[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What argument? That the predictive value of climate models is unproven?

[/ QUOTE ]

The argument that NOAA's forecast is based off of climate models models. You may have come up with this argument on my own but experience tells me that people almost always pick up anti consensus arguments from some blog, newspaper or think tank.


[ QUOTE ]
????? Believe who ever you want.

[/ QUOTE ]


Adios, if the forecast was based off of climate models it should be SUPER easy to link that forecast to the GFDL. This really isn't that difficult of a request. If you have trouble figuring out how to do this you can always e-mail NOAA. They normally reply within 24-48 hours. If you can't accomplish this simple feat or admit you are wrong on this very specific issue then this conversation is going into absurdity. You are better than that adios. I know you are.



[/ QUOTE ]

The arguments I've made:

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.


Why don't you actually the arguments I'm making instead of ones you'd like to address. You're better than that wacki, I know you are.

[ QUOTE ]
But my challenge still stands. What Ph.D. level skeptic on this forum have I ignored their arguments?


[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I claim you did? My claim is that accusing someone of being a tool for an oil company doesn't contribute any useful information to the debates and amounts to nothing more than a smear. That's why I get it out of the way as soon as possible. Let's just assume he's a tool of the oil companies and move on to the arguments/points that he's making. I know that you've answered my posts with that kind of an answer befoe and left it at that. I can't remember all of your posts and you may have used that reply instead of re-hashing your arguments. Fine, but that doesn't make my point invalid either. Instead of dismissing someone as an oil company tool just say you've shown the points to be invalid before in other posts. FWIW those tactics detract from your points.

On your stuff on oil companies, I don't think this is anywhere close to proving your apparent claim that oil companies are deliberately spreading disinformation.

A question for you is it all possible that disinfiormation is being used to promote agendas?