He (and therefore you) were not talking about free speech, but racism. If there are no racists, then there is no conflict between supporting the right of racists to spew their hate, and cleaning up the damage they cause, whether it is words (or (as in this case) acts of terrorism.
1. If the OP has equal rights (he is empowered) then it is perfectly right that he be able to match the white supremacists - word for word, fist for fist. We are not obliged to tolerate acts of violence.
2. If you wish to stand by your claim that he is not empowered and not endowed with equal rights, then read my comments above re: the double edged sword.
The proper way to answer speech is with better speech, not with violence.
Perhaps that's the most efficacious response - perhaps it isn't. You can't reason with an insane person, and fascism is insane. That quesiton has nothing to do with we are within our rights to match speech for speech, regardless of whether that speech includes a physical element.
Is there a particular reason for anybody to believe anything that that guy says? let alone the fact you included yet another conspiracy theory, withotu any evidence other than the insane rantings of a right wing extremist.
I think if you are so concerned for the poor Nazis, you should give them your country, That way, they can live their lives in piece, without being unneccsarily frightend into violence by those nasty blacks and jews, gays and other untermenschen. Some lebensraum for the poor, oppressed Nazis.
Things is, it seems the citizens of Charlottesville lack the tolerance that you are so committed to, and don't want these poor oppressed Nazis in their city. If only they were as urbane and civilised as you!
Interestingly though, the giving of advice (and the advice you've proffered, in particular) is a bit of a double edged sword.
Take your advice, for example. You told the OP that he (or she) is not empowered to do anything about racism. That racism is inevitable, and no individual, nor collective can influence it nor respond to it in such a way that future generations are not subject to it's stupidity. That he (or she) ought to bend under the yoke and accept his (or her) fate.
It's a double edged sword. Time was, when America was the undisputed champion and dominated the world, economically and militarily. That time is drawing to a close, and (ironically) it's the chinks that are hurrying that along. And then your own advice must also apply to you. If the chinks come along and choose not to give you work, choose to denigrate you, choose to call you 'round eye' and sneer at you, and you'll bend your back to the yoke, because you must, because if racism is inevitable then there is nothing that makes YOU immune to it, and if the OP is not empowered to do anything about injustice, racism and oppression then YOU are not empowered to do anything either when it happens to you, other than bend your back to the yoke of oppression.
I think suspecting people of views they seem (on the outer) to strenuously oppose is an exercise in frustration and confusion. You'll be suspicious of everybody - even yourself.
which kind of proves the OP's point: even supposing Antifa/BLM were after ideological purity (rather than what they say) and that ideology were something other than "Nazism is bad".
Then they came for me—and there was no one to defend my freedom anymore..
Except for all the people who fought and died for your freedoms, and continue to stand vigil. Do you think that the Nazis shed blood to defend you from the Nazis?
Heather Heyer didn't have to die. She was murdered by individual with disgusting views.
Very true. And more will follow, unless those who hold such views are opposed with equal strength and rectitude.
There are people with little minds in this world. You will not stamp out racism, bigotry, and hatred by simply sweeping it under a rug.
Very true. Why aren't you already on the streets, standing in opposition to Nazism? Why aren't you standing with companies and individuals who refuse to profit from evil?
You and I don't have to listen to hurtful speech, but we can't stop their right to say it to people who want to hear it.
Why are you saying this to us: rather than the people who think that the solution to the problem who say things that offend them is to run them down with your car, or throw them in a gas chamber?
It's also good to hear all viewpoints before you decide where you stand on an issue. Just because someone's views are commonly held as extreme doesn't mean they don't deserve a fair hearing. Once you've learned about their views then you can make an informed decision as to wether their opinion is bullshit, and if so why.
Most people think they've seen all they need to see of Nazis philosophy and it's outcomes, and that observation is real and verifiable: a view from the showers at Auschwitz and Treblinka. We don't need to revisit their philosophy or worldview for re-evaluation.
If you have a view as to why this is wrong, feel free to tell us what's attractive about Nazism. But be aware that we reserve the right to respond as we see fit: some infections can only be burnt out with fire (like last time).
The guy who drove his car into a bunch of anti-fascists. And a portion of those who are attempting to justify his behaviour.
Seems pretty simple, not sure I grasp the source of confusion.
