@ThesisPi Why don't they understand that human civilization has only ever existed within a very narrow band of the complete range of mean global temperatures that has ever existed. Move past that narrow band (in either direction) and human civilization is pretty much doomed.
SemiAnalysis and Citrini are quick and usually good, but not always correct. They also trigger FUD from time to time through ambiguous statements which can be misled. It made me wonder if they do it on purpose because their owners have conflict of interests - one is sued for mishandling MNPI and the other runs hedge fund.
Independent researchers are very valuable to me for this reasons. Thanks a lot for your work.
@PownalForever@RockChartrand Only the most extreme leftists target "wealth creation." What coherent leftists target is wealth "hoarding." An example: using corporate earnings for stock buybacks instead of investing in productive capacity is not true wealth creation. That's one example of wealth hoarding.
@Robert_JR__@jasonjamesbnn These people are morons who used to be rightfully ostracized, but have now found each other on social media. A bunch of losers and idiots.
@CrisCurbbbbbb@thedailybeast No. Slovenia was the richest part of the formerly communist-controlled parts of eastern and central Europe. Almost zero poverty.
@NatalieCarmody@ChrisGloninger Trends continue until they don't. Google inflection points.
Also, going back to 8.5C. If I were to tell you "the dog wil run away IF YOU DON'T LOCK THE GATE..." and you check up on the dog, find it in the yard, would you chastise me for saying that the dog would run away?
@NatalieCarmody@ChrisGloninger And because of technological advances, and much faster than anticipated adoption of renewables (especially in China) the levels of factors "X,Y, and Z" have dramatically changed, almost certainly negating the likelihood of an 8.5C world. But, you know this, right?
@NatalieCarmody@ChrisGloninger You don't understand that 8.5C was NOT a prediction. It was one of several posited outcomes [here's the important part, so read carefully] DEPENDENT UPON certain levels of key inputs. No scientist claimed that it was the most likely outcome. The claim was, "if X,Y,Z, then 8.5C."
@NatalieCarmody@ChrisGloninger Once again, no assessment of the science. You don't understand Tetlock's claims here, because you are comparing predictions about the future to scientific assessment/determination of something that has already happened.
@NatalieCarmody@ChrisGloninger So, you don't know enough science to directly address the actual claims made in the paper. Which is why you base your "knowledge" on ideology, rather than science and facts. BTW, it's actually more than 99% of climate scientists whose work overwhelmingly supports the fact of AGW.