Physics cannot accurately predict when a light bulb will "blow", but that doesn't mean we should not design cars with dual headlights.
Nor can they tell when a specific atom in a radioactive isotope will undergo a transition. But given a sufficiently large sample size, they can tell the expected lifetime of a lightbulb and the half life of radioactive isotopes.
There is a big gap between simply recognizing if something is happening and having the understanding required to accurately incorporate all variables and assess it with precision.
Absolutely. It's why I say further work needs to be done. You yourself have read that people and groups have made specific predictions: there will be more hurricanes, they'll be more violent, massive heatwaves, the world will become too hot, fishes will die, terrorism is caused by this, and the list goes on. All said with a great sense of certainty.
For the vast majority of people, the situation is considered a reality. Then there is Ted Cruz, and the French (and you?).
Sure. Majority of people believe in a supreme deity, that you can petition the lord with prayer, that chiropractors are real doctors. Enough believe all sorts of things and sometimes they're driven by political ideologies.
BTW, the French will shortly be testing a newish type of fusion reactor (not a tokamak) that took almost two decades to build. It'd be wonderful if we can finally get to the point of sustained fusion.
As to me...
The model(s) need more work.
Climate has always been changing.
Sea levels go up, they go down. Plan accordingly.
I'd like to see a thorough discussion of this 97% thing that's always batted around.
What's the optimum CO2 level?
How do we account for increases in warmth generally being associated with better standards of living?
I have problems with a lot of the UN.
I'm in favor of better fuel economy, better house efficiency, self contained houses that are energy neutral, research into better batteries, solar, wind, whatever.
I have zero use for religion in politics. Founding fathers had it right.
You can't have increasing populations like economists like and countries need to take care of aging citizenry, a middle type class that will be bigger consumers and increasingly consume resources. UN says insects are a great source of food. That may be but it's also a sign of desperation. So now we're going to fvck with the natural balance too?
I think science will come up with a lot of the answers to the problems, I just don't know when.
I find it hilarious that in an age where we can have video conferencing that climate scientists and the like will travel at a great carbon footprint to some very nice locale. It's like discussing food shortages while dining at an expensively catered event.
I think the vast majority of politicians are self serving whores.
