/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9297222
>It's not accurate when it can't predict temperature well year after year.
No one is trying to predict temperature year after year. The theory of AGW does not say that the temperature will increase year after year, it says it will increase on the scale of centuries. Once again, you show your ignorance on the topic you're attempting to refute.

>The only thing good about it is that it predicts an overall warming.
That's clearly false as the models predict warming within a certain range, not simply warming. This is because it posits how certain factors drive the climate.

>This failure would be rejected in any other field.
What failure?

>There's solid science that cloud cover also increases temperature.
So surely cloud cover has increased with temperature? No, no it hasn't. Try again.

>Just because the process is known doesn't mean it's the cause.
It's the cause because it explains the warming and no other factors do. If you have an alternative theory I suggest you post it. Otherwise, you're not arguing anything. Just saying it could be wrong when it is clearly well evidenced and unopposed. The Earth could also be flat.