Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkenBeeRZ
YouTube education at its finest. Maybe start off with “I want to believe!” next time. The climate models have less to do with science than weather forecasting. But, they may get the latter closer to perfect someday since at least it doesn’t rely I want to be scientists playing big boy scientist on a computer.
|
Do you have anything substantial to contribute in rebuttal besides some ad hominem statements?
There are ways to test tools to see if they have the power to make accurate predictions. Climate models, regardless of where they were derived from, have been shown to have predictive powers. Scientists can insert data from the past and the models have correctly predicted warming and cooling trends. Once they have models that are reliable, they can apply current data into the models to predict the future. It is the best we can do because we don’t have a crystal ball to read into the future.
Regardless, the world is simultaneously moving forward, while doing so in a sluggish way, so we can just wait and see what happens. We will mitigate some effects, but the warming trend will probably continue until we make serious strides. Because people “want to believe” it is not greenhouse gas emissions, even if we do see a continuous correlation with emissions and warming, those who are in denial will always say it is natural. What criteria would make you convinced? Why don’t we start from there, so we know what would be convincing evidence for you?