
Originally Posted by
Mister Moose
So when they say it it's a 'non-sequitur implication' but when you say it it's ...not?
I'm glad the latest models are more closely able to predict the past. However at the end of the day that amounts to nothing more than curve fitting. Note that I'm not saying direct manipulative curve fitting. But the field is still modifying its model as it learns from its mistakes, and that still is a form of curve fitting. Having a model that correctly predicts future events is when you have it right.
I agree that CO2 is a source of warming, and I agree some glaciers are receding and I agree research is a good thing. I haven't seen yet definitive data on what amount of current warming is from man made sources, and how natural warming or cooling is caused and at what rate it will change. I agree that well educated specialists know more about their field than the rest of us do. We may not be capable of knowing all that they know and comprehend. That does not relieve them of the burden of providing predictable, repeatable results from their theory. Some are willing to do so, I am not.
Discovery does not emanate from debate, or the majority, or the consensus, it emanates from correctly ascertained relationships.
Bookmarks