> Based on what? I'm asking seriously. I have used first-principle, space/time discrete models solving the mass and energy equations related to nuclear reactor

> Based on what? I'm asking seriously. I have used first-principle, space/time discrete models solving the mass and energy equations related to nuclear reactors and reactor fuel during transients (got my MSME in this area). The climate models are of the same type. I am not discounting the researcher's expertise but I am skeptical of some of the assumptions and methodology (of what I have read) used to create models that can actually be solved on today's computers. This is a huge constraint and the model designers have to make compromises to fit the problem into today's computational resources. They are trying to model the whole earth. To create solvable models the researchers have to use large space elements (of order 1KM^3) and averaged energy inputs (primarily the sun) to keep the time steps up. Such models are notoriously sensitive to such inputs and assumptions. So I am skeptical that we have not only a complete understanding of the climate but the computer power to do the job and make reliable predictions with any confidence. In the nuclear business we struggled to get meaningful results from modeling just 15cm of a fuel bundle during a transient. I think the climate is at least an order of magnitude more complex than 15cm of a fuel bundle and we don't fully understand the climate and how it works. In contrast, we had all the design measurements, test data, materials properties of the fuel, cladding, coolant, heat rates, etc as input to reactor fuel models and it was still very difficult. Regarding test data, the conservation of mass and energy equations only get you so far as there are many physical processes and phenomenon that we don't really understand and that can't be solved analytically (cf. Navier-Stokes equation on the Clay Math Inst. list) and yet the model results are very sensitive to your assumptions and inputs regarding highly non-linear effects like turbulence, viscosity, phase transitions, etc. and their impact on energy flows. To be clear, I am skeptical but not a skeptic regarding computer models, they have their use. But extrapolating results out decades is almost certainly fraught with error. In the end, eventually man will have to control the climate if we want to survive so I am a supporter (of non-govt funded) climate research. My bigger concern is that the level of scaremongering on this issue is such that a staffer stormed out of a DNC meeting claiming he would be dead in 40 years due to global warming because the Dems lost the election. My fear is that such fears will lead to an environmental dictatorship to force people to sacrifice, not for the fatherland this time, but for mother earth. > Consider Dunning-Kruger. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12918362 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12918362