crown princes nodding their
> heads and ... giving up their power. ;-)
> =====
>
> So, sorry, Mr. Strak, but your politically-correct attempt to hijack a COMPLETELY different discussion (whether democracy works or not) to try to discredit ... the science of climate change - did not pan out as you hoped.
> But given you mental state in recent years, as reflected in your posts on scp - this outcome
> should not be a surprise.
>
> ===
> Piotr

Mr Trela, are you a compulsory liar? The following info is from 2015 and your ideological cronies keep modeling like crazy. Obviously it consumes lots of money why starving of funding other domains of science at the same time.. Is it not long time overdue to take it under reasonable control by some more sober and practical minds?

CMIP
The climate science community has recognized for some time the need to standardize upon a set of climate change modeling experiments to help compare the different models and improve our understanding of the climate system. This has been termed the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). The present generation of CMIP models is called CMIP5 (link is external), since it marks Phase 5 in a successive series of sets of models. This phase is largely complete. Work is beginning on design of CMIP6, but finalized datasets will not be starting to emerge from this new phase until roughly 2017. At present the CMIP5 effort incorporates 62 different models from 29 different modeling groups.

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:31:16 AM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:
> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 6:31:21 PM UTC-3, Piotr wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:17:24 PM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:28:12 PM UTC-3, Piotr wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:10:55 AM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Nie badalem tematu ale niewykluczone, ze sa jakies matematyczne modele efektywnosci systemow w tym demokratycznych w uzaleznieniu od specyficznych warunkow. A jak nie ma, to by sie przydaly, zamiast dziesiatkow nowych modeli klimatycznych, tak jakby te czynily na obecnym etapie jakas zasadnicza roznice
> > > > .
> > > > What you are talking about? There are no "10s of new climatic models" - not the
> > > > state-of-the-art GCM global models. And we need more than one because of the importance of the
> > > > ACTIONABLE advice to the societies THESE MODELS PROVIDE - if we emit this amount of greenhouse gases - this will be the consequences, if we emit that amount - that would be the consequences.
> > > >
> > > > As OPPOSED to your proposal, that would see shifting the research effort away from the societally important and actionable advice the climate change which reality you deny for your ideological reasons, and onto completely USELESS socially knowledge:
> > > >
> > > > if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
> > > > would say - "That's it, the Strak's Model has spoken: we have no choice but listen to the Strak
> > > > - let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown J. Kaczynski!
> > > >
> > > > And conversely, if the Model told Russia or Saudi Arabia that the democracy is better for them - I can already see Putin and Saudi crown princes - giving up their power. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > This would have be obvious to the OLD Andrew Strak, the one whose IQ later dropped precipitously
> > > > and whose personality and views changed drastically, after what your own Mentor, Dr. Kleczkowski, diagnosed on scp as "Cudowne, CUDOWNE Przejrzenie pana Andrzeja" - and compared to the change of personality and views of St. Paul on the road to Damascus. Unfortunately for you, as the saying goes - you tell a man by how he finishes, not by how he started.
> > > > ===
> > > > Piotr
> > > You need them in order to stay busy, Mr Trela. Nothing truly more than that as per enclosed citation. Whst is our humanity return on this ‘investment’? Or just mostly spinning the wheels?
> > Who of us two is spinning the wheels se below:
> > > While the results from only around 40 CMIP6 models have been published so far, it is already evident that a number of them have a notably higher climate sensitivity than models in CMIP5.
> > You seeing a tree a missed the forest Mr. Strak. 40 groups running in COORDINATION versions/modifications of the SAME same model generation - "CMIP6", Mr. Strak. Part of the exploration of the same single model generation ("CMIP6") and comparing it to the ensemble average from the PREVIOUS model generation ("CMIP5").
> >
> > Ergo NEW research required for these new runs/tiny modification of the ALREADY EXISTING MODELS is MINISCULE compared to designing from scratch and testing a COMLETELY NEW GCM model.
> >
> > Hence the chalenge to YOUR CLAIM - the climate models do not steal resources from other EQUALLY or MORE DESERVING projects, because your Idiot Model Proposal to use
> > supercomputer to calculate whether democracy or autocracy is better - is neither of them:
> >
> > 1. Politology is NOWHERE NEAR as quantitative as atmospheric science - here you have well-known laws of thermodynamics - there your have ... qualitative, usually subjective and
> > politically driven OPINIONS of individual politologists, most of whom you would probably
> > dismiss as "woke". Data/concepts in political "sciences" are malleable and subjective
> > - a Russian state propagandist would claim that Russia is a democracy. The data
> > needed for any decent quantitative model - either does not exist, is not collected,
> > cannot be trusted (ask a Russian what he really thinks about the Russia's war on the Ukraine)
> > or may be kept as a state secret by the autocratic governments suppressing it or using it to their advantage.
> >
> > Hence your proposal the use supercomputers on such poorly-defined, subjective, unreliable, incomplete data connected with non-quantitative concepts - is an idiocy, and only tells. Mr. Strak, how far your mind is gone, compared to, say, 20 years ago.
> >
> > 2. MORE IMPORTANTLY, UNLIKE climate models - NO USEFUL, read ACTIONABLE, recommendations can be drawn from your idiot models. See my previous post:
> >
> > We need more than one GCM climatic model, because of the importance of the
> > ACTIONABLE advice to the societies THESE MODELS PROVIDE - if we emit this amount of greenhouse gases - this will be the consequences, if we emit that amount - that would be the consequences.
> > As OPPOSED to your proposal, that would see shifting the research effort away from the societally important and actionable advice on the climate change, which reality you deny for your ideological reasons, and onto completely socially USELESS knowledge:
> > if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
> > would say - "That's it, the Strak has spoken: we have no choice but follow the Strak
> > - let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown J. Kaczynski!
> > And conversely, if the Strak Model told Russia or Saudi Arabia that the democracy
> > is better for them - I can already see Putin and Saudi crown princes nodding their
> > heads and ... giving up their power. ;-)
> > =====
> >
> > So, sorry, Mr. Strak, but your politically-correct attempt to hijack a COMPLETELY different discussion (whether democracy works or not) to try to discredit ... the science of climate change - did not pan out as you hoped.
> > But given you mental state in recent years, as reflected in your posts on scp - this outcome
> > should not be a surprise.
> >
> > ===
> > Piotr
> Mr Trela, are you a compulsory liar? The following info is from 2015 and your ideological cronies keep modeling like crazy.

