But.. but... if I build a model based on my assumptions and them use that model to prove my assumptions and my 300 closest friends at the International Body of We Want to Control Everything and Eradicate National Sovereignty agree that my model proved my assumptions, then my assumptions were correct.  

That's science you denier!

This is a good point to say that the reason us filthy deniers don't model climate change to show how we're right and you're wrong is because most of us realize that the climate is way to complicated to model accurately.  I have no problem admitting that I can't model global climate with the level of certainty needed to make major worldwide economic decisions.  That's just plain honesty.  It just happens that I know just enough about modeling complex problems to know that no one can model global climate with that level of accuracy.  

For example:  How many of these models account for all the major factors in global temperature?  Here's a clue:  None. Because we don't have the computational power to accurately model every input into a climate system.  Instead they use a bunch of assumptions about the weights different factors have and they leave things out completely to simplify the problem.  Which is fine, in fact common, in complex modeling.  Except that normally you're not basing world economic altering decisions on those half-formed models and you're not running around screaming SCIENCE! like some faith healer charlatan trying to find someone to fall for his lay on hands. This is one of the keys to my suspicion of anything related to the IPCC and it's prophets.  They're not even willing to admit the limits of their approach.  They're so not willing to admit the limits of their approach that they do a lot of their work behind closed doors.  Any decision making process based on modeling is first and foremost informed of the limits of the approach taken so that any assumptions can be challenged and discussed. Openly and open-mindedly.  By everyone involved, not just those with the magic keys to get behind the closed door. 

And, for myself at least, I'm not out to contradict everything AGW proponents say.  I'm actually hoping to see new ideas that make me stop and reconsider my position.  That's precisely why I enjoy this sort of discussion and one of the two main reasons I hang around these forums and no other.  (Side note:  The other is that I really enjoy the game mechanic discussions around TBS games).  The climate here just happens to foster the two types of discussions I enjoy and this has attracted an interesting group of regular and semi-regular posters of diverse opinions that make for enjoyable discussion.  

But I'm also not looking to be spoon fed crap that I've already seen and then be insulted when I say I disagree with it.  

At the end of the day I'm hoping to have a god damn discussion about the subject. But aside from Jafo and one or two others, all of the AGW proponents seem bent on wrapping their posts in