re: #389 Thanos

We don’t have to understand them “perfectly” to understand large, long term macro effects, just as we don’t have to measure to the nanometer to saw lumber.

You’re right, but we’re talking about making policy decisions based upon models of the world 91 years from today. If the models have gone off the track during the first 9, what does that say for their reliability over the next 91?

I’m not against good legislation that focuses on decarbonizing our economy. As has been said many, many times (multiple times in this thread), it’s a good thing regardless of what the climate is doing. I am just personally not convinced, after poring over data, reading the IPCC report, etc., that we should be doing it because a climate catastrophe is imminent. I think there are far too many holes that need to be plugged up first. The overreliance on tree rings in temperature reconstructions (compounded by the divergence problem in the mid 20th century), the asymmetry of temperature change between the north pole and the south pole (the fact that the south pole is gaining or staying constant in ice mass, while the north pole is losing ice mass), the lack of changes in sea levels that were predicted to happen, and finally the accuracy of the assumptions within the temperature models.

Contrary to the perception that every person who is even remotely skeptical of an upcoming climate catastrophe, I’m actually very open minded to being wrong. I don’t think the same can be said for the vast majority of people in this debate. To be blunt, I think Charles is becoming a bit close-minded as well. There’s merit to the points that I raise above Charles.