Mr. Andrew Strak and the best arguments his mind can come up with:
- "Mr Trela, are you a compulsory liar?"
- and venting about "my cronies" from NASA and other Great Global Scientists Conspiracy
insitutions - "[you] keep modeling like crazy"

On behalf of my Cronies From NASA - Ouch!

And all the Brilliant Arguments from the head of Andew Strak come in his response to:

===PT: NEW research required for these new runs/tiny modification of the ALREADY EXISTING MODELS is MINISCULE compared to designing from scratch and testing a COMLETELY NEW GCM model.

Hence the chalenge to YOUR CLAIM - the climate models do not steal resources from other EQUALLY or MORE DESERVING projects, because your Idiot Model proposal to use
supercomputers to ... calculate whether democracy or autocracy is better - is neither of them:

1. Politology is NOWHERE NEAR as quantitative as atmospheric sciences:
- here you have well-known laws of thermodynamics - there your have ... qualitative, usually
subjective and politically-driven OPINIONS of individual politologists, most of whom
you would probably dismiss as "woke".

- data/concepts to be used in the political "sciences" models are malleable and
subjective, e.g.: a Russian state propagandist would claim that Russia is a democracy.

-the data needed for any decent quantitative model - either do not exist, are not collected,
cannot be trusted (interview a Russian in Russia what he REALLY thinks about the
Russia's war on the Ukraine ... ;-)), or is kept as a state secret by the autocratic governments suppressing it, or using it to their advantage.

Hence your proposal the use supercomputers on such POORLY-DEFINED, SUBJECTIVE,
UNRELIABLE, and INCOMPLETA data, connected with POORLY QUANTIFIABLE concepts
- is an Idiocy, and only tells. Mr. Strak, how far your mind has gone in recent years.

2. MORE IMPORTANTLY, UNLIKE climate models - NO USEFUL, read: ACTIONABLE, recommendations can be drawn from your idiot models. See my previous post:

" We need GCM climatic models, because of the importance of the ACTIONABLE advice
to the societies THESE MODELS PROVIDE - if we emit this amount of greenhouse gases
- this will be the consequences, if we emit that amount - that would be the consequences.

