Before Covid, I didn't doubt IPCC's assessment and modeling.

After Covid, it's clear "experts" often have no fucking idea of what they are doing, "modeling" of such "experts" can't predict shit, and there is a tendency of GroupThink and insisting on catastrophic projections despite being proven wrong again and again.

So like with Covid, assume the "most likely" negative consequences are overblown by a factor 10, and negative costs of doing what they say we must do are under-estimated by a factor 10.

There is a grain of truth. There is a lab-leaked coronavirus causing a cold, with extremely age-stratified risk, and certain molecules have a greenhouse gas effect.

Their modeling of impacts and "solutions", however, are garbage.

Before Covid, I didn't doubt IPCC's assessment and modeling.

After Covid, it's clear "experts" often have no fucking idea of what they are doing, "modeling" of such "experts" can't predict shit, and there is a tendency of GroupThink and insisting on catastrophic projections despite being proven wrong again and again.

So like with Covid, assume the "most likely" negative consequences are overblown by a factor 10, and negative costs of doing what they say we must do are under-estimated by a factor 10.

There is a grain of truth. There is a lab-leaked coronavirus causing a cold, with extremely age-stratified risk, and certain molecules have a greenhouse gas effect.

They modeling of impacts and "solutions", however, are garbage.

Before Covid, I didn't doubt IPCC's assessment and modeling.

After Covid, it's clear "experts" often have no fucking idea of what they are doing, "modeling" of such "experts" can't predict shit, and there is a tendency of GroupThink and insisting on catastrophic projections despite being proven wrong again and again.

So loke with Covid, assume the "most likely" negative consequences are overblown by a factor 10, and negative costs of doing what they say we must do are under-estimated by a factor 10.