I'm not most. Don't argue against me by citing the stupidity of the average person.I believe the point is the shoddy, outright dishonest journalism on display - and its typical - even more troubling still, is just how much opinion on this issue is shaped by articles like this. Unfortunately for most, reading a few dozen, dishonest hack-jobs like this one, is what passes for their "research" on the issue.. and it shows.
Then it sounds to me like you just forfeited the argument. There isn't certainty in the models; you and the scientists admit that. Therefore there is clearly no reason to spend trillions of dollars and destroy critical industries in order to prevent a disaster that is predicted by some uncertain models and not predicted by other equally uncertain models.No they dont claim certainty with their models. Sounds like your a victim too.
The weather man was an example only; I'm well aware that weather and climate aren't strictly related. I can pick another example, if that makes it easier on you. The economy is a good one. Economists make predictions about tomorrow and explain why what they said yesterday didn't happen today.Nope, not really. This is just another version of the "we can't predict the weather very well, therefore we can't predict long term climate trends". Besides the point, many weather phenomena ARE predictable - some more than others.
What is it? The scientific method? Or the fact that the Liberals are missing the last piece of it? Because either way, you're missing out on basically all of the world's climatological knowledge.That is the party line, but its just aint true.