[MaxWilson]

Interesting link, Edi. I'm disappointed that he spends so much time arguing with a straw man: people who think carbon dioxide has zero effect on the climate. He doesn't actually spend any time (in the first third, which is where I stopped) actually defending climatology predictions in any quantitative way, and of course that's where all the real disagreements lie.

"He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense."

In other words, Dutch appears to be arguing with the kooks (who think that "global warming" doesn't exist and carbon dioxide doesn't affect climate at all--do such people even exist?) and not with the people who feel that climatology, particularly the popularized version which includes famines, mass migrations and disappearing continents by 2050, is unsound. What would it take to disprove my skepticism? It would help if AGW advocates would actually honestly answer critiques instead of dodging or condescending, but my doubts would be irrefutably laid to rest if the other system inputs (solar energy) could be kept constant or decreased while CO2 rose, and temperature continued to rise as climate models predict[1]. Do that for, say, ten years, and show a consistent temperature rise, and I'll call the climate models validated. What we have so far looks more like over-fitting the data, to use the machine-learning term.

-Max

Edit: [1] Specifically, if I get to choose the solar inputs and other inputs, you get to choose the CO2 levels, at any level which makes the model still predict a temperature rise. In this case, "I" is obviously not MaxWilson but a generic, skeptic "red force." "You" is also a generic, theory-defending "blue force."