Quote:
Originally Posted by Zythryn
So will one model that meets your stipulation be sufficient, or do you need more?
|
Zythryn, I appreciate your input. I really do.
Yes, one model would be sufficient, with the caveat that if the answer is three data points (and not more), then the degree of credibility we accord to the models is still questionable, and dependent on further confirmation over time.
Quote:
|
As a more basic question, if the models have a 'reasonable assumption' of being "true" is that not reason to support throwing less CO2 into the air?
|
This is a question I am happy to discuss, but it is not relavent to the current debate I'm having with InfinateNow. He has accused me of academic dishonesty and "waving my hands". My key point is that this is not the case, that in fact, there is presently no basis for assesing the accuracy of the models.
Quote:
I agree with you (as does just about everyone here I think) that more accuracy is desireable.
As for the reason we can be confident that we understand the impact of the biggest factors, I think that comes from the fact that when we backtest models they are very accurate. If we didn't understand the major factors, the backtesting would not be nearly as close.
|
That might be true, but we are talking about nothing less than prophesy. The backtesting that has been done so far only meets part of Grassl's criteria for credibility. My point is simply that the accuracy of the models remain a matter of opinion.
