>> And the thing that’s really consistent with climate change models is this variance bla bla bla
In other words, your models have no predictive power.
In yet other words, your models are flawed.
Tell me again why we should engage in a global wealth leveling scheme (with the priesthood extracting their twenty percent off the top) based solely upon provably flawed models?
That’s insane.
The way to test models is to take a set of data and look for solutions that produce the data examined. The first step of the model would be to look for a closed form solution which fits nicely. Then algorithms, variables, offsets, etc.....
The next step is to have peers (or anyone for that matter) take the model and use other historical data to see if the output matches the outcomes experienced (actually measured).
The problem with these models is that the developers cherry pick data that fits their AGW hypothesis, exclude data that doesn’t and then takes a small subset that causes the model to work, and they call that settled science.
They can either produce a model for anyone to use and input data from any time, place, etc. and run it and get an output to compare against historical measurements, or they can just STFU.