[s1k3b8]

> A lot of this article reminded me of the techniques used by climate change deniers to sow doubt.

And a lot of climate change advocates' technique reminds me of the religious zealots of the past. Even down to the ad hominems like "Christ denier"/"climate change denier".

Firstly, I don't believe climate change is a matter of "belief". No such thing as a "climate change denier". Climate change is an intrinsic part of nature. It always exists.

> Doesn't it smack of "the science is not in yet" argument used by climate change deniers?

But the "science is not yet in". That's why there is so much debate, even within the "climate change" advocacy group.

If climate change was a developed science and we understood climate change adequately, we wouldn't have so many climate change models. We would have ONE.

On the one hand, climate change advocates claim that the climate is too complex that we can't have a predictive model yet. And yet, climate change advocates also claim that their own personal view is gospel and everyone else who doesn't agree are heretics.

[intarga]

>If climate change was a developed science and we understood climate change adequately, we wouldn't have so many climate change models. We would have ONE.

In physics we have a dozen different models of gravity, yet we're still pretty sure that if you jump out of a building you're going to fall downward.

[s1k3b8]

> In physics we have a dozen different models of gravity

We have general relativity. Newtonian gravity is kept around for legacy's sakes and ease of calculation. Also, there is a difference between "different" models of gravity that gives the same results/predictions given the same input and different climate models that give different results/predictions given the same input.

> yet we're still pretty sure that if you jump out of a building you're going to fall downward.

If I drop a ball from the window, every valid model of gravity gives the same time for when the ball will hit the ground. If the models of gravity were like the climate models, we'd have dozen different times for when the ball hits the ground. We'd have 1s, 5s, 3s... Hell one result would claim the ball will float up and never hit the ground.

If the gravity models were like climate models, we would not be able to fly planes.

This is why climate change advocates are so disappointing. The complete lack of understanding of science and yet that ignorance makes them pretend they are an authority on science.

[intarga]

> We have general relativity. Newtonian gravity is kept around for legacy's sakes and ease of calculation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relati...

> This is why climate change advocates are so disappointing. The complete lack of understanding of science and yet that ignorance makes them pretend they are an authority on science.

And are you an authority? I'll concur that I'm not, my field is cosmology. However, all my contemporaries in climate science seem to support the consensus, and here's a source that 97% of publishing climate scientists do [0]. They are an authority, and I think I'll believe them over an armchair intellectual trying to sow doubt on the internet.

[0] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ERL....11d8002C/abstra...