The interview effectively explains why climate science by its nature cannot be considered settled. We are measuring a tiny fraction of a chaotic, oscillatory time series with component frequencies spanning many orders of magnitude, up to eons, and even pretending that the last 100 or so years of records are complete and accurate enough to extrapolate, they simply do not measure enough history with the degree of fidelity required to determine any anthropogenically influenced future trends.
We're talking about accidental terraforming, that's an enormous claim which requires enormous evidence - and much of the associated theory is rather young with respect to the history of modern science. Plus, environmental data is also spatially sparse, and was even less complete just a decade ago. And as for modeling, even with modern computational simulation there are effectively enough degrees of freedom to confirm any bias while still backfitting [low quality] historical data.
Claiming that worst case climate change predictions are anywhere near certain is pure alarmist hubris.
We're talking about accidental terraforming, that's an enormous claim which requires enormous evidence - and much of the associated theory is rather young with respect to the history of modern science. Plus, environmental data is also spatially sparse, and was even less complete just a decade ago. And as for modeling, even with modern computational simulation there are effectively enough degrees of freedom to confirm any bias while still backfitting [low quality] historical data.
Claiming that worst case climate change predictions are anywhere near certain is pure alarmist hubris.