thank G🌏D for Michael Dowd post doom dot com

"Because [reality] is subjective, unreliable, imprecise, and, if it were to spread to the general populace, would only lead to panic." This is dangerous thinking for scientists because they have no right to withhold information from the public for any reason. The only job of science and scientists is to convey reality to the public, so to shun reality is the definition of absurdity. How can a scientist describe reality as "subjective, unreliable, imprecise" when it's none of those things and his job is to determine the nature of reality? This is the mindset of scientists who aren't actually scientists at all, but are just number-crunching modellers who, as Schellnhuber wrote, suffer from 'probability obsession'. "We tend to vastly overestimate the value of anything that comes out of complicated mathematical algorithms, and look down onto lowly intuitive thinking." The writer here is confusing intuitive thinking with critical thinking, although intuition is an key aspect of critical thinking. But a past article by Knorr and others does note a weakness for critical thinking by scientists. Consensus climate scientists still have basic things to learn about how Earth's climate works. This is a tragedy due to capture by vested interests, mainly fossil fuels. These are the forces keeping scientists in a bubble, sheltered from reality. We're not doomed by an absence of climate policy or climate action. We're doomed by 1.1 trillion tonnes of atmospheric CO2 plus other GHGs, hundreds of zettajoules of excess ocean heat and thermal inertia, 1.4 watts/metre Earth energy imbalance, Polar Amplification and loss of sea ice, loss of ice sheet albedo, amplifying feedbacks, inexorable sea level rise, aerosol unmasking, etc. Knorr is right, scientists are not friends of activists, or anyone else for that matter. We have had enough warnings. Kevin Anderson: "The expert community currently just reinforces Davos." We have to listen when people we trust tell us who they are.