It may be that we are at significant risk of a big disaster. So, we want to be correct. For one, we can conclude that there is little or no danger, that we

It may be that we are at significant risk of a big disaster. So, we want to be correct. For one, we can conclude that there is little or no danger, that we need do nothing, do nothing, be wrong, and have a big disaster. For another, we can put on big time carbon taxes, cobber the economy for ourselves and our children, but again might be wrong, that is, have clobbered the economy for no good reason. So we want a good answer. Finally, just applying my judgment and what I can smell with my nose, I come down on the side that the crucial part of this issue is not science but politics and money. E.g., today it did finally sink in to me that, with all the different model results in the graph I linked to, at least one of the results had to be close to reality and, thus, an accurate prediction. Luck would have it that the model with the most accurate prediction was the one predicting essentially no change -- whew, that was a close one! A lot of people could have been fooled with that one!