4 ms·
You're making a huge leap there. We do know that cancer is a sickness and we actually do know your chances of survival 6 months out, 1 year out, 5 years out, et
by nemo44x 3y ago
You're making a huge leap there. We do know that cancer is a sickness and we actually do know your chances of survival 6 months out, 1 year out, 5 years out, etc. We don't know the day you will die from it but we are certain you will die from it if left untreated. We have lots of empirical data that can be tested, replicated, and stated with a high probability of certainty. We have actual knowledge on this. This is what science is used for - to create actual knowledge. Not informed opinions.
- yongjik 3y agoYou are the one making a logical leap. We do know that the Earth's climate is entering conditions never seen during human history. We know how CO2 warms up the Earth. We just don't have a detailed knowledge of exactly how and where it affects weather. The operating assumption must be that things that never happened (or very rarely happened) will start to happen more frequently. You are arguing that as long as climatologists cannot reliably predict any particular disaster, we should assume the climate should be "business as usual." That's not science, that's just refusing to acknowledge the reality.