# wrote on Oct 31
st, 2013 at 11:13am:
You ignore all links but Wikipedia, thus tacitly acknowledging their accuracy.
Not at all, I had a quick squiz, and once again its computer circulation models that are spitting out these predictions.
And we all know how accurate they are right.....!!!!!
Quote:I'm no better qualified to judge than you are.
We're both in the same boat, but I bet you have perused anthropogenic Global Warming papers and I bet if you did get lost in the middle sections where they tell you how they integrated the polynomials with calculus and what not.
I'm sure that by reading the abstract and the conclusion you do understand the bottom line of what they are doing.
Quote:You can't substantiate any of that, can you?
Yes I can with the 1990 predictions of the IPCC computer models which said that we would have 0.2 degree per decade of warming (that's being generous) and we actual had 0.05 degree warming over the last 15 years.
Not to mention that the IPCC scientists themselves actually did say way back in 1995 that the computer models aren't really that accurate and cannot reproduce the earth's climate.
Until the IPCC muzzled them and unequivocally wrote that the models are good.
Quote:Given your tacit acceptance of the majority of links, your assertion is irrational.
Why do you think I waffled on about computer models...???
Quote:Evidently, changing languages will not make you any less irrational.
well since we're both writing English and you still can't understand I thought gibberish might clear things up a bit....