OMG. This will be comical. Liberal heads will simply explode. Trump to pull our of Climate Accord

[Boomboom521]

Boom, this makes no sense whatsoever, the models are a representation of expected temperatures based upon global warming. The theory is that as CO2 rises, so do world temperatures. They develop models predicting how much warming would occur. All of those models have been proven incorrect. Scientific processes required that you reassess the theory and rethink your assumptions. The science is not settled if you are following proper scientific principle.

That is what many of the scientific skeptics have been pointing out for years now. The point is, climate science is relatively new. We are nowhere near fully understand how the client reacts under certain conditions. There are far too many variables for us to both understand and model.

I think I just said that. But science tells us that mankind has manipulated our environment....is that unsettled as well? Cause your boy Dyson agrees with that

 

[WVPATX]

I think I just said that. But science tells us that mankind has manipulated our environment....is that unsettled as well? Cause your boy Dyson agrees with that

What the theory states is that CO2 omissions are greenhouse gas and will warm the atmosphere. The question has always been to what degree is man responsible. If the models that are predictive of warming are wrong, that means their theory is wrong. What if it is determined that CO2 has very little impact on global warming? The whole purpose of the models is to determine how dangerous the warming is and provide us with the information we need to make crucial decisions. The models are also supposed to determine man's role in that warming. Otherwise any warming we have which has been very slight maybe due to natural climate variation of the kind which we have seen throughout world history.

 

[Op2]

What the theory states is that CO2 omissions are greenhouse gas and will warm the atmosphere. The question has always been to what degree is man responsible. If the models that are predictive of warming are wrong, that means their theory is wrong. What if it is determined that CO2 has very little impact on global warming? The whole purpose of the models is to determine how dangerous the warming is and provide us with the information we need to make crucial decisions. The models are also supposed to determine man's role in that warming. Otherwise any warming we have which has been very slight maybe due to natural climate variation of the kind which we have seen throughout world history.

"If the models that are predictive of warming are wrong, that means their theory is wrong."

Nope. There are an unlimited number of potential models. In fact, there is a famous saying by a statistician that goes "All models are wrong but some models are useful."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_E._P._Box

Disproving any single model making the general claim of "X is associated with Y" does not disprove "X is associated with Y."

 

[WVPATX]

"If the models that are predictive of warming are wrong, that means their theory is wrong."

Nope. There are an unlimited number of potential models. In fact, there is a famous saying by a statistician that goes "All models are wrong but some models are useful."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_E._P._Box

Disproving any single model making the general claim of "X is associated with Y" does not disprove "X is associated with Y."

What happens when ALL of the models have been wrong and have estimated temperatures much higher than we actually achieved? And when preeminent scientists say that because the models have been wrong we need to re-examine our theories, you disagree?

 

[Op2]

What happens when ALL of the models have been wrong and have estimated temperatures much higher than we actually achieved? And when preeminent scientists say that because the models have been wrong we need to re-examine our theories, you disagree?

Did you read my post? "ALL MODELS ARE WRONG but some models are useful."

 

[WVPATX]

Did you read my post? "ALL MODELS ARE WRONG but some models are useful."

Useful for what? Are you claiming they are useful for making economic policy decisions? Are they useful for making fossil fuel decisions? Are they useful for making decisions regarding the transfer of money to Third World countries?

 

[Op2]

Useful for what? Are you claiming they are useful for making economic policy decisions? Are they useful for making fossil fuel decisions? Are they useful for making decisions regarding the transfer of money to Third World countries?

Well obviously it depends on what the model describes.

 

[WVPATX]

Well obviously it depends on what the model describes.

If the predictive models were all wrong, then the theory must be re-examined. And/or the assumptions the models were built upon must be reexamined. Or it's possible the modelers left out factors completely unknown to them.

In any event, you do not base policy on models that are fundamentally flawed.

The extent of the usefulness of these models is to try and use those models to help determine what went wrong.

 

[Op2]

If the predictive models were all wrong, then the theory must be re-examined. And/or the assumptions the models were built upon must be reexamined. Or it's possible the modelers left out factors completely unknown to them.

In any event, you do not base policy on models that are fundamentally flawed.

The extent of the usefulness of these models is to try and use those models to help determine what went wrong.

"If the predictive models were all wrong, then the theory must be re-examined. And/or the assumptions the models were built upon must be reexamined. Or it's possible the modelers left out factors completely unknown to them."

Of course. Did you think anyone anywhere ever thought otherwise? The chance that climate models were going to be exactly correct from Day 1 was zero. The chance that models were going to be close to correct from Day 1 or even shortly after Day 1 were next to zero. That's not how it works.

Considering that they have a mechanism for why putting carbon into the atmosphere ought to warm the atmosphere and considering there has generally been warming as there has simultaneously been an increase of carbon in the atmosphere, it's going to take a significant amount of evidence AGAINST it for the scientific community to change its mind. But it could happen. Anything could happen. But that doesn't change the current consensus of what's going on.