AGW discussion 105

Always the premises with this discussion.

You hear a lot about the "scientific" models, which are supposed to predict the climate years from now.

Seems to me that I heard that the use of scientific models are not to be used that way.  In other words, the reporting on such models, which is said to be useful in predicting future outcomes, is BUNK.

The proper use of models is to obtain more relevant data, not for predictions.

Once the real relationships are best known, then these can be discussed.  In other words, if these models actually could find a real relationship between carbon dioxide levels and the observed temperatures, then that could be discussed.  The discussion about computer models predicting the future temperatures is an abuse of the models.

It is very doubtful to me that carbon dioxide makes any difference at all.  If it does, it is minimal.  Very minimal.  But this kind of reporting would never make the news.

Fiction is more interesting than the facts.  It's all about the entertainment of the audience.  Everybody loves a horror show.