how stupid can denial get?

Originally posted by mjp2 ↑

OK
So what's your basis for concluding "it might be dangerous but probably isn't", and apparently therefore dismissing the reported finding of 70 years of developed climate science? As you say, this is science, not religion.

So far All I can recall from you on that is a pretty loose comment along the lines of models are always wrong (correct me if that needs further elucidation from you) .

Is that the basis of your belief that "it might be dangerous, but probably isn't" What other grounds do you have for your disbelief in the climate science reported findings?

----

ps I have and continue to use the word "believe", if that was what you objected to, with your "this is science not religion comment", because I consider that most of us have not studied all the scientific literature and evidence on anthropomorphic climate change, to form a comprehensive view based on that full body of work. So there is indeed an element of belief involved, in a totally different sense from religion.
believe: defn
"to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something,
although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so "

Expand

The basis is two-fold.

1. Climate Sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentration is a very wide range due to uncertainty in understanding and arguments between various modellers over how GHG works with feedback both positive and negative.

AR5 Says: Equilibrium climate sensitivity is in the range

a. likely 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C (high confidence),
b. unlikely less than 1 °C (high confidence), and
c. unlikely greater than 6 °C (medium confidence).

i.e. The range of possibilities is from less than 1 degrees C to greater than 6 degrees C per doubling of CO2 and they even have a broad range of 1.5 to 4.5 in the likely category.

And on the basis of that distribution of possible outcomes you say a future ice age has been averted with certainty........I disagree with your binary outcome and suggest it is not certain.

2. If warming is less than 4.5 degrees C per doubling of CO2 (AR5 likely scenario) then at current rate of increase of 2 PPM per annum it will take 200 years to warm 2 degrees C and we can adapt. CO2 was > 5000 PPM 500 million years ago and life flourished (look up the Cambrian Explosion). The seas were warm and there were no polar ice caps. Surely that is a better world than an ice covered frozen tundra?