How can we best evaluate the theory that global warming requires drastic action when the entire thesis is not one line of inquiry, but many interdependent lines?
You would think that people would learn from the repeated failures of environmental catastrophes going back decades. Catastrophists imbued with certainly must either (a) not know of these repeated failures, (b) know of them but deliberately ignore them as inconvenient, or (c) believe that "this time it's different" (TTID] even though the same view that TTID has been falsified many times. Catastrophes are just too compelling, too exciting, too good a narrative to let facts and sound reasoning stand in the way.
If they really believed we were on the verge of catastrophe due to CO2 emissions, then logic would require that they push for nuclear power NOW!
As they do not, we must conclude that they either have an agenda or they are irrational and should be disregarded.
How nice to see a measured piece on this topic. Uncertainty is precisely what we have given up being grown ups about, alas.
You would think that people would learn from the repeated failures of environmental catastrophes going back decades. Catastrophists imbued with certainly must either (a) not know of these repeated failures, (b) know of them but deliberately ignore them as inconvenient, or (c) believe that "this time it's different" (TTID] even though the same view that TTID has been falsified many times. Catastrophes are just too compelling, too exciting, too good a narrative to let facts and sound reasoning stand in the way.
Beautifully expressed!