[auganov]

Knowledge needs to be cheaper to verify than to produce. Otherwise it's simply not worthwhile to produce at all. Choosing to trust "authority" doesn't fix anything. One still has to be the smartest person in the world at determining who's right.

If you show me a battery you say lasts longer, I can verify your claim quite easily. If it doesn't last longer, without knowing a single thing about batteries, I have every reason to believe I'm right and you're wrong. There's a chance I am in fact wrong, but I'll be expecting you to put in the effort to convince me otherwise.

If someone tells me to significantly change my life based off their climate models, and they laughably fail [0], I have every reason to believe they don't have a good climate model. If they don't have a good explanation, and even worse, get angsty when asked for one, I'm out.

It's perfectly possible some small group of people or even an individual possesses knowledge that could save the world from imminent destruction or produce some great benefit. But if there's no way to verify such knowledge, there's no reason to care about it.

[0] https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/ICCC13-DC-Sp...

[paulryanrogers]

> If someone tells me to significantly change my life based off their climate models, and they laughably fail [0], I have every reason to believe they don't have a good climate model

What changes do you consider significant? What's your threshold for a climate model good enough to justify lifestyle changes?

It seems obvious to me that we live on a finite planet with little hope of escaping limits on its resources. So looking only at potential arable land and current oil usage I'd say we're obviously not operating with sustainable lifestyles in most of the west. After all, that oil represents hundreds of millions of years of solar energy, converted to oil. We are depleting it much faster than it's being generated.

[auganov]

If I was a sincere believer in the threat of CO2 driven global warming I'd want:

   - better temperature measurement tech (even the data can be controversial, big problem)
   - better measurement tech for all potentially relevant factors
   - a well-reasoned model that can better predict what's "variance" today, the more precise the model the quicker you can prove it right

Without any data or models we already knew CO2, all else being equal, should have a net warming effect of some kind. What the failed models suggest is we don't know much more than that. Without any advances, even if the current trend continues indefinitely, I don't see this being settled in my lifetime. You'll have a much easier time convincing me I should care about CO2's effect on cognition.

I don't think all Malthusian concerns are of the same kind in terms of epistemic controversy. I could see humanity dying because of something that could have been prevented with collective action. What I don't see happening is humanity saving itself by collectively choosing to defer to the right people. It almost seems like a logical contradiction. If we do save ourselves from catastrophe by collective action I except there to be collective conviction. If we die because we were too stupid to listen to somebody then we were bound to die either way.