[ximeng]

What is the evidence that people who question the black box have great reputational risk? Dyson raises this point, but I don't really see that this would be different from any other area.

There is more money at stake with climate change than most areas of science, which means it becomes a political issue. There would seem to be a very strong incentive to show existing models are not accurate, or to come up with scientifically plausible models with very different outcomes. However no arguments against climate change do this, presumably because it's not very easy to do so.

Dyson here points out some areas that he thinks are not possible to model accurately or are not currently modelled accurately, such as the benefits and threats of various changes to the climate, the impact of climate change on sea level change, cloud modelling uncertainties, and the chaotic effects of different carbon reservoirs on each other.

His points on the exact impact of climate change and what the ideal climate is are important, but they are also studied and discussed. The supposed political reasons for supporting or being against climate change theories do not change the facts. If there are real problems with the models these can be flagged up - sensitivity testing can be done for all of these issues.

One major problem here is that the communication of the climate mainstream is very poor. The IPCC produces massive reports that are designed to be printed as PDF, and are targeted at policy experts. They're not really readable, the web versions don't really use hyperlinks and have minimal pictures and poor structure.

They're slowly getting better, but still a long way from ideal. Example for reference:

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

[blablabla123]

> One major problem here is that the communication of the climate mainstream is very poor. ... They're not really readable

It must have been in the early 00s when there was the first report that created a big media echo, since it was presented at the UN. It was full of obvious flaws and the results were not reproducible because the data wasn't published and the team behind it only reluctantly gave out the data and the calculations that were done based on that.

That's quite a contrast to the Theoretical Physicist Dyson. In both experimental and theoretical Physics everything is calculated with great care and cross-checked by other people.

Probably the governments/universities would do well if they created funds to enhance the theoretical backing of the black boxes. On the other hand nobody minds using black boxes, after all every equation based on experiments is one. (Historically many equations in Physics and Chemistry were created based on experiments and later on theoretical backing was deduced) But a bit more transparency would be good...

[dntbnmpls]

> There is more money at stake with climate change than most areas of science, which means it becomes a political issue.

Yes. But even beyond that, power is at stake. Climate change isn't about science, it's about geopolitics/globalism. It's about instilling fear to create a global political system. At least that's my take. If the climate change alarmism was valid, we'd simply end global trade today because global trade is the driver of pollution. But you never hear that from the elites. They demand more globalism, but with a global tax. Maybe a global system is the next step of human societal evolution, but instead of being open and honest and having a global discussion, these people are being sneaky and using fear to sneak a global system on humanity.

> There would seem to be a very strong incentive to show existing models are not accurate or to come up with scientifically plausible models with very different outcomes.

Not if enough of those with money and power are aligned on one side. Then there is very strong incentive to show one side.

> The supposed political reasons for supporting or being against climate change theories do not change the facts.

Sure. And the facts are that climate science is a very young science and have been reliably wrong that we shouldn't take it as gospel. Especially when so much of climate science is politically driven.

I love climate change alarmism. When their predictions are wrong, they claim that the climate is so complex that it's hard to model and predict accurately. At the same time, they claim their predictions are facts and we must believe everything they say. Even when these alarmists all say and have different predictions. How about this, how out of dozens/hundreds of climate alarmist models, which is the right one?

I personally believe that climate change is natural and the forces of nature ( mostly the sun ) drive climate on earth. Also, I don't think there is anything we can do about climate change, just like we can't do anything about earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. And I reject the false notion that climate change is bad. Climate change can be bad for some, but good for others.

If climate alarmists want to be taken seriously, then let them protest globalist bankers and global trade instead of advocating for a global carbon tax and enriching the wealthy bankers and industrialists. But of course they won't because these climate alarmists are funded by the globalist bankers and industrialists.