As OPPOSED to your proposal, that would see shifting the research effort away from the
societally important and actionable advice on the climate change, which reality you deny
for your ideological reasons, and onto ... completely socially USELESS knowledge:

if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
would say - "That's it, the Strak has spoken: we have no choice but follow the Strak
- let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown J. Kaczynski!

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 11:29:04 AM UTC-3, Piotr wrote:
> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:31:16 AM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 6:31:21 PM UTC-3, Piotr wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:17:24 PM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:28:12 PM UTC-3, Piotr wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:10:55 AM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Nie badalem tematu ale niewykluczone, ze sa jakies matematyczne modele efektywnosci systemow w tym demokratycznych w uzaleznieniu od specyficznych warunkow. A jak nie ma, to by sie przydaly, zamiast dziesiatkow nowych modeli klimatycznych, tak jakby te czynily na obecnym etapie jakas zasadnicza roznice
> > > > > .
> > > > > What you are talking about? There are no "10s of new climatic models" - not the
> > > > > state-of-the-art GCM global models. And we need more than one because of the importance of the
> > > > > ACTIONABLE advice to the societies THESE MODELS PROVIDE - if we emit this amount of greenhouse gases - this will be the consequences, if we emit that amount - that would be the consequences.
> > > > >
> > > > > As OPPOSED to your proposal, that would see shifting the research effort away from the societally important and actionable advice the climate change which reality you deny for your ideological reasons, and onto completely USELESS socially knowledge:
> > > > >
> > > > > if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
> > > > > would say - "That's it, the Strak's Model has spoken: we have no choice but listen to the Strak
> > > > > - let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown J. Kaczynski!
> > > > >
> > > > > And conversely, if the Model told Russia or Saudi Arabia that the democracy is better for them - I can already see Putin and Saudi crown princes - giving up their power. ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > This would have be obvious to the OLD Andrew Strak, the one whose IQ later dropped precipitously
> > > > > and whose personality and views changed drastically, after what your own Mentor, Dr. Kleczkowski, diagnosed on scp as "Cudowne, CUDOWNE Przejrzenie pana Andrzeja" - and compared to the change of personality and views of St. Paul on the road to Damascus. Unfortunately for you, as the saying goes - you tell a man by how he finishes, not by how he started.
> > > > > ===
> > > > > Piotr
> > > > You need them in order to stay busy, Mr Trela. Nothing truly more than that as per enclosed citation. Whst is our humanity return on this ‘investment’? Or just mostly spinning the wheels?
> > > Who of us two is spinning the wheels se below:
> > > > While the results from only around 40 CMIP6 models have been published so far, it is already evident that a number of them have a notably higher climate sensitivity than models in CMIP5.
> > > You seeing a tree a missed the forest Mr. Strak. 40 groups running in COORDINATION versions/modifications of the SAME same model generation - "CMIP6", Mr. Strak. Part of the exploration of the same single model generation ("CMIP6") and comparing it to the ensemble average from the PREVIOUS model generation ("CMIP5").
> > >
> > > Ergo NEW research required for these new runs/tiny modification of the ALREADY EXISTING MODELS is MINISCULE compared to designing from scratch and testing a COMLETELY NEW GCM model.
> > >
> > > Hence the chalenge to YOUR CLAIM - the climate models do not steal resources from other EQUALLY or MORE DESERVING projects, because your Idiot Model Proposal to use
> > > supercomputer to calculate whether democracy or autocracy is better - is neither of them:
> > >
> > > 1. Politology is NOWHERE NEAR as quantitative as atmospheric science - here you have well-known laws of thermodynamics - there your have ... qualitative, usually subjective and
> > > politically driven OPINIONS of individual politologists, most of whom you would probably
> > > dismiss as "woke". Data/concepts in political "sciences" are malleable and subjective
> > > - a Russian state propagandist would claim that Russia is a democracy.. The data
> > > needed for any decent quantitative model - either does not exist, is not collected,
> > > cannot be trusted (ask a Russian what he really thinks about the Russia's war on the Ukraine)
> > > or may be kept as a state secret by the autocratic governments suppressing it or using it to their advantage.
> > >
> > > Hence your proposal the use supercomputers on such poorly-defined, subjective, unreliable, incomplete data connected with non-quantitative concepts - is an idiocy, and only tells. Mr. Strak, how far your mind is gone, compared to, say, 20 years ago.
> > >
