One should expect the computer models and the real world to be significantly divergent on any system as complex as climate.
What matters, is if the computer models, predictive theories and etc converge to the truth at large grain sizes for both time and prediction.
Has there been melt off of glaciers and ice caps in the Northern Hemisphere? Yes. Has there been annual fluctuation within a long term trend? Yes. Was the trend predicted by the model? Yes. Is the annual fluctuation significant? Probably not.
Your bar for 'proved' has been set so high that it is the same as a in-principal rejection of the hypothesis. Essentially, you are using a climatology version of the 'recession' proof. IE- you only know you have encountered a recession usually by the time it is over and done with. So the only way to get you to accept the AGW hypothesis is to enter an irrecoverable and irreversible cycle of climate change. IE: when the debate truly becomes pointless.
Meanwhile, your bar for 'reject' with regards to the AGW hypothesis has been set so low that anything from year-to-year variation in multi-year trends to the inferred political leanings of the consensus holders cause you to pronounce it over and done with.
So in essence, you have set yourself up to never lose this argument. While the world potentially accelerates into crisis. I would call this irresponsible, but I would simply point out the parallels in your thoughts about the need for an Iraq war- Your bar to disprove the 'threat' was set up in such a way so that only after invasion could you concede that Iraq was no imminent threat. And now you either deny that that was what it was all about, or you refuse to concede- even when confronted with your own words.
So too will it go for Global warming. While you do not seem to contest now that there is some warming trend, I bet 5 years ago you contested it. And now you simply move the goalposts again and insist that it is not anthropogenic, or is part of some normal cycle associated with volcanism or solar albedo.
Yeti
Flame » in reply to Good question.
Re: real world numbers
