re: AGW Deniers - Seems Kind of Hopeless

quote:

---

Sorry if I was unclear, the general consensus seems to be that carbon is a driving factor.....not THE driver. I was trying to make that distinction

---

So... if you think there are other drivers... what portion do you believe is due to CO2? And what do you suppose are the other drivers?

quote:

---

Yes dude, Im a software engineer I realize how these things work.

---

Few actaully write modeling software. I cannot believe you are one of them from your posts.

quote:

---

The clarification I was making was regarding the focus on carbon because its a factor we have control over.

---

Sorry. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

quote:

---

Just because a model we includes all of these as force variables turns out to be inaccurate does NOT mean that one or all of the variables dont contribute at all.

---

Indeed. It means the model is structurally inaccurate, presuming any sort of sensitivity analysis was done. (poor assumption with climate models, though)

quote:

---

It could also mean that one or more of the VALUES attributed to the input variables could be wrong.

---

And CO2 is ONE OF THOSE INPUT VARIABLES THAT COULD BE WRONG.

quote:

---

For example, they might have UNDER weighted one of the non-carbon variables, skewing the results.

---

The most likely candidate is cloud and water vapor--as those parameters are by even the most ardent AGW supporters admit--poorly modeled with very low fidelity.

quote:

---

No thats not what Im arguing at all. See above.

---

It's exactly what you're saying. Your saying modeling state inputs are wrong--but somehow excluding CO2 as being on of the incorrect ones.

Feel free to show us your regression analysis isolating CO2 leading you to that conclusion. Pick any IPCC model of your own choice. I'd love to see it.