re: #520 Thanos

“luke warmer” I like it, I’m stealing it. That’s where I am at. We definitely have AGW problems sometime within the next couple of centuries (most likely in the latter half of this one,) but that doesn’t we should bankrupt nations or pauperize people to overcome it yesterday.

I have seen the term “luke warmer” on a variety of AGW sites (pro and con).

But if it implies a certain “nuetrality” or a sort of agnosticism I’d caveat people that it doesn’t. We produce industrial gases that have no where to go but into the atmosphere, which is the very medium in which “climate occurs”. There has to be an affect.

But the linearity of those in the catastrophist camp that like to proclaim “we have X years left” implies a moral certainty that simply doesn’t exist unless one is exclusively relying on the outcomes predicted by the models. But the models themselves rely in part on assumptions that support the conclusion - they have to given the uncertainties and necessary smoothing of the data sets along with the attendant assumptions about what components of a very complex system do what.

That doesn’t mean the predictions are wrong. My problem is with the moral certitude of the catastrophists and their need to bludgeon doubters and skeptics for having committed some sort of mind crime. That behavior in itself is probably what attracts many to the skeptic camp.

None of the hyperventilating on either side is helpful, IMO.

BTW - I was more certain in my skepticism in the past and have Lotlakehiker, freetoken and ludwig to thank for forcing me to be more skeptical of skepticism. Just the same, I am not as certain of many of the AGW claims as they are.

Statistics requires one to account for uncertainty and all of the data gathering required to feed climate models is subject to the same rules.