People who are fascists
People who say they are fascists and who ascribe to a fascist worldview
People who ascribe to a fascist worldview
People who aren't fascists
People who oppose fascism in worldview and deed.
People who refuse to subsidise fascism either explicitly or implicitly, by hosting fascists on their website, cloud or server, and by refusing to take money to turn a blind eye to fascism.
Not supporting fascism is a sign you aren't a fascist.
People who are just stupid
People who refuse to condemn fascism, because thye think that all viewpoints that offend them are equivalent to fascism.
People who think only fascists are violent.
People who think refusing to implicitly endorse fascism because you hate it, makes you a fascist.
Perhaps it would help if the alt right were to clearly condemn and denounce the violence perpetrated by actual Nazis?
To be honest, I never suspected that the alt-right were as extreme as they have demonstrated themselves to be. Cowardly, whining arseholes, yes. But the number of posts from alt right I've read over the last few days, justifying the murder of someone whose only crime was to stand up to Nazis (a stance that we used to be PROUD of) has made me change my mind.
I love how you were modded up and the GP was modded down.
Maybe because the GP made less sense than the post that was modded up?
Classic millenial pot smoking safe space baby talk.
None of those words mean anything to the rest of us.
Even my foolish enemies should be allowed to express themselves.
Nobody is stopping them from expressing themselves. They agreed to some terms of service, and violated those terms of service.
Does it not make sense to you people that these who express themselves in this manner are EXPOSING themselves for what they are which is a GOOD THING?
We know what a Fascist is, and we know what Nazism is. There was a thing last century where we got to know them and the downsides of their philosophy in good enough definition for the average person to make a call on how to react to Neo-Nazism. Maybe do some research.
Right or wrong about the impact of the US on WW2 the Americans who fought in World War II are dead. Maybe you need to recognise that the measure of your countries greatness is your OWN deeds and your OWN contributions, not draw down on the credit of the dead.
Or an objective observation. Robots have explored the Solar System out to the kuiper belt - and are now leaving it. What part of the solar system have humans explored since we entered the space age?
If robotics were sufficiently advanced to build greenhouses and farm food on Mars, what would the purpose of sending humans? Surely, for that level of complexity, we could skip the complex building of habitats and just send a robot to do {whatever} the task that have in mind for humans.
The claim of existence is actually the only claim here. Because the rejection of the claim (or as you'd label it, "the claim that it isn't") couldn't exist without someone first making the positive claim.
Incorrect.
Person A: "Do any powerful, unobserved beings exist?"
Person B: "No"
Person B has the burden of proof. Person A has no obligation to disprove B's assertion. Otherwise we are just assuming that the answer "No" can be used without requiring proof:
Person A: "Are there any apples in England?"
Person B: "No"
I cannot claim that there is no Zrbtnik. Well, I can, but everyone would probably look at me and go "so?". For good reason.
Yes - and the reason is, that you have the burden of proof, and as part of that, you are obliged to explain why it would be significant. Or we won't believe you.
Not believing in something is basically where people start. Because you by definition cannot believe in something you never heard of.
Incorrect. The starting position is no knowledge at all. Unless you think babies are in the uteri thinking to themselves: "All religions are myths!, there is no God nor Gods!".
If you could scan a babies brain, you would see that they have no opinion on whether or not there are any deities. They literally do not know. For someone to claim to know, foreknowledge or reasoning is required, and that is what is required of you, if you are ever to justify your claim that all religions are myths. Do you have any empirical evidence for your claim? If you have no evidence, how is it not a belief?
No belief is not the same as no knowledge. No knowledge still allows believing something, just as not believing something allows you to know. I also don't say that all belief systems are delusions. I only reject those that I know about, there might be a belief system out there that I might consider valid. I don't know. I just don't believe there is one.;)
Ah. So you now think your earlier statement was incorrect?
Then why would we take your claims seriously? Why would we think your claims had scientific merit?
I'll assume that with "my claims" you mean the scientific theories put forward by various researchers around the globe
No, I meant your claim that all belief systems are myths, even though you have no knowledge of the vast majority of those belief systems and what they say.
because that's what this part of our conversation is about.
Again: Would you consider an omniscient, omnipotent being that can not only transcend space and time but also create worlds and life as ORDINARY? Then what the hell would you consider extraordinary, please explain this.
