1. How do you know this?
2. What is your confidence that model projections for the year 2100 will be accurate? The models themselves already have not insignificant margins of error built into them because they're aware of their own limitations.
3. I'm not anti-model, they are what they, educated guesses but aren't gospel. Just like a poll, even the best ones have a margin for error and can't capture everything.
4. It's like saying "hey my weather app predicted the weather 2 days in advance, that must means they'll also be accurate in predicting the weather 2 weeks from now". I'm not saying weather is the same as climate, i'm saying models for things with lots of variables start to break down more and more over time because that is their nature.
5. I'm not using this in any way to "deny climate change". In fact it's possible the models could underestimate future warming.
1. I could say that I had a minor-equivalent in stats with my mathematics degree, but that wouldn't matter to people who watch the clown Peterson and the stand-up comic Joe Rogan discuss climate change as though they understand it.
I would say that in my studies I learned to know when I have a grasp of something, when I know it well and when I have no idea. When I have no idea, I look to learn. Around the time of Climategate I started to wonder if there was something going on with Climate Science. I found a series of videos by a science journalist Peter Hadfield.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAPUnlike people like Peterson, he always explains complicated theories and cites the body of science that refers to them. He eschews political takes and even economics mostly.
So - I needed to understand, so I learned. I used the videos to link to the actual research which I was able to understand with my statistics background but I didn't need to. I recommend you watch the entire series to get a sense of how much bullshitting is happening out there.
2. Where are you getting this assertion, which you have now repeated ? And didn't you already acknowledge that the predictions are accurate and say that you weren't impressed ? Why are you being stubborn on this ?
3. The amount of work that goes into these models, by an army of educated brilliant people is a great human achievement in the field of science. You, Peterson and Rogan want to make it sound like child's play and I am at a loss as to why.
4. I already explained that there are really TWO significant factors in climate prediction: solar radiation and atmosphere. There are other variables but they are not nearly as significant. Do you understand this ?
5. But they are actually pretty accurate and for our purposes - if they are off by a few % it won't matter if the trend is upwards