3 ms·

Sure. And there are plenty more effects you haven't even mentioned. What about the changing population ratio between people with white skin and dark skin? More

Sure. And there are plenty more effects you haven't even mentioned. What about the changing population ratio between people with white skin and dark skin? More dark skin means more heat absorption which means more global warming. Of course the effect is probably 1 zillionth the size of the effect of CO2, but apparently thats irrelevant to global warming skeptics. I'll admit the effect cosmic rays on cloud formation is quite creative, but I think their are even more ridiculous and irrelevant effects out their if you were really trying. The only honest scientific rebuttal of AGW at this stage is a model inclusive of all known effects (including CO2) that predicts current temperature patterns better than AGW models do. Positing inputs to the system without reference to magnitude and other inputs is absolutely insufficient.

lupin_sansei 19y ago
"The only honest scientific rebuttal of AGW at this stage is a model inclusive of all known effects (including CO2) that predicts current temperature patterns better than AGW models do." It would be sufficient rebuttal of the AGW model to simply show that temperatures don't rise as predicted. A model to predict the future stands or falls on it's ability to predict the future. For example if I had a model of the stock market that failed to predict the market that model couldn't be be considered to be correct so long as nobody could come up with a better model. The failure of my stock market model to predict the future would be enough to show that my model didn't work.
- greendestiny 19y ago
  I concede that the future is the absolute measure of a prediction. But its not a very powerful tool for deciding to act or not in any situation before that future arrives. If you had a stock market model that's based on very observable micro effects and your model predicts past stock prices well, would you use it to invest? Of course the answer very much depends on your levels of certainty, but if you don't invest now you won't make any money.

lupin_sansei 19y ago

"The only honest scientific rebuttal of AGW at this stage is a model inclusive of all known effects (including CO2) that predicts current temperature patterns better than AGW models do." It would be sufficient rebuttal of the AGW model to simply show that temperatures don't rise as predicted. A model to predict the future stands or falls on it's ability to predict the future. For example if I had a model of the stock market that failed to predict the market that model couldn't be be considered to be correct so long as nobody could come up with a better model. The failure of my stock market model to predict the future would be enough to show that my model didn't work.

greendestiny 19y ago
I concede that the future is the absolute measure of a prediction. But its not a very powerful tool for deciding to act or not in any situation before that future arrives. If you had a stock market model that's based on very observable micro effects and your model predicts past stock prices well, would you use it to invest? Of course the answer very much depends on your levels of certainty, but if you don't invest now you won't make any money.