So far predictions by all existing CO2-climate models have been dismal. I would not be boarding a plane designed with models of similar quality. Neither will I do anything to a patient that is likely to produce result similar to the climate models. But for some it makes sense to keep doing the same thing - pouring more data into a computer - and expect a different result. Good luck.
Yes, you've said all of that already. What you haven't touched on is: (i) is carbon a greenhouse gas; and (ii) are we dumping more carbon into the atmosphere. Hint: the answer to both of those questions is yes.
Alas, opinions differ.
No, about the above, not really.
Some of us are dumbfuck nerds, some are brainwashed patsies. The former tend to try have a discussion, the latter mostly lean on emotional, catastrophe and insult. A new word: pedophrasty: the use of children's welfare to make the argument stronger. Very useful for CO2 debates: "I feel sorry for our children
..." To each his own.
You weren't having a discussion. You were talking about what you wanted to talk about--modeling--and not about the basic facts and the constructive next steps.
I believe that climate shtick distracts us from problems that are a) more pressing, b) have solid cause and effect evidence base and c) are more manageable. Pollution, overpopulation, overuse of resources - very obvious three. Makes more sense to me to apply effort here instead of trying to change the weather in the next hundred years.
Sell it to yourself however you like. Limiting pollution would include limiting air emissions. Limiting population would limit air emissions. Limiting overuse of resources would limit air emissions. So fuck it, let's do those three things. I'm on board.
Happy coming 2019, everyone.
You too my Russo-Afro-Australasian fren!