The line of logic is that people attempt to push propaganda against the narrative to completely discredit it. Oil industry has been doing it from the sixties. They'll find any small mistake in the science, and say "see? They're wrong! Nothing bad will happen..."
Sure, the models might be a little too doomer. That doesn't actually change anything, and for the past ~70 years the only type this type of stuff was brought up was to deny climate change.
your argument has an invalid premise: "Models say X is happening."
It's not the models that are saying X (temp goes up) is happening, it's empirical data.
A better argument is:
- We observe X is happening
- create a model of X happening
- use model of X to predict X in the future
- model of X might be or might not be flawed
- meanwhile, X is still happening in the real world
It’s also interesting that this site has been having a collective orgasm over models that frequently give wrong answers for at least a year now. When climate is involved it’s suddenly a big problem.
