“Fabrication facts aside, the same computer programs that cannot predict the weather 3 days in the future; are the same computer programs that can uncannily predict the weather 100 years in the future - with absolute certainty (if you would believe these same ‘experts’).”
This is a very interesting point, and it’s also interesting that you are one of the few people that know that it’s been mathematically proven that weather can not be predicted accurately more than 3 days in advance because the global weather environment is a chaotic system.
So yeah, it’s utter nonsense to think that climate, which involves processes that extend over hundreds, thousands, and even tens of thousands of years is somehow predicable, when we know we can not even predict the weather accurately beyond three days.
The reason that the weather can be predicted 100 years in advance is that they only plug in one variable, CO2 concentration. All of the computer models are based on the same assumption, i.e. as CO2 levels rise so do temps at a proportional rate. There is no allowance for cloud cover, solar radiation, ocean currents, snow cover, precipitation levels, evaporation rates, wind patterns etc. So given this fact if you can prove that CO2 levels are going to rise by say 200ppm over the next 100 years then the computer will tell you exactly what the corresponding rise in temperature will be over that same period of time and it will be dead on accurate as far as what it has been programmed to provide.
An analogy would be using cloud cover to predict tomorrow’s weather. If you told the computer that for every 1% increase in cloud cover you were going to have a corresponding drop in temperature of .1 degrees and a corresponding increase of precipitation of .25 inches, it could give you a 100% certain prediction of what was going to happen everyday. It might be totally wrong in the real world, but the computer would give you exactly what you programmed it to give you every time. That is what the AGW programs do. They just extend the time frame out 100 years so no one will be around to tell them there wrong.
If these people were so confident in their assertions then why don’t they set up an experiment with the assistance of and in cooperation with some AGW sceptics. Pick 500 locations spaced equally around the around the globe including oceans, set up calibrated thermometers and CO 2 sensors at each of these locations, keep records of the temperature change, while inputting the CO2 levels into their programs. Run the experiment for 15 years and see how close the real temps end up being to the predicted temps. When they are done if the models prove to be fairly accurate then we’ll talk. Other wise go away and leave us alone.