Quote:
Originally Posted by Zythryn
But Overdog, this phrase: "reasonably assume they are accurate" is yours. Why would you then say: "That might be true, but we are talking about nothing less than prophesy."
|
Reasonable assumption is still assumption. Right?
This (and Grassl's criteria) is why I assert that the accuracy of the models is a matter of opinion.
Quote:
So are the models "reasonable to assume they are accurate"
or
"Nothing less than prophesy"?
|
They are both, until Grassl's criteria are met or we have another basis for attributing credibility, such as observational evidence that are not merely projections of trends. This is why I argue that at the present time, it remains a matter of opinion. Prophesy is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence.
Quote:
As for "there is presently no basis for assesing the accuracy of the models."
I would disagree. If a model gives you accurate back testing I would say that is at least the first step in validation.
|
Yes it is a first step, but Grassl outlines four steps.
Quote:
Aside from back testing, models predicted a warmer troposphere. Satellite measurements showed a lower temperature than the models. Later, it was discovered an error in the satellite data gave erroneously low temps. After this was corrected, the satellite measurements support the models.
I have read that using models have even led to discovery of some other minor variables to climate. I have not been able to find a source for this yet although if true, it represents a strength of validity in climate models.
|
I do not dispute any of this. But it isn't relavant to my point.
Quote:
|
The links Infi posted are also excellent and I highly recommend them.
|
I have reviewed them, thanks. They do not address the issues I have raised.
