re: AGW Deniers - Seems Kind of Hopeless

quote:

---

I argued that the model being wrong didnt NECESSARILY prove that carbon isn't a contributing driver. The difference there is quite significant.

---

But here is where you keep shifting the argument. The models were developed that the MAIN driver is CO2. I'll even agree that if other model relationships, particularly boundary conditions, arent handled properly it may alter the proposed effect of even their primary variable.

However, we are talking about ALL of the models. ALL OF THEM. All of them so bad that reality has fallen out of the 95% CI.

Listen, nobody doubts that CO2 has some effect on climate, but the reality is that it is nowhere near as strong as the acolytes would like it to be for their doomsday scare tactics. It is a minor contributor at current concentrations.

Maybe you just missed my questions on the previous page. So, I'll ask them again here;

Testing hypotheses are a necessary part of science, agree? Global warming advocates' hypotheses are that CO2 creates global warming and has been for decades now, correct? So, can you point me to forecasts based on these hypotheses that have turned out to be correct?

One final question, you would agree that science depends on hypotheses being tested over and over and coming up w/ the same answers time after time, correct?