Sort of but not quite. The original quote was meaningless, and in order to interpret it J0e_Limon used an example, showing it could be ridiculous. To say his interpretation was ‘flawed’ when the term was ‘intentionally ambiguous’ doesn’t make sense. It would be flawed if there was some basis for a quantitative…

Unless you get quantitative, the word is undefined. How much property will be lost by when, what percentage increase in what category of severe storms will happen by when and where will it happen, how will you measure the increase in infectious diseases? “To measure is to know.” Lord Kelvin.

I spent years modeling and I know you can build a model to give you any result you want. One typical problem is the lack of sufficient data to validate it. Another is the selection of which effects to put in and which to leave out. Another is the choice of parameters which affect the past very little but have a large…

If the population increases by 2B over the next century, we will have to find housing for them. If another 100 million are displaced by rising seas, then we will have to somehow find housing for 2.1B people over the next century. I can see the difficulty.

You are expressing the mistaken opinion that science is limitless. For example, there aren’t going to be any more stable elements found, no matter how long aliens look for them. There are clear limits no matter how long you study them. Our science is not delusional, only primitive, and 1000 years is much too long to…