we cannot ascertain the temperatures of past centuries with enough precision to make any such study nor claims

Says the random redditor with no credentials in a scientific field to the thousands of scientists who actually work in this field. Are you for real? I really wonder how you can use a computer that's built on principles discovered using the same scientific method, and then seriously claim that the results of applying that same method to climate are suddenly no longer valid. Your logic is not like Earth logic.

How does a 500 year data set apply to a 4.5 billion year old planet?

Anthropogenic warming isn't dangerous to the planet, it's dangerous to us. The timeline of the planet is irrelevant.

Think about it. Could you predict the sentiments of every human on the planet (over 4 billion) by asking the last 500 people born?

Yes, for an analogous meaning of "predict" as applies to the AGW scenario, ie. not predict precise emotions and behaviour at any given instant, but predict general trends with a certain probability distribution. What do you think psychology is all about? They conduct surveys and studies of small a percentage of the population to find correlations and establish general trends about humanity, like what makes people happy, angry, sad, how they respond to trauma, etc.

Any changes under way are a blip compared to the natural climate ranges that have existed in the past, and not even close to any degrees of change that will require substantial effort to adapt to.

Did 7 billion people have to live with those natural climate changes in the past? Did they have infrastructure investment that would be utterly destroyed given even slight variations in environmental conditions?

Do you seriously think your argument has any relevance for the AGW problems we're currently facing?

No other science matches the confidence achieved in particle physics. Medicine doesn't come close. Why should we use the highest possible standard achievable for AGW when we accept far lower confidence in our highly valued medical fields?

In other words, the change in atmospheric composition is roughly .02%. That's it. It's hard to believe such a small change could make any noticeable difference at all

Hard to believe perhaps, like quantum mechanics is hard to believe. And yet, just like QM, we can reproduce the atmospheric composition in controlled laboratory conditions and check what spectrum of radiation it absorbs and what portion merely passes through. Guess what? Precisely these tests have been done.

Guess what else? The temperature increase predictions in AGW models are based on precisely the amount of additional energy absorbed by that atmopsheric composition. Where exactly did you think these numbers came from?

So in order to argue against AGW, you'll have to put on some big boy pants and either argue our entire understanding of physics is flawed, or that there some other magical energy sink no one has ever seen before that counteracts this basic physics effect. Good luck with that.

A probability wave is an actual physical thing, and not just an abstraction that describes our inability to make precise measurements. It's the very nature of the wave that the events caused by it are unpredictable.

That isn't absolutely certain. For instance, there's always superdeterminism which is something that 't Hooft is currently working on, ie. deriving quantum mechanics from deterministic cellular automota.

Sure there is. There is no model that describes what happens

That isn't justification that such a model does not exist, which is what the original claim was, it's simply justification that we do not currently know of such a model.

Current theory is that we can't do any better than that.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm not aware of any impossibility proof demonstrating that no model can accurately predict reality, there are simply limits on precision, like the contextuality of QM implying the uncertainty principle.

I suggest you read up on the philosophy of mathematics. Math is not what you think it is. I also suggest you read up on the Mathematical Universe hypothesis.

Good thing you're not a professor in the philosophy of science.

Physics is not accessible to mathematics, Mathematics is just a tool physics uses on formalized abstractions of physics.

Underlying this is an assumption that reality is not itself mathematical. This assumption isn't justified.

Furthermore, physics can indeed drive mathematics. For instance, see the invention of quantum logic and generalized probability theory.

I have zero apples, which one will produce an apple seed to grow a tree.

While extremely unlikely, given a long enough timeline an apple seed will spontaneously form due to quantum fluctuations. So the zeroth apple will produce that seed.

This is an abuse of the word "nothing", which is a universal negation "not anything". But quantum fluctuations in the quantum vacuum are something, and not nothing. The research might be interesting, but it does nothing for the question the philosopher is asking when he is wondering "Why there is somerthing rather than nothing?"

Or perhaps this philosophical "nothing" is an ill-defined concept, and thus the question is meaningless.

And you're right, they don't know what causes it, why are they so quick to say the vaccines aren't connected?

Is this a serious question? There was one study which suggested a link (Wakefield). This study's data was fabricated, and was later retracted Wakefield's license was revoked. There were then a flurry of studies showing no link between vaccines and autism. You really think that's "quick to say"?

I was just thinking this. The no-fly-list is counterproductive to intelligence work in which an important tool is surreptitiously tracking a person's movements to build a map of their contact network. All the no-fly-list does would do is make it harder to track the movement of terrorists because they would be forced to use less visible means of communication and transport, which means real terrorists probably aren't on the list at all, which completely contradicts the stated purpose of this "security measure". It's asinine.

As the CEO, his behavior reflects on Mozilla.

His behaviour as CEO reflects on Mozilla.