[ QUOTE ]
This is a load of [censored] and you know it. I've posted more links, more graphs, more peer review journals than anyone of the tens of thousands of people on this forum. I've even written a website and blog with thousands of links to and reviews of peer review journals. You've even read my website and posted replies to this link:
http://tinyurl.com/y3hmrz
among others. My eleemosynary didacticism on this subject is almost masochistic.
[/ QUOTE ]
Talk about a load of [censored]. Are you honestly trying to state that you've never disparaged anyone's argument by stating that it stems from a tool of oil company and thus shouldn't be considered? What does an association with an oil company have to do with the merits of an argument?
[ QUOTE ]
Questions in review (quotin cuz I'm lazy):
#1 Again, where did you find this argument? You never answered that question.
[/ QUOTE ]
What argument? That the predictive value of climate models is unproven? That's one argument I'm making and you know that's what it is. Let me modify that argument which may be the main problem you have with it:
In their
current state, the predictive value of climate models is unproven.
The second argument I'm making is that climate models will improve significantly over time and will evolve. In expect that we can't imagine the improvement that will take place over the next 50 years.
Third argument is that people are putting way too much stock in what climate models
in their current state are predicting.
Fourth argment is that politicians are exploiting the situation to promote their own agendas.
Fifth argument is that the conditions for 3 and 4 are a disaster for funding research.
[ QUOTE ]
#2In this thread I've given you some simple requirements (like linking the GFDL to that specific forecast) otherwise I will have to believe the AGU over you.
[/ QUOTE ]
????? Believe who ever you want.
[ QUOTE ]
#I challenge you to find one single Ph.D. level climate change skeptic posted in this forum that I've not picked apart their arguments with supporting evidence from refereed journals and/or technical data. or appologize
#In my previous post I posted a bunch of bulleted points which were from a previous thread. Do you agree that those bulleted points accurately represent the models?
[/ QUOTE ]
Here's something for you, why don't you refrain from making the accusation that someone is nothing more than an oil company tool (as if working for an oil company is evil) or give us your best shot at proving to us how oil companys are in bed together and purposely spreading disinformation. I mean if the arguments are so easy to trash no need to mention who someone is paid by. Also I hope you don't hold the position that skeptics have an agenda and are paid shills of oil companys while all of the non skeptics have pure motives i.e. they don't have agendas and/or arent' shills for someone.