Re: Ha
@LionelB
"Well, I am. It doesn't seem to me you really "get" science."
Of course because while we both seem to agree on the scientific method and I have no issue with you holding your own opinion, you cant handle that someone would have an opinion different to your beliefs.
"Nope. As I said before, all I believe is that science is the best means we have at understanding the world. I don't "believe in" hypotheses (because I understand how science works). I assess hypotheses on the basis of evidence. I am, you might say, not a great believer in faith."
So its not that you 'believe in' a hypothesis, you looked at it and assessed that you believe it? We both look at the evidence and reach differing opinions based on how much we believe the known information is accurate enough (you holed yourself badly when you used the 50% hypothetical question).
"Your assessment, coming to opposite conclusions, feels to me faith- rather than evidence-based."
"Feels to you" looks like a very accurate statement there. I dont arrive to the same opinion as you but you believe the hypothesis and so feel I am wrong. Not fact as we both seem to be interested in the evidence, but instead its belief in the hypothesis which to you is good enough to believe while I am sceptical due to the hypothesis not working out well so far.
"You appear to need, very badly, to believe that climate science is a conspiracy to hoodwink us all."
Really? That I take issue with the failing hypothesis and actions taken being against the 'science' assuming it was even correct somehow seems to you like a belief on my part? Yet you are not a believer although you believe in a hypothesis which woefully struggles to understand its subject (climate) and relies on technology that doesnt exist? Yet you seem to equate my position as a belief system?
"models that predict the rate of warming based on volumes of CO2 in the atmosphere actually predict global mean temperatures (mean, that is, over time windows appropriate to discussion of climate) rather well"
And with the examples you post you missed out the 1999 hockeystick graph was exposed. The run away doom all but vanishing from conversation. Successful models are lauded as a success and failure is quietly brushed under the carpet. The marketing of our doom being changed from global cooling to global warming to run away global warming to climate change. Because the climate refuses to behave. We can of course say that last bit isnt science, but its the narrative to get the money into that science.
"And those climate models are useful for projecting global temperatures on the basis of CO2 emissions"
Ok so we have models that may or not be right (probably not). Providing an abstraction of what may or not be a problem. Giving results that may or not be in the approximate area of reality and diverging further over time. And yet the hypothetical doom scenario is to be believed because of this? I do like to remind people of the Himalayan glaciers vanishing is science, which was an off the cuff remark by a scientist that wouldnt stand by it. But its the science and we must believe! Until the truth arrives. If you would like to laugh at the science a little have a look at- https://extinctionclock.org/
But back to your 50% chance the theory might have any truth to it should we self harm, this is where I say no (and I think most people would) vs you who says yes. The normal risk assessment that a person makes about anything seemingly should go out of the window for a coin toss of nothing vs potentially a problem with no definable outcome but very expensive to try and solve with technology that doesnt exist.