Comment I replied to suggested scientists do not currently see climate change as a human species extinction level event

Modeling the future of a species of billions, many irrational actors, is too complicated to put my trust in scientists today.

My MSc in math may be old now; maybe I’m getting the math wrong, but I don’t need a math degree to know every scientist is a fallible human and fallible humans often lie unintentionally or intentionally to keep the peace and maintain their paycheck. Who wants to be the scientist that is all “end of the world is coming.”

Many “scientists” in industrial roles were complicit in keeping climate change evidence hidden since the 1860s.

“Authority figures” is the dumbest social construct we cling to.

Fortunately, we don't need to model every individual, just like we don't need to model every molecule in a pot of water to know when it will boil.

False equivalence; we have a baseline for when water will boil due to years of experiment highlighting physical constraints.

We have no baseline for human behavior after another 100 years of climate change. Future hasn’t happened yet, past experience is not viable as it lacked the new constraints of the future.

There is evidence in biology that we go crazy after years of living in hot weather. The body heats is better than it cools us, and cooling us strains our systems.

So perhaps it can be shown in some academic way our biology could literally survive the conditions, but they can’t predict how well humanity will actually deal with it; we may destroy ourselves over resource constraints or the wrong people going mad, launching the nukes out of paranoia.

There are too many ways we can end ourselves to take the prediction “it won’t get too hot for the species to biologically survive” as evidence we won’t still destroy ourselves.

Constraining the prediction only to that which they can have most confidence in undermines the accuracy of the model.

>Future hasn’t happened yet, past experience is not viable as it lacked the new constraints of the future.

This reads like nonsense to me.

Why are you talking about human bodies in warmer temperatures? What do you think goes into a climate model?

Ok keeping it simple; any model we make has a non-zero chance of being bullshit.

Parameters could be over or under weighted given current state, choices of scientists.

And we have ZERO data points from a future where people actually are living with another 100 years of climate change; we could be massively over or under weighting without historical data of a future that hasn’t happened; your goal is rife with paradox and uncertainty; how do we use our trend modeling tools that rely on historical data without historical data from a future we haven’t experienced?

All our model is is old data points and some guesses at trends which may or may not hold. Scientists now cannot force people to stick to their model.

These are mathematical truths too, sorry you don’t have the context. I’m just gonna be done here. Cya later bye.

This reminds me a lot of Jordan Peterson's argument about climate change modeling:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/27/word-sal...

Anyway, I think the main disconnect is your misunderstanding about how climate modeling works. It's much more about the physics of GHGs in the atmosphere and how those impact the global temperature and the downstream effects on local climates and weather patterns. Human activity can be summarized as: humans emitted 51 billion tons of GHGs last year and that number continues to grow.

I was never talking about climate models. I rebuked the idea survival is certain because it won’t be “too hot” for biology according to a climate model. We have no idea if we’ll remain rational actors until we experience and try to adapt to further climate change.

Constraining “survivability” to one metric is stupid.

Was tired and busy yesterday. Got rambly.

I'm having a hard time following your statements. Can you say exactly what about current IPCC 2022 climate model findings you disagree with?