I’d like to know more about the legitimate doubts. I haven’t heard a solid argument yet. Of the arguments I’ve heard though, the speaker had had low scientific literacy and misunderstandings of the scientific process and the data. They were perturbed by media, mainly. So, I’d like to hear someone serious address the issue.
You don't need a solid argument to have doubts, you need to hear a solid argument (or more accurately, several of them over some period of time) not to have doubts, and even then you should be checking and doubting your own assumptions.
Not everyone is a scientist or an engineer. You don't have to be an idiot to read the above statements and have your main takeaway be "they don't know for sure so they guessed" and it's completely reasonable to still have doubts based on that.
So, you’re saying the models that have been used and refined over decades have been wildly inaccurate? It’d be interesting to me to see that analysis. Maybe it’ll change my mind.
This is the stuff I'm talking about. I make a deduction, and you respond with a defensive statement and change the subject. I'm just looking for evidence of what you're implicitly claiming. Are the models accurate or not?
Anyway, probably just the inherent difficulty of trying to have a conversation online.
