[nemo44x]

All this nonsense is the same as the guys who have predicted 80 of the last 2 recessions. But hey, if you can exaggerate the output your model suggests that was built from faulty assumptions, incomplete data, hubris, and spans decades in time and get people to buy it and continue to fund your project, good for you.

[pklausler]

How do you know that climate scientists are as unreliable as some economists?

[nemo44x]

They’re probably more unreliable as climate is far more complex than economics and predicting 50 years out with any certainty is a ridiculous notion for both.

[conception]

https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-cli...

Most of the high profile climate models have been wrong… but in underestimating the speed of global warming. So things generally are worse than research suggests.

I think you underestimate how well the models are doing.

[nemo44x]

So their models are so bad that they’re good. Lol great.

[AlecSchueler]

You don't explain why you believe that though?

[nemo44x]

Because it’s very probably wrong.

[jaybrendansmith]

You can put your head in the sand, but it will not save you. You must take the world on from first principles, and dive deep into the details if you want truth. Simply countering that nobody can predict what will happen is not an argument, it's a plea to stay ignorant.

[nemo44x]

Open your mind until your brain falls out. How many bromides should we exchange? Saying “there’s no proof” is better than believing everything that comes your way with 0 critical analysis. But it’s nice to feel smart.

[jaybrendansmith]

Jesus, what does that even mean? Simple physics says carbon dioxide traps heat. Chemistry 10th grade. Did you take it? This is not hard. Only an absolute ignoramus would pretend it's not happening at this point.

[karmakurtisaani]

No worried, HN has plenty of cranks who don't have real arguments or references to actual studies. I suppose it's just comforting to pretend it's business as usual.

[nemo44x]

Or we understand geometry and how the volume of carbon has to geometrically increase by a square per degree and it’s not even possible for us to put that much in the atmosphere.

[karmakurtisaani]

Yeah feel free to link to a study or summary.

[jaybrendansmith]

Show your work, please. At this point the burden of proof is on you to disprove it, not the other way around. It hasn't snowed here in years.

[nemo44x]

Fully aware. At least in a lab. Regardless we know it’s an inverse square law thing and to even get to any sort of “runaway” or even conditions in this article would take such an enormous gain in carbon release (not considering what’s falling back) that it’s not even possible. It’s fantastical.

If it was linear I’d be concerned. But it’s not. So yeah let’s solve other more realistic problems.