Reply With Quote
You don't even realize you are building another strawman to attack, do you?
Whatever you say, kid.
You don't even realize you are building another strawman to attack, do you?
Eyup.
You would almost think it was deliberate.
Like, maybe....
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-04-2012 at 05:58 PM. Reason: found a better picture.
I guess if you say it it must be true.
If there is an accurate working climate model out there, why haven't you linked us the evidence?
I guess if you say it it must be true.
Does any model have to perfectly reflect reality to be useful?
.or... alternately:
Does any climate scientist claim that their model is perfectly accurate?
Either way the question isn't a very good one.
Perfect, no. Reasonably accurate, yes. Are there any out there, and yes, we will probably disagree on what is reasonable.
I'm going to make an assumption here.
I'm going to assume that you guys do acknowledge that even the degree of flaws in all known climate models, it rather uncertain.
That said, why do you guys periodically bring up any particular future modeling in an attempt to make a valid point?
You have defined "reasonably accurate" already.
That would be something you agree with. You would not agree with anything that might show AGW or show any catastrophic results from AGW.
I am unqualified to say what is reasonably accurate. So are you for that matter.
(edit)
This is circular reasoning by the way.
"That model can't be reasonably accurate"
"Why not?"
"Because it shows that AGW is real and might be really bad"
"How do you know that?"
"Because AGW is false."
"How do you know that?"
"Because that model can't be reasonably accurate."
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-04-2012 at 06:13 PM.
If you take a genetic test that indicates you have a special susceptability to a certain kind of cancer, even though the test has a great deal of uncertainty, would you get tested for that cancer?
If such a test is available.
What does that have to do with AGW? Are you suggesting that there is a valid test for AGW levels?
Building another strawman I see. Doesn't that get tiring to inject your portrayal of my viewpoint incorrectly? You know, you are effectively lying that way, right?You have defined "reasonably accurate" already.
That would be something you agree with. You would not agree with anything that might show AGW or show any catastrophic results from AGW.
I am unqualified to say what is reasonably accurate. So are you for that matter.
(edit)
This is circular reasoning by the way.
"That model can't be reasonably accurate"
"Why not?"
"Because it shows that AGW is real and might be really bad"
"How do you know that?"
"Because AGW is false."
"How do you know that?"
"Because that model can't be reasonably accurate."
great post! I applaud you!!
Future modeling? Where did I say anything about future modeling? Yeah, its a wonder why I don't bother with the guy who can't read.
Must I elaborate everything said in the past?
All earlier models have failed to properly forecast today's climate with any accuracy. Will you say that the latest and greatest models today will properly forecast our climate a decade or two away, or are they more likely to also have faults?
It isn't a strawman, that is the really sad part. I wasn't being sarcastic or attempting to distort your views in the slightest.
Answer this question:
If I showed you any model that showed both AGW is real, and that it could potentially be catastrophic, would you believe it?
why or why not?
I mean this in a simple, fair, and without guile way. Tell me what you really believe.
If the model had a long term trend of an accurate prediction, then yes.
I see when a question is over you head, you go into laughing fits. I forget. What's that disorder called?
How would you know if it had a long term trend of an accurate prediction?
To what degree of accuracy have any models on climate change been?
That would be hard to determine wouldn't it. Like accurately knowing how CO2 actually affects climate, right?
We wouldn't know, but if a model could predict numerous climate trends accurately, and not be wrong on any trend, then we would have a model worth taking serious. Right? the longer and longer the model continues to make accurate predictions, the more... statistically... it can be relied upon, right?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-04-2012 at 08:12 PM.
Apparently none according to you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions