Please listen to the talk by Ivar Giaver to understand my position.
I know your message was addressed to Jack, not me, but I can't help but respond to this.
Seriously? You're going to recur to a scientist from another discipline[1], without expertise in climate science[1], and with an obvious ideological opposition to it[2], to inform you on climate science and its implications? How is this any different to recurring to Sean Carroll to inform you on NDE science and its implications?
[1] Even according to the institute which has the most interest in promoting his climate science credentials, he has none. See
his profile on the Heartland Institute: he has "a degree in mechanical engineering", "worked in various assignments as an applied mathematician", "obtained a Ph.D. degree [in physics] in 1964", "worked in the fields of thin films, tunneling, and superconductivity", "[studied] biophysics", and "[studied] the behavior of protein molecules at solid surfaces". See anything remotely related to climate science in that? Me neither.
[2]
According to Wikipedia, the Heartland Institute, of which he is a member, is "an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank", which, amongst other things, "worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans". Mmm, sounds reputable. Scientific credentials firmly established!