> > > 2. MORE IMPORTANTLY, UNLIKE climate models - NO USEFUL, read ACTIONABLE, recommendations can be drawn from your idiot models. See my previous post:
> > >
> > > We need more than one GCM climatic model, because of the importance of the
> > > ACTIONABLE advice to the societies THESE MODELS PROVIDE - if we emit this amount of greenhouse gases - this will be the consequences, if we emit that amount - that would be the consequences.
> > > As OPPOSED to your proposal, that would see shifting the research effort away from the societally important and actionable advice on the climate change, which reality you deny for your ideological reasons, and onto completely socially USELESS knowledge:
> > > if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
> > > would say - "That's it, the Strak has spoken: we have no choice but follow the Strak
> > > - let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown J. Kaczynski!
> > > And conversely, if the Strak Model told Russia or Saudi Arabia that the democracy
> > > is better for them - I can already see Putin and Saudi crown princes nodding their
> > > heads and ... giving up their power. ;-)
> > > =====
> > >
> > > So, sorry, Mr. Strak, but your politically-correct attempt to hijack a COMPLETELY different discussion (whether democracy works or not) to try to discredit ... the science of climate change - did not pan out as you hoped.
> > > But given you mental state in recent years, as reflected in your posts on scp - this outcome
> > > should not be a surprise.
> > >
> > > ===
> > > Piotr
> > Mr Trela, are you a compulsory liar? The following info is from 2015 and your ideological cronies keep modeling like crazy.
> Mr. Andrew Strak and the best arguments his mind can come up with:
> - "Mr Trela, are you a compulsory liar?"
> - and venting about "my cronies" from NASA and other Great Global Scientists Conspiracy
> insitutions - "[you] keep modeling like crazy"
>
> On behalf of my Cronies From NASA - Ouch!
>
> And all the Brilliant Arguments from the head of Andew Strak come in his response to:
>
> ====
> PT: NEW research required for these new runs/tiny modification of the ALREADY EXISTING MODELS is MINISCULE compared to designing from scratch and testing a COMLETELY NEW GCM model.
>
> Hence the chalenge to YOUR CLAIM - the climate models do not steal resources from other EQUALLY or MORE DESERVING projects, because your Idiot Model proposal to use
> supercomputers to ... calculate whether democracy or autocracy is better - is neither of them:
>
> 1. Politology is NOWHERE NEAR as quantitative as atmospheric sciences:
> - here you have well-known laws of thermodynamics - there your have ... qualitative, usually
> subjective and politically-driven OPINIONS of individual politologists, most of whom
> you would probably dismiss as "woke".
> - data/concepts to be used in the political "sciences" models are malleable and
> subjective, e.g.: a Russian state propagandist would claim that Russia is a democracy.
>
> -the data needed for any decent quantitative model - either do not exist, are not collected,
> cannot be trusted (interview a Russian in Russia what he REALLY thinks about the
> Russia's war on the Ukraine ... ;-)), or is kept as a state secret by the autocratic governments suppressing it, or using it to their advantage.
>
> Hence your proposal the use supercomputers on such POORLY-DEFINED, SUBJECTIVE,
> UNRELIABLE, and INCOMPLETA data, connected with POORLY QUANTIFIABLE concepts
> - is an Idiocy, and only tells. Mr. Strak, how far your mind has gone in recent years.
> 2. MORE IMPORTANTLY, UNLIKE climate models - NO USEFUL, read: ACTIONABLE, recommendations can be drawn from your idiot models. See my previous post:
> " We need GCM climatic models, because of the importance of the ACTIONABLE advice
> to the societies THESE MODELS PROVIDE - if we emit this amount of greenhouse gases
> - this will be the consequences, if we emit that amount - that would be the consequences.
>
> As OPPOSED to your proposal, that would see shifting the research effort away from the
> societally important and actionable advice on the climate change, which reality you deny
> for your ideological reasons, and onto ... completely socially USELESS knowledge:
> if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
> would say - "That's it, the Strak has spoken: we have no choice but follow the Strak
> - let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown J. Kaczynski!
>
> And conversely, if the Strak Model told Russia or Saudi Arabia that the democracy
> is better for them - I can already see Putin and Saudi crown princes nodding their
> heads and ... giving up their power. ;-)
> ====> So, sorry, Mr. Strak, but your post only illustrates the sad reality of your progressing
> symptoms of your condition:
> - aphasia - troubles with formulating a cogent, non-repetitive, argument, finding a
> correct word, and understanding what others are saying,
> - tangential thinking - can't hold on the topic at hand and mind drifting onto
> loosely-related, or completely unrelated, topics: here, your brain drifted from your
> original musings that sometimes democracy works and sometimes not, onto
> your unmasking ... a global conspiracy of scientists to study ... climate change.
>
> Doesn't it sound like somebody you know and "admire" ? ;-)
> ===
> Piotr

