There are uncertainties with everything. From what I've read of the science I don't believe there is sufficient doubt to fail to act. The best answers we have are that 2 degrees is about the tipping point where it becomes a massive problem for everyone on Earth. I trust the science and the science is pretty conclusive as I see it. If they solution is extreme it is because the threat is extreme.
However, I get that you don't agree or don't fully agree and I don't expect that a debate will help either of us. I'll change my mind when the scientific community changes its mind. What would change yours?
Maybe she's a hypocrite. That doesn't make her wrong.
Thoughts....
I don't doubt a massive problem awaiting us.
The main problem is how to address it, both in Ameristan & around the world.
I see 3 camps....
1) Denialists
2) Incrementalists
3) The sky is falling.
The 3rd lacks influence over the first 2.
The 2nd holds potential to get the 1st to go along with real world solutions.
I'm unlikely to accept claims of precision in global climate predictions because
testability is elusive. Instead, I'll treat climate models as having general, not
quantitative predictability....much like economic models.
People who tell me to have more faith in science are too often people with
even less science background than even I have. This does not inspire faith.
I don't fault OAC for hypocrisy. I even doubt that she is all that hypocritical.
But selling fear of doom & radical policies to fix things requires that she be
like Caesars's wife...beyond reproach. It's about effective public relations.
