And yet we know it doesn’t matter that much. Because our observations are what they are, and our climate models give reasonably good agreement with them, both on past data and in terms of predicting the changes we are now seeing. And yes, people do get funding to question them; they simply haven’t managed to come up with anything substantial. So taking electric heating into account might improve their accuracy, but we already know it won’t change the main results, the same way we know it doesn’t change the outcome of baseball games.
And yet through this possible limitation to accuracy, you try to pull a conclusion that we should assume what we have now is completely wrong, and definitely not take any actions on emissions based on purely assumed economic effects - because, you know, those you can take without question. Regardless of astrophysics, it’s a total nonsense argument.
And really, since you don’t seem to understand simple things like that, it doesn’t inspire a lot of trust in all the handwaving you give about how modern astrophysics could be completely wrong. PhD programs are too dogmatic so there is no way to know! Sure, sure. You know, outsiders are sometimes important in paradigm shifts, but they still earn their place through better agreement with observations; so far as global warming goes you are only coming up with distractions and excuses to ignore them.
You can stop being disingenuous. PhD programs are broken in a number of ways, there are lots of things we don’t know about the universe, and at the same time there is very real support and meaningful agreement on climate change and its consequences. Trying to cast doubt on the latter by questioning if the former lets us know anything is dishonest, especially if you aren’t willing to apply that same level of scrutiny to other ideas, as you’ve shown.
Arguing that way doesn’t fool or convince anyone.