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 2:07:34 PM UTC-2:30, Russet Bulba wrote:
> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 11:29:04 AM UTC-3, Piotr wrote:

> Mr Trela, how many models are enough?

As I explained above - it depends on
a) can we even make a model that would have any sense - i.e. is the problem tractable numerically (do the numerical relationships exist, do we know them, and do the data
needed for such relationship exist and are reliable)?

b) do the results of the models have social RELEVANCE, i.e. can they inform
important societal decisions?

c) if a) and b) - how complex it is the problem?

In case of your Idiot Model that would decide whether for a given nation - democracy or autocracy is better - the answer to both a) and b) is NO, becasue:

a) the problem is NOT tractable numerically (few if any clear quantitative relationships, absence,
or unreliability of data) - hence no way to construct a reliable model

b) results of such model, if any, would have ZERO policy applicability, as already
explained to you:

>> [your Idiot Model would produce ] completely socially USELESS recommendations:
>>- if your model predicts that totalitarian system is better for Poland - I DOUBT many
>> would say - "That's it then, the Strak has spoken: we have no choice but follow
>> the Strak - let's dissolve the parliament and democratic institutions, and crown
>> J. Kaczynski!
>>And conversely, if the Strak Model told Russia or Saudi Arabia that the democracy
>> is better for them - I can already see Putin and Saudi crown princes nodding their
>> heads and ... giving up their power. ;-) "
====
In contrast - the climate change models are
a) numerically tractable - use known physical relationships between data that are
infinitely more reliable than the poli-sci data in your "model"

b) Their recommendation to societies are RELEVANT - because consequences of action or inactions may cost trillions of dollars and may make a difference between massive
disruption or even destruction of the human civilization, and not.
c) The studied system is VERY complex - not only we need a few km grid over the entire
Earth, with a short time step over decades or centuries, but on top of it each grid element
has many vertical levels (depth in the ocean and altitude in the atmosphere) and various
physical, chemical and biological processes happening in these layers.

Since the processes/variability _within_ grid element cannot be resolved - the sub-grid
processes have to be parametrized. This parametrization is not unique - hence different
versions of the models would differ in this parametrization, and consequently may
have different outcomes.

Therefore, only an idiot would base the advice with potential huge societal implications,
on one or even a few versions of a model. Instead, climatologists use ensemble
statistics, in which output of a given model is just one data point in meta analysis -
from these individual data points we can get the ensemble mean - and from their
differences - the standard deviation of these individual-study data points -
giving us a metric of the variability/precision of that ensemble-mean.
So if you care about the costs of WRONG predictions, you should want as many
different versions of the model as practical.

Finally, and that argument should be close to your heart - if the UN restricted
modelling to one or a few selected groups, then the same Trumpist nuts who
complained about having TOO MANY models, would call cry CENSORSHIP
and SUPPRESSION of independent groups that could have challenged, to question
the woke "orthodoxy."

A. Strak: > It appears there is no end to them. But which one is true? Are they new
world religions?

Your equating the scientific method with religious beliefs says to me that you have
no idea about either. Your ignorance of science has been well established above,
but you ignorance of religions is a new one.

What credit would get from Good if you "believed" ONLY what you can prove?
The very nature of religious FAITH is in the Belief in the absence, or even in spite, of
the falsifiable proofs. What did you think the phrase: "LEAP OF FAITH" meant,
Mr. Strak?
==Piotr