Science is not like the Bible; it holds no absolute truths but instead its principles have to be subject to refutation by the facts as they emerge.
A scientific theory has to be capable to be refuted just as much as proven; otherwise its not scientific.
Of course those who have not studied science or who do not have a scientific attitude fail to realise that, because they are still rusted on to the notion of God and biblical absolute truths!
Climate science is simply taking what we know today from history and our understanding of laws of nature and forecasting from here. We do this all the time in other disciplines and mostly we get it right but we occasionally fail.Its the nature of science...eh?
The question re forecast climate change we have to ask is: Given what we know now, is climate change likelier than not to adversely affect mankind. Its a process of probability, not an absolute one, as all forecasts are.
I realise that many on these threads may call their hip pockets, egos etc on this subject but over time these subjective variables pall into oblivion due to mother nature's ways.
When it comes to long term climate change, that is change in more than one's lifetime going forward, do we or ought we be concerned? Do we have a life after death to be held accountable for this one? Ought we be responsible for human existence after we die if we are "Brown Bread" period once we die.....finito..... like the dead parrot in Monty Python?
Just imagine that you lived during Henry the V111's reign and you demolished the local abbey, beheaded the monks and shagged the nuns and built yourself a fine Tudor mansion from the wreckage. Would that be an issue for you now? We simply don't know and that is the problem in forecasting over longer periods of time. We don't live forever but the fantasy of doing so is obviously a human obsession.
Back to EVs:
IMO, if they become economically viable they will become popular ; otherwise a flash on the pan driven by taxation.