I consider the claim that there exists an unobservable being or beings to be no more extraordinary than the claim that all belief systems are delusions, absent any knowledge on what the entire set of belief systems contains.
Something that is unobservable is also irrelevant by scientific standards.
Your claims "all belief systems are delusions" and "my unprovable claims are not beliefs" are not based on science.
About you claiming I have a "belief". My "belief" is the lack thereof. You make a claim (the existence of an extra-dimensional, or however you wish to define it, being) and I reject that claim and do not believe it. That's where my "belief" ends: At not believing.
Incorrect.
Ontologically - "no belief" is the same as "no knowledge", unless there is something specifically observable that ties your assertion to reality. That is why agnostics are called agnostics ("absent knowledge"). You have no observation that proves your claim that all belief systems are delusions. That is a positive assertion, and you can't justify it by empirical observation.
And no, you do not have to justify your position on an empirical basis. But then you should also not expect it to be taken serious from a scientific point of view. Or demand that it should be taught as if it had any scientific merit.
Then why would we take your claims seriously? Why would we think your claims had scientific merit?
What's subjective about calling the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being that nobody ever saw "extraordinary"?
The lack of objective evidence, or any objective test we can use to test the proposition.
And yes, not having EVER encountered something IS a pretty good framework to define something as "extraordinary". I'd again really, really like to hear your definition of it.
It's irrational to assert that something defined as unobservable cannot exist because it is unobserved.
As for your "but the people with imaginary friends is bigger" argument: Reality is not a matter of consensus. It's a matter of what is. Else I am pretty sure it would be easy to find enough people to wish gravity out of existence, but guess what: No matter how many people want to float on air, it ain't gonna happen. Consensus and majorities are not a valid way to determine what is. It's a good way to determine what we as a collective want, but reality doesn't give a fuck about that.
You aren't hearing what I'm saying.
It doesn't matter if those who doubt your claims (or call them extraordinary) constitute a larger group that then group of people who believe as you do. What matters is, there is no real distinction between your belief (that the idea there exists an unobserved being or beings is extraordinary) and their belief (that the idea that no unobserved being can exist is extraordinary). Neither side is able to justify their position from an empirical basis. Most importantly, in the context of this discussion, you haven't been able to articulate an empirical basis for your claim, which makes it a belief.
Given that you've been unable to do so I'm surprised to see you frame it as if your position were more empirical than the claims of those whose beliefs contrast with your own.
I'd consider the existence of a god extraordinary, yes.
That is your subjective opinion - or (in other words): belief.
Mostly because I don't go out the door and run into gods.
Is that actually a valid framework for testing of non-material things?
Again, you telling me you had breakfast at McD is a quite ordinary claim. I know that this works. I have been there. I ate breakfast there. I know they serve breakfast to anyone. So your claim is about as ordinary as it may get.
I don't think you actually read what I said above - please read it, rather than repeating yourself.
A claim that there is a god and that he has some sort of influence on this world is quite extraordinary. I also have no idea how much more extraordinary it could get than an omnipotent, omniscient being. That's pretty much the definition of extraordinary.
Once again, this is your subjective opinion. Others do not share that belief.
The question whether a claim is ordinary or extraordinary is not based on the amount of people making it. Reality is not a popularity contest, we don't get to democratically vote on it, and no matter how many fat people want gravity to go away it is here and here to stay.
But this (again) is just your subjective view. Consider this issue from the perspective of someone who does not know whether or not a god, gods or other non-material entities exist. A group of people comes to this person and says that the claim that such beings exist is extraordinary. Another (somewhat larger) group comes to the person and says that the claim that no such beings can exist is extraordinary.
Which group should that person actually believe? Is there a material difference between one claim and the other?
So, the takeaway is: people who say "climate models aren't good at predicting climate change" are (at best) saying nothing at all about how bad a problem climate change is.
And we could be overrun by aliens tomorrow. And we could be hit by a planet killer meteor that nobody noticed coming sometime next week.
Absent any further information what is the probability that climate change will be worse than the models predict - if the models are producing merely random results (as the OP alleged)?
Slashdot Mirror
1. If the OP has equal rights (he is empowered) then it is perfectly right that he be able to match the white supremacists - word for word, fist for fist. We are not obliged to tolerate acts of violence.
2. If you wish to stand by your claim that he is not empowered and not endowed with equal rights, then read my comments above re: the double edged sword.
