I mentioned on social media a few times that I am using public persuasion to split the climate science debate into two parts. One part is the basic science, which appears credible. The other part is the climate models that are less credible. Watch for the climate science debate to start making that distinction more often. Historically, both sides have tended to conflate the credibility of all of the parts. That never made sense.
This will get more fun when I introduce my new persuasion anchor. It seems to me that the actual damage from climate change is predicted not by climate models but by … economic models.
How accurate have economic models been in the past? For anything?
Now ask yourself how often you have seen that distinction – climate models versus economic models – called out.
You’ll see a lot more of it soon. The High Ground Maneuver is powerful.