If the differences are small then it begs the question: how do the data and modeling errors affect the predictions. Errors exist. No way to get around them.
If the data and modeling errors are greater than what is required to accurately predict an increase in temperatures, then isn’t garbage in garbage out?
Exactly correct
yes, to me that is exactly the point. Basically, the alarmists are completely correct with a margin of error of +/-100%
You can question the legacy data, how it was collected, how that changed over time, accuracy of instruments, etc.. Couple that with not being able to *test* a computer model in the real world, along with the fact that there’s *many* models out there that don’t agree (all of which aren’t predicting temps that are current) and what do you have?
Garbage. It is certainly not science.