The proper way to answer speech is with better speech, not with violence.
Perhaps that's the most efficacious response - perhaps it isn't. You can't reason with an insane person, and fascism is insane. That quesiton has nothing to do with we are within our rights to match speech for speech, regardless of whether that speech includes a physical element.
Is there a particular reason for anybody to believe anything that that guy says? let alone the fact you included yet another conspiracy theory, withotu any evidence other than the insane rantings of a right wing extremist.
Think if all the counter protesters had listened to the governor of Virginia plea for people not to show up and and to avoid the area.
Yes. Becuase of there is one thing that Nazis are known for, it's their committment to peace.
Who would have been there to die or cause violence?
That's right. It's not like the Nazis have a history of violence, amiright?.
Of course we can't let them have their little gathering unopposed because drama, amirite?
Yes, history has demonstrated that Nazi gatherings are always peaceful love ins.
I think if you are so concerned for the poor Nazis, you should give them your country, That way, they can live their lives in piece, without being unneccsarily frightend into violence by those nasty blacks and jews, gays and other untermenschen. Some lebensraum for the poor, oppressed Nazis.
Things is, it seems the citizens of Charlottesville lack the tolerance that you are so committed to, and don't want these poor oppressed Nazis in their city. If only they were as urbane and civilised as you!
Interestingly though, the giving of advice (and the advice you've proffered, in particular) is a bit of a double edged sword.
Take your advice, for example. You told the OP that he (or she) is not empowered to do anything about racism. That racism is inevitable, and no individual, nor collective can influence it nor respond to it in such a way that future generations are not subject to it's stupidity. That he (or she) ought to bend under the yoke and accept his (or her) fate.
It's a double edged sword. Time was, when America was the undisputed champion and dominated the world, economically and militarily. That time is drawing to a close, and (ironically) it's the chinks that are hurrying that along. And then your own advice must also apply to you. If the chinks come along and choose not to give you work, choose to denigrate you, choose to call you 'round eye' and sneer at you, and you'll bend your back to the yoke, because you must, because if racism is inevitable then there is nothing that makes YOU immune to it, and if the OP is not empowered to do anything about injustice, racism and oppression then YOU are not empowered to do anything either when it happens to you, other than bend your back to the yoke of oppression.
Have fun with that.
I think suspecting people of views they seem (on the outer) to strenuously oppose is an exercise in frustration and confusion. You'll be suspicious of everybody - even yourself.
Nazi: racial purity. Antifa/BLM: ideological purity.
which kind of proves the OP's point: even supposing Antifa/BLM were after ideological purity (rather than what they say) and that ideology were something other than "Nazism is bad".
Then they came for me—and there was no one to defend my freedom anymore..
Except for all the people who fought and died for your freedoms, and continue to stand vigil. Do you think that the Nazis shed blood to defend you from the Nazis?
Heather Heyer didn't have to die. She was murdered by individual with disgusting views.
Very true. And more will follow, unless those who hold such views are opposed with equal strength and rectitude.
There are people with little minds in this world. You will not stamp out racism, bigotry, and hatred by simply sweeping it under a rug.
Very true. Why aren't you already on the streets, standing in opposition to Nazism? Why aren't you standing with companies and individuals who refuse to profit from evil?
You and I don't have to listen to hurtful speech, but we can't stop their right to say it to people who want to hear it.
Why are you saying this to us: rather than the people who think that the solution to the problem who say things that offend them is to run them down with your car, or throw them in a gas chamber?
It's also good to hear all viewpoints before you decide where you stand on an issue. Just because someone's views are commonly held as extreme doesn't mean they don't deserve a fair hearing. Once you've learned about their views then you can make an informed decision as to wether their opinion is bullshit, and if so why.
Most people think they've seen all they need to see of Nazis philosophy and it's outcomes, and that observation is real and verifiable: a view from the showers at Auschwitz and Treblinka. We don't need to revisit their philosophy or worldview for re-evaluation.
If you have a view as to why this is wrong, feel free to tell us what's attractive about Nazism. But be aware that we reserve the right to respond as we see fit: some infections can only be burnt out with fire (like last time).
An those values clearly state that you have a right to say, gather peacefully, or hold values no matter how repugnant hey are.
I might need to check my little book of guidelines on peaceful protesting, but running down and killing people wasn't in there last time I checked.
Now who's the fascist?
