|
That's not a fair analogy.
RoadRat is saying our science is not advanced enough to make accurate predictions about our impact on the climate, in the same way our science is not advanced to make accurate predictions regarding the first nanoseconds of the universe.
All the examples you gave are cases where the science is "proven" (let's not start that argument again) to be sufficient for the uses we make of it. They have been successfully applied to the real world. The same cannot be said for climate science.
Your argument is like saying "if you believe Newtonian mechanics can get us to the moon, you must believe in string theory". RoadRat obviously believes climate science is in its infancy, a view shared by many. You obviously believe climate science is "good enough".
Dave
|
|
|