Quote Originally Posted by Thondalar View Post
Like all climate change stuff published by anyone, the entire thing is speculation.
I think your bias is the main problem. They have a page full of citations for their data, they can't literally force you to click on them.
Quote Originally Posted by Atlanteax
So basically, "we do not understand why the models are not mirroring recent actual results, so it must be man-made warming, as our model is infallible otherwise"
Suppose you've been putting the same gas in your car every time you fill up for 10 years without issue. This time you buy one of those additives that's supposed to clean your engine or whatever, and the engine explodes. If someone said "Hey, you can't rule out that the gas caused that. Gas explodes, doesn't it? Do you think you're infallible or something?", would you find that argument compelling?

When the model is accurate for the 799,800 previous years, it is fair to conclude that man-made effects are the missing piece in the last 200.