The guy who drove his car into a bunch of anti-fascists. And a portion of those who are attempting to justify his behaviour.
Seems pretty simple, not sure I grasp the source of confusion.
People who are fascists
People who say they are fascists and who ascribe to a fascist worldview
People who ascribe to a fascist worldview
People who aren't fascists
People who oppose fascism in worldview and deed.
People who refuse to subsidise fascism either explicitly or implicitly, by hosting fascists on their website, cloud or server, and by refusing to take money to turn a blind eye to fascism.
Not supporting fascism is a sign you aren't a fascist.
People who are just stupid
People who refuse to condemn fascism, because thye think that all viewpoints that offend them are equivalent to fascism.
People who think only fascists are violent.
People who think refusing to implicitly endorse fascism because you hate it, makes you a fascist.
Conclusions
Up is not down, war is not peace, 2+2=4, not 5.
Perhaps it would help if the alt right were to clearly condemn and denounce the violence perpetrated by actual Nazis?
To be honest, I never suspected that the alt-right were as extreme as they have demonstrated themselves to be. Cowardly, whining arseholes, yes. But the number of posts from alt right I've read over the last few days, justifying the murder of someone whose only crime was to stand up to Nazis (a stance that we used to be PROUD of) has made me change my mind.
I love how you were modded up and the GP was modded down.
Maybe because the GP made less sense than the post that was modded up?
Classic millenial pot smoking safe space baby talk.
None of those words mean anything to the rest of us.
Even my foolish enemies should be allowed to express themselves.
Nobody is stopping them from expressing themselves. They agreed to some terms of service, and violated those terms of service.
Does it not make sense to you people that these who express themselves in this manner are EXPOSING themselves for what they are which is a GOOD THING?
We know what a Fascist is, and we know what Nazism is. There was a thing last century where we got to know them and the downsides of their philosophy in good enough definition for the average person to make a call on how to react to Neo-Nazism. Maybe do some research.
Right or wrong about the impact of the US on WW2 the Americans who fought in World War II are dead. Maybe you need to recognise that the measure of your countries greatness is your OWN deeds and your OWN contributions, not draw down on the credit of the dead.
Or an objective observation. Robots have explored the Solar System out to the kuiper belt - and are now leaving it. What part of the solar system have humans explored since we entered the space age?
If robotics were sufficiently advanced to build greenhouses and farm food on Mars, what would the purpose of sending humans? Surely, for that level of complexity, we could skip the complex building of habitats and just send a robot to do {whatever} the task that have in mind for humans.
Research and exploration is done by robots. Why would they need a return flight?
Maybe not everything is a crisis.
The claim of existence is actually the only claim here. Because the rejection of the claim (or as you'd label it, "the claim that it isn't") couldn't exist without someone first making the positive claim.
Incorrect.
Person A: "Do any powerful, unobserved beings exist?"
Person B: "No"
Person B has the burden of proof. Person A has no obligation to disprove B's assertion. Otherwise we are just assuming that the answer "No" can be used without requiring proof:
Person A: "Are there any apples in England?"
Person B: "No"
I cannot claim that there is no Zrbtnik. Well, I can, but everyone would probably look at me and go "so?". For good reason.
Yes - and the reason is, that you have the burden of proof, and as part of that, you are obliged to explain why it would be significant. Or we won't believe you.
Not believing in something is basically where people start. Because you by definition cannot believe in something you never heard of.
Incorrect. The starting position is no knowledge at all. Unless you think babies are in the uteri thinking to themselves: "All religions are myths!, there is no God nor Gods!".
If you could scan a babies brain, you would see that they have no opinion on whether or not there are any deities. They literally do not know. For someone to claim to know, foreknowledge or reasoning is required, and that is what is required of you, if you are ever to justify your claim that all religions are myths. Do you have any empirical evidence for your claim? If you have no evidence, how is it not a belief?
No belief is not the same as no knowledge. No knowledge still allows believing something, just as not believing something allows you to know. I also don't say that all belief systems are delusions. I only reject those that I know about, there might be a belief system out there that I might consider valid. I don't know. I just don't believe there is one. ;)
Ah. So you now think your earlier statement was incorrect?
Then why would we take your claims seriously? Why would we think your claims had scientific merit?
I'll assume that with "my claims" you mean the scientific theories put forward by various researchers around the globe
No, I meant your claim that all belief systems are myths, even though you have no knowledge of the vast majority of those belief systems and what they say.
because that's what this part of our conversation is about.
It really isn't.
Again: Would you consider an omniscient, omnipotent being that can not only transcend space and time but also create worlds and life as ORDINARY? Then what the hell would you consider extraordinary, please explain this.
I consider the claim that there exists an unobservable being or beings to be no more extraordinary than the claim that all belief systems are delusions, absent any knowledge on what the entire set of belief systems contains.
Something that is unobservable is also irrelevant by scientific standards.
Your claims "all belief systems are delusions" and "my unprovable claims are not beliefs" are not based on science.
About you claiming I have a "belief". My "belief" is the lack thereof. You make a claim (the existence of an extra-dimensional, or however you wish to define it, being) and I reject that claim and do not believe it. That's where my "belief" ends: At not believing.
Incorrect.
Ontologically - "no belief" is the same as "no knowledge", unless there is something specifically observable that ties your assertion to reality. That is why agnostics are called agnostics ("absent knowledge"). You have no observation that proves your claim that all belief systems are delusions. That is a positive assertion, and you can't justify it by empirical observation.
And no, you do not have to justify your position on an empirical basis. But then you should also not expect it to be taken serious from a scientific point of view. Or demand that it should be taught as if it had any scientific merit.
Then why would we take your claims seriously? Why would we think your claims had scientific merit?
What's subjective about calling the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being that nobody ever saw "extraordinary"?
The lack of objective evidence, or any objective test we can use to test the proposition.
And yes, not having EVER encountered something IS a pretty good framework to define something as "extraordinary". I'd again really, really like to hear your definition of it.
It's irrational to assert that something defined as unobservable cannot exist because it is unobserved.
As for your "but the people with imaginary friends is bigger" argument: Reality is not a matter of consensus. It's a matter of what is. Else I am pretty sure it would be easy to find enough people to wish gravity out of existence, but guess what: No matter how many people want to float on air, it ain't gonna happen. Consensus and majorities are not a valid way to determine what is. It's a good way to determine what we as a collective want, but reality doesn't give a fuck about that.
You aren't hearing what I'm saying.
It doesn't matter if those who doubt your claims (or call them extraordinary) constitute a larger group that then group of people who believe as you do. What matters is, there is no real distinction between your belief (that the idea there exists an unobserved being or beings is extraordinary) and their belief (that the idea that no unobserved being can exist is extraordinary). Neither side is able to justify their position from an empirical basis. Most importantly, in the context of this discussion, you haven't been able to articulate an empirical basis for your claim, which makes it a belief.
Given that you've been unable to do so I'm surprised to see you frame it as if your position were more empirical than the claims of those whose beliefs contrast with your own.
I'd consider the existence of a god extraordinary, yes.
That is your subjective opinion - or (in other words): belief.
Mostly because I don't go out the door and run into gods.
Is that actually a valid framework for testing of non-material things?
Again, you telling me you had breakfast at McD is a quite ordinary claim. I know that this works. I have been there. I ate breakfast there. I know they serve breakfast to anyone. So your claim is about as ordinary as it may get.
I don't think you actually read what I said above - please read it, rather than repeating yourself.
A claim that there is a god and that he has some sort of influence on this world is quite extraordinary. I also have no idea how much more extraordinary it could get than an omnipotent, omniscient being. That's pretty much the definition of extraordinary.
Once again, this is your subjective opinion. Others do not share that belief.
The question whether a claim is ordinary or extraordinary is not based on the amount of people making it. Reality is not a popularity contest, we don't get to democratically vote on it, and no matter how many fat people want gravity to go away it is here and here to stay.
But this (again) is just your subjective view. Consider this issue from the perspective of someone who does not know whether or not a god, gods or other non-material entities exist. A group of people comes to this person and says that the claim that such beings exist is extraordinary. Another (somewhat larger) group comes to the person and says that the claim that no such beings can exist is extraordinary.
Which group should that person actually believe? Is there a material difference between one claim and the other?
Correct?
And we could be overrun by aliens tomorrow. And we could be hit by a planet killer meteor that nobody noticed coming sometime next week.
Absent any further information what is the probability that climate change will be worse than the models predict - if the models are producing merely random results (as the OP alleged)?
I know, by the way, but do you?