[Pretzel Logic]

The post that started it all, from Mr. Off-Topic himself.

One of the many reasons why it's not a good idea to be fear-mongering, hysterical, and alarmist about your predictions -- especially when you're attempting to predict an incredibly complex system that science doesn't really understand.

Earth’s climate may not warm as quickly as expected, suggest new cloud studies

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/e...ud-studies

Basically, the latest research indicates that everything scientists thought they knew about both cloud formation and cloud history was flawed -- and understanding clouds is an important factor in understanding climate. Which drives home the point that I've been arguing for years: Science is attempting to predict what's going to happen to an extremely complex system that they simply do NOT understand. And while I'm not a warming scientist, I am quite familiar with making predictions -- so I like to think I'm capable of recognizing when I, or someone else, is completely overstepping their bounds in the prediction department.

If ancient cloud cover was closer to today’s levels, the increase in the cloud-cooling effect due to human pollution could also be smaller—which means that Earth was not warming up so much in response to increased greenhouse gases alone. In other words, Earth is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought, and it may warm up less in response to future carbon emissions.

My favorite part:

The researchers are currently working toward more precise estimates of how the newly discovered process affects predictions of the Earth's future climate.

Right. 'Cause we've got it ALL figured out NOW.

Personally, I think a requisite trait in anyone who attempts future prediction is a healthy dose of humility, which manifests as a deep respect for the limitations of both oneself and one's science. When I see scientists making grand, sweeping predictions which far outreach the available data (and understanding)... and then displaying attitudes that amount to: "this is a sure thing, anyone who challenges us or debates us is a 'global warming denier'" -- well, at that point I wouldn't even need to understand the science to know that the predictions will be dead wrong. Because whether I understand all the science or not, I do understand that when people are displaying strong emotionalism masquerading as rationality, along with a high level of arrogance, they are simply incapable of being objective enough to get to the truth behind anything.

My two cents, anyway.

(Incidentally, I actually have studied the science in depth, and do understand a fair amount of it, but I'm trying to make a broader point.)