Please don't be reductive. Sure what you're calling a prediction is really just a hypothesis. What I am saying is that we are treating the hypothesis of climate change as fact before there is clear evidence that the predicted bad outcomes will actually occur.
In Einstein's case we were able to make observations and conduct experiments that bore out the hypothesis.
In the case of climate change this isn't possible. We don't have a second climate to use as a control. We don't have the capability to do experiments that accurately consider the infinite input and outputs that make up the climate as a whole. Science has its limits and they are mainly human.
Tell me what experiment we can do today that accurately includes every aspect of our climate that proves doom is certain.
If the best you can give is likelihoods or possibilities that is not a scientific fact so quit acting like it is and lets have a reasonable discussion.
There are many, many things we can do to take better care of our climate but being alarmist and using fear to get the public on board with your politics is a categorically a bad thing.
In Einstein's case we were able to make observations and conduct experiments that bore out the hypothesis.
In the case of climate change this isn't possible. We don't have a second climate to use as a control. We don't have the capability to do experiments that accurately consider the infinite input and outputs that make up the climate as a whole. Science has its limits and they are mainly human.
Tell me what experiment we can do today that accurately includes every aspect of our climate that proves doom is certain.
If the best you can give is likelihoods or possibilities that is not a scientific fact so quit acting like it is and lets have a reasonable discussion.
There are many, many things we can do to take better care of our climate but being alarmist and using fear to get the public on board with your politics is a categorically a bad thing.