"The only honest scientific rebuttal of AGW at this stage is a model inclusive of all known effects (including CO2) that predicts current temperature patterns better than AGW models do."
It would be sufficient rebuttal of the AGW model to simply show that temperatures don't rise as predicted. A model to predict the future stands or falls on it's ability to predict the future.
For example if I had a model of the stock market that failed to predict the market that model couldn't be be considered to be correct so long as nobody could come up with a better model. The failure of my stock market model to predict the future would be enough to show that my model didn't work.
I concede that the future is the absolute measure of a prediction. But its not a very powerful tool for deciding to act or not in any situation before that future arrives.
If you had a stock market model that's based on very observable micro effects and your model predicts past stock prices well, would you use it to invest? Of course the answer very much depends on your levels of certainty, but if you don't invest now you won't make any money.
It would be sufficient rebuttal of the AGW model to simply show that temperatures don't rise as predicted. A model to predict the future stands or falls on it's ability to predict the future.
For example if I had a model of the stock market that failed to predict the market that model couldn't be be considered to be correct so long as nobody could come up with a better model. The failure of my stock market model to predict the future would be enough to show that my model didn't work.