How solid is the science that global warming will do more harm than good? Are we relying on the “unnatural = bad” fallacy and unproven climate modeling?

Forgive me if I “talk down” but this question appears to deserve harsh treatment. Since global warming disrupts just about every square mile of land on this planet and much of the ocean, it is fair to call it disruptive.

Disruptive changes challenge all disrupted species; most of them flounder or go extinct.

We are not relying on a fallacy, and announcing that “unnatural = bad” is one doesn’t beg for proof, it grovels.

As to climate modeling, its challenges are in the weeds; it just isn’t perfect. But in large, it is spot on. Offering off-hand insult to the folks who have spent careers shaping and refining climate models is beneath any respectable human being.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s