Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut
You are using MODELS to predict the future. No matter what Aerohead links to in support of AGW, that is all it is. I can be wrong. It can be right. It most likely is somewhere in between. My argument is that the models assume correlation is causation. You may cripple our modern economies with a hard headed approach to force everyone to use solar and wind. You may find that you can stop the output of CO2 - and still end up with a hotter world because something was not seen.
My father was a Microbiologist and Vectors were his thing. Just because a bunch of people ate at the local pizza joint doesn't mean the pizza joint is the cause. There may be various underlying causes of the illness.
AGW is even more complex by many orders of magnitude.
I agree that the world is warming. I even admit it might be caused by human activity. I am adamant that we should not collapse our economies to blindly halt CO2 emissions without looking at other trigger points that, though small, could in aggregate, surpass CO2's effects and we find that our efforts were all in vain.
By the way. The pizza joint was clean. All the patrons who got sick were part of a softball league who drank Gatorade prepared with tap water. That tap water came from a well. The well had Giardia . The well was polluted by a poorly sited leach field.
You may have slammed the Pizza joint with violations and fines. And it would have done nothing.
We may be well doing this on a world wide scale.
|
Some of the General Circulation models produce output which agrees so closely with observation,and produce predictions which come true,that the scientists are left with a rather high confidence in their predictive power.