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?