Are you suggesting that the future climate can be predicted as accurately as sun rises? Because that is what the other person did.
Are you just pretending to be dumb, or are you
actually that dumb? If it's the latter, let me know and I'll try to be more direct in the future, since argument by analogy is apparently way over your head.
For now, though, I'll assume you were just being obtuse on purpose and move on to another analogy:
Every climate model used by the IPCC has been wrong, so when they issue 95% confidence ratings year after year, that can't be taken seriously.
Failed computer models that don't work may be enough proof for you, but it's not enough for me and many others.
Argument by analogy: "
Every financial model of the stock market has been wrong, so clearly this whole "investing" thing is bunk and we should just throw up our hands in despair and hoard cash in our mattresses instead."
(Now I'll hedge my bets by explaining the analogy as I might to a small child.)
First of all, know that I'm not actually advocating that we should hoard cash in our mattresses. Instead, I'm making a statement that's obviously an absurdly flawed argument: we should
not actually hoard cash in our mattresses just because our financial models are only "pretty good" instead of "perfect." Instead, we should recognize that the very concept of a "model" is, at its heart, a
simplification of reality, and thus will never be exact. We should still invest, and trust that our investing will produce a result relatively similar to the one the model predicts, even though there will inevitably be some variation.
Similarly,
by analogy, we can see that hording cash in a mattress due to an erroneous distrust of a (necessarily inexact) financial model is a lot like refusing to compensate for climate change by changing behavior due to an erroneous distrust of a (necessarily inexact) climate model.
Now, music lover, did you manage to understand that? Or should I
use smaller words?
