I would agree with you, if the theory were highly speculative, and without substantive evidence. But that's not where we are scientifically, any more. And so, sitting on the fence is a rather eccentric position, given the scientific consensus. It's effectively denying that the work of the scientific community has any merit - in your eyes. That's not really an open-minded position at all - that's luddite. The more moderate position is to accept the scientfic consensus until there is compelling reason to believe the contrary - which is exactly what scientist themselves do. This is not a religious approach, this is how we advance scientifically, and is exactly what Einstein was referring to.
At present MMGW is not a good scientific theory or collection theories - it certainly isn't testable. It is also an incredibly new science, totally dependent on computer models that change each year, as more computer models are developed, computer power increases and more data is gathered.
Please explain why being anything other than sceptical is rational.
(That doesn't mean I don't think we shouldn't cut C02 etc just in case).
Actually that's pretty much what scientists don't do - the history of science is littered with it falling to the next generation to overthrow the 'wisdom of the time'.In other words scientists once they get to a certain age tend (like the rest of us) to cling to their beliefs - and these scientists are of course the ones in charge.
Science as a whole works, almost despite the scientists themselves.
That's only your opinion - ie. that "MMGW is not a good scientific theory". Most scientists, governments, and members of the public, disagree with you.
Newton's laws of physics are as relevent today as they have ever been, as are einstein's theories, and quantum physics. That's how science works. As Newton says - "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants". Science doesn't have a history of overthrowing past wisdom - just theories to explain observations.
Ok - show me the theory of MMGW.
Show me a testable model I can download, look at the source code and run.
Of course it does - do you realise how long it took for the Newtons particle theory of light to be overthrown, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Or how long it took to Planks equations to be accepted, or how long it took for Einsteins particle theory of light to be accepted.
Newtons laws have been refined as has much of Einsteins work. Einstein didn't even believe in quantum mechanics. Darwin came up with the theory of evolution. Much of it he got right but much of it he didn't. Now with gene sequencing we can actually chart evolution and constantly refine his theory. However it would only take one piece of the puzzle not to fit for the whole thing to be unravelled and the theory disproved.
Climate science is very much in it's infancy and to believe it without some skepticism I believe to be foolish. It may take many years to put all the pieces together and the process refined to a point that all variables are known. If the models are wrong it all falls apart. How do we know the models are right in such a young science that is a vast area.
Well, we get the idea - you guys don't believe it. Fine.
Here you go:
EdGCM
Climate and Population Modeling Software
Slashdot | NASA Releases Free Global Climate Model Software
These are just the first three I got by Googling 'climate modelling software'.
Good luck with them all. Not sure if any of these are open source, though, but there's bound to be a few hundred out there.
Newton's particle theory wasn't overthrown in the way you suggest, and, of course, it's made a triumphant comeback in a new guise. And what difference does it make how long it took? Are you suggesting that there were cabals of wave-resistant scientists fighting a rearguard action against the new ideas? Because there weren't. Naturally, any new idea has to prove itself. It's never the reponsibility of an existing idea to prove the newcomer wrong. In esoteric areas like the ones you mention, which are assimilating new insights, that clearly takes time. But 99.99% of scientific discovery is not like that.
This is actually the basis for a large number of scientific 'facts'. Many started out as theories then experiments and data was collected to 'prove' the theory. It i snot unusal.
So the science is settled then? But it is central to the scientific method that no hypothesis can be accepted unless it is empirically verified by observation; that
accumulation of scientific knowledge never ceases; and science is never 'settled'.
Firstly, there is more heat. There's more CO2, so there must be more heat. Physics 101.
And, of course, you accept that by postulating mechanisms to get rid of it, which was my original question.
But you're not thinking it through. The effects you mention are certainly possible outcomes of increased temperature. But you forget that we're talking about dynamic stability here. For a start, your phrase "and more" does not make sense. If these effects generate a net cooling, then the mechanisms which drive them will stop (clouds will disappear, plants stop growing, etc) and warming will resume. The same applies even if there is a net warming. You are postulating mechanisms which exactly balance each other, thus keeping the temperature stable. But that implies that there is something magic about that temperature, when there clearly isn't. By adding heat to a system which is in thermodynamic stability you will increase its temperature to the point where the feedback mechanisms establish a new level.