You are missing the point. The science so far has been unreliable at best.
I can find you countless papers that have previously predicted our demise, yet here we are. Here is the poster child for the climate movement Al gore referencing the leading scientists at the time and predicting the end of polar ice caps by 2017.
You can draw from your own personal experiences and look at how reliable the weatherman is. They are predicting a day to 7 days out and still have a relatively modest strike rate. Why? Climate science is about the most complex system one can seek to understand and predict. The more variables a system contains the less reliable a model becomes at predicting outcomes. At a minimum it is an accepted standard that a climate model must contain at least 50 essential independent variables - https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/learning-support/climate-models/variables/
That is an absurd amount of variables required to measure only a few outcomes. https://www.jstor.org/stable/448302 It goes against everything we are told in quantitative modelling and what's considered "good science" yet it's ignored as it's the only way the scientific research can be conducted when considering climate. That should tell you all you need to know about it's predictive capabilities (virtually 0).
So your bet that we will all be dead if we don't take action is actually a bet on:
1. Climate scientists are correct (so far they have been anything but) 2. Humans can't deal with sea levels rises (Can't build walls or redirect water flow) 3. Developing countries can support millions if not billions of people with food and power without fossil fuels
When you look at the probabilities and the actual trade offs required to make the transition happen imminently no reasonable person who cares about the suffering of their fellow man would take that bet.
WHC Price at posting:
$7.47 Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
