re: #75 RogueOne

I also said what the study showed was the climate models are wrong and need to be “substantially revised”. I was able to make that crazy leap because that’s what the folks at CERN said:

But they don’t say that the models are wrong, or that they need to be substantially revised. It says that one tiny portion of a fragment of a part of it needs to be revised.

Before we go through the whole argument, again, lets see if we have agreement on those two assertions. Do you agree that the climate models are wrong and need to be revised or not?

The climate models, like our models of physics, of heat expansion in metal, or anything else, are always wrong and always need revision. That’s what science is. It’s the constant revision of what we already know, to make it more and more accurate.

And your claim that there is no way to know with 95% certainty is still entirely pulled out of your ass. You still have not explained why you’re somehow smarter and more credible on this issue than 97% of call climatologists. You really should explain that, one of these days.

why are you better at climatology than they are?