But, it does not really matter. Even if your computer model is based on valid assumptions and happens to correspond with reality, it still proves nothing. It is effectively a thought experiment delegated to your computer.
However interested in good science many of these scientists may or may not be, science is not the motivation of a great many advocates of man-made global warming. Many of them have little or no interest in what the alleged science says or facts in general.
If the facts do not motivate them what does?
It is not the desire to make nature safe for man. If that was their desire, they would not attempt to stop mankind from accessing fossil fuels and all the other things which make the environment safe for man. Without using resources such as fossil fuels, the environment most people find themselves in is a hostile, dangerous environment.
Winter climates are too cold, summer climates uncomfortably or dangerously hot. The water and food available is unclean and full of dangerous pathogens. Man’s environment is full of dangerous animals, ranging from disease-carrying insects, to much larger immediately dangerous creatures, such as lions or bears.
And this is only a sample of the many dangers which have faced man over the thousands of years of his existence. Many of which man has only been able to overcome or severely mitigate with the use of the very technology environmental activists would regulate or take away from us.
No, if man’s survival was their concern, they would not restrict access and use of technology which makes it possible for mankind to prosper. He would not tell us to not use the technology and resources we need to make our environment liveable.
No, their desire is to free nature from the “ravages” of man. They believe that man is having too much impact on his environment and he must return to a time when he had less impact on nature. Even if he must cast himself back in time to the Middle Ages or, preferably the Stone Ages. To a time when he lived in harmony with nature. “Harmony” being a state when man lived a short and dangerous life, unable to deal with the countless hazards of his environment. While leaving very little impact on his environment.
This is the agenda of most environmental activists, including some of the scientists. The other scientists are helping to cast man back to an age before science, before reason and before the lives of most humans currently on Earth were possible. What they want is for the reduction of man to a primitive state, with tiny populations where most people are lucky to live to thirty.
This is the result of his computer-modelling. Which proves nothing and is based on some wild assumptions with no real basis in observable reality.
Before we cast ourselves back to the Stone Age, we must ask ourselves, is it worth it? Even if they were right and global warming disaster awaits us, is it worth abandoning the industrial world and ensuring most people die early or never live at all? Should we choose a Luddite form of suicide in the name unsupported and scientifically dubious claims of a cataclysmic natural disaster? Should we exchange a suicidal abandonment of our means of survival for the sake of the environment?
Should we destroy our future in the name of computer-aided thought experiments that simply serve to rationalize casting ourselves back to a pre-industry simply because some people prefer a world largely unaffected by man and on which human life is short and rare?
I think not …