SoylentNews

I see you present no evidence. If it's easy for me to do, then it probably is easy for you to do as well. As a result, I think there's a slight error in your claim as to who is being dishonest here.

I literally told you how to see the evidence for yourself, two clicks away from this page. The evidence is in the journal papers. You refuse to click the links and look at the papers, then claim I've presented no evidence, which is basically Pacled-level laziness and stupidity. Your denials might be even stupider than aristarchus claiming that he doesn't have sock puppets, which is truly remarkable. In contrast, when you finally got around to mentioning specific droughts that you stated were on par with the current drought in the UK, I accepted your statement in good faith. You are intentionally being obstinate, just like Pacleds and aristarchus. Holy fuck, your school teachers must have hated dealing with a student who apparently was that lazy.

No, it's quite scientific. The huge problem being missed here is that it's quite easy to build models that fit against existing data, but extrapolate to anything you want. And this practice of claiming that something is too extreme for non-climate change scenario is worse than the scenario of simulating future climates because there is no way to check the claim.

No, they haven't been so verified. You merely claim they have. There's only one genuine test here - testing against unknown, future data rather than fitting to existing data. And as I noted above, they're failing that test collectively.

BS. Models have already been verified against future data: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/ [nasa.gov].

Now, we're making a silly argument that because there's a lot of models, then the models must be right. The obvious rebuttal here is confirmation bias. For example, we have a several decade history [soylentnews.org] of that mass of models understating carbon sinks - models running hot and making predictions that overshoot actual warming but interpreted otherwise once one adjusts the model for actual greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

FatPhil's reply to your comment noted that your source is unreliable. You made no attempt to defend the accuracy of your source. That tells me that your comment should be ignored as it is highly likely to be BS. Even if your source wasn't BS, you admit that given the correct CO2 concentrations in the models, they do a really good job of predicting temperatures.

It's not worth my time to discuss this topic with someone who can't be bothered to click a link, then uses his own laziness as an excuse to say that no evidence has been presented. Until you improve the quality of your posting, I'll just stick to pondering whether you're a Pacled because of the extreme laziness, or if you're a Ferengi because of your worship of capitalism. If you want good discussion, post better comments.