> They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn't accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models
That's a neat way to twist the criticism. You're taking what is a very sensible position of "the public should be wary of published headlines which make extreme predictions" and then narrowing it into some specific claim about computer simulations, which "the public" almost certainly has no experience or knowledge of.
> Now where are you on my list:
If your goal is to inspire people to care more about the climate, I would suggest to you that this is precisely the opposite way you would best achieve it.
> That's a neat way to twist the criticism. You're taking what is a very sensible position of "the public should be wary of published headlines which make extreme predictions" and then narrowing it into some specific claim about computer simulations, which "the public" almost certainly has no experience or knowledge of.
> If your goal is to inspire people to care more about the climate, I would suggest to you that this is precisely the opposite way you would best achieve it.
I am past trying to convince climate change deniers to care more about climate.
Quoting myself again:
> With climate deniers and complotists I always suppose they hide their real stance and it is revealed through small hints they let out. I strongly believe these small hints are baits to see if the other party has the same beliefs. They will be lying until they think there are in like-minded company (or are too drunk and let it out).
> Yeah, I have been burned hard before by climate and covid deniers who lied right out to my face. They are dishonest and advance in disguise (with loaded questions and fake scepticism and the whole arsenal of arguments coming from fabricated doubt factories).
Yea, we do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
> They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn't accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models
That's a neat way to twist the criticism. You're taking what is a very sensible position of "the public should be wary of published headlines which make extreme predictions" and then narrowing it into some specific claim about computer simulations, which "the public" almost certainly has no experience or knowledge of.
> Now where are you on my list:
If your goal is to inspire people to care more about the climate, I would suggest to you that this is precisely the opposite way you would best achieve it.