[InterceptPoint]

You’re comparing apples and oranges.
++++
The stock market is primarily driven by somewhat predictable economic and potentially modellable trends. Human nature plays a role but not nearly as much as earnings and projected earnings,

Climate too is driven by potentially modellable physical laws. Do we really understand those laws and the complex interaction of these laws well enough to accurately model climate? I don’t think so.

Oranges an Tangerines maybe.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The stock market is primarily driven by somewhat predictable economic and potentially modellable trends. Human nature plays a role but not nearly as much as earnings and projected earnings,

Earnings is a small difference between two large numbers - revenue and expenses. Consequently projected earnings are particularly volatile.

Climate too is driven by potentially modellable physical laws. Do we really understand those laws and the complex interaction of these laws well enough to accurately model climate? I don’t think so.

I am suspicious of the climate models because they seem wildly complex on the one hand, and seem to depend on a simple, arbitrary assumption of the sensitivity of temp to CO₂ on the other. Apparently this model did not start out with a desired conclusion - high sensitivity to CO₂ - embedded as a planted axiom before the calculations ever start.