[outlaw]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

If you were to go back and actually read my posts you will see that I already expressed the opinion that climate simulation modelling is still an area of research and is not ready for use as a tool for setting public policy. Again, that is just my opinion. Others feel differently and I would never suggest they are wrong or, as in the case of your rants, dishonest and unscrupulous.

This does not mean that there is not a significant anthropogenic perturbation on the natural climate trend or that such a perturbation will send our climate into a regime that would never have occurred naturally. Fortunately, the physics of radiative transfer will prevent a run away scenario. Regarding the fidelity of climate models to reproduce the past, depending on what you read they have done fairly well. Certain features, such as ENSO, are not simulated well but it may not matter since the effect may average out over a long simulation. To suggest that the models have "failed miserably" is amateurish as you don't understand the process. You apparently see everything as black or white when in reality it is grey. Progress comes in small steps, especially when you are trying to solve non-linear systems with literally millions of lines of source code. The degree of difficulty is something you most likely cannot fathom.

I have indulged your rants in apparently a futile effort to bring some sanity to yet another inane thread. No more. I am done exchanging thoughts with closed minded people as it is a waste of my time. Believe what you will, I really couldn't care less.

Can we just agree to disagree?