[lzw]

The brilliant thing about the global warming debate for proponents is that because they are not even aware of the science inovlved, but firmly convinced that they are on the side of "science" they can say whatever they want.

You think some of it hasn't been falsified? Provide a citation please!

See what I did there? Also brilliant about their position is that it is completely unfalsifiable (if I'm understanding it correctly, it is impossible to disprove, even though the planet is getting colder, because it is based on fantasy models-- you can't disprove a model because it is just a model. And these models having never worked with previous data sets is well known but advocates don't care.)

[rtp]

You don't understand it correctly. Models are supposed to fit the evidence, otherwise they're incorrect. That's how science works. Say you've gathered evidence of the big bang. You create a model for it. Then, suddenly, for some reason observations and measurements of background radiation doesn't fit your model. If that is so, you'll have to either adjust your model as to fit the data, or throw it away and build a new model that fits the data.

[lzw]

Yes, when you model the past, that makes sense. What AGW proponents use are models to project the future. But they are inconsistent with the data of the past. They don't fit it.

They are simply fantasies to try and lend "scientific" justification to a political movement.

[rtp]

Are you saying that the projections for the future should fit the past? I'm sorry.

[rimantas]

Are you saying, that a model which does not fit past data will somehow correctly predict the future?

[anthonyb]

If you're talking about climate models, then they fit the observed historical data pretty well. lzw is wrong on that point.

[rtp]

Nope.

I'm saying that the models should fit the past data. I think I misunderstood lzw. :)

[glhaynes]

The post I was responding to said that all global warming data is falsified. That's blatantly untrue and not even worthy of discussion.