[ModelBreaker]

Freepers think anthropengenic climate change is a cult. But sometimes cults win. The smart move is to promote market-based solutions and not wealth-redistribution schemes.

The smart move is to destroy the cult. Failing that, focus on limiting the damage they do, as you suggest.

But the notion that we should all pretend there is valid science behind AGW (using grossly overparameterized, feedback models fit to limited data in the linear portion of their predictive range, then projecting into the future using the non-linear portion of their range is NOT valid science) and urge market solutions to the problem is both unprincipled and gives up our best argument.

I do modeling for a living. I would go out of business if I tried to market models that are validated as poorly as AGW is validated. They are crap and do not even approach decent-quality commercial models. I'm not buying the give up and be assimiliated argument, which you come close to making.

[wolfpat]

Don’t the global warming folks have to introduce a lot of fudge factors into their computer models to get their results?

[Dust in the Wind]

modeling...I'm just basically a poor ole dumb workin’ man but; It makes since to me that you could attach a sheet of glass to the side of a pool extending laterally through the surface layer and then throw a teenage pool party in the rest of the pool to simulate ocean storms. Now depending upon the thickness of the glass and its surface area it would eventually flex enough to cause fatigue and break off from its attachment point. This is elementary; these people ARE liars of an order beyond needing public flogging!