Yes. ANY viable and convincing cause or error that can be proven to violate the theory will bring it down. That is a VERY low bar.<quoted text>
Oh so now in order to disprove AGW, you have to show an EXACT cause
One of the reasons that we classify AGW as 'theory' is that no such error or incompatible fact exists. That is what makes it 'science'.
Rather, it must satisfy ALL arguments, from the expansion of the atmsophere to the distribution of the warming over land and sea. Tens of thousands of 'test cases' had to be passed and confirm the theory before it could reach 'consensus'. This is a VERY high bar for 'proof'.<quoted text>
whereas to prove AGW it can just be plausible
Models must be able to sufficiently model the current reality. As they do. OTOH, Projections of the future have a lower bar because they are 'precautionary' forecasts and not 'data'. In general, the forecasts have been good so far. Some surprises are to be expencted and that does not diminish the useful work of GCM models to give a basis for expectations of the future.<quoted text>
even if all models fail to live up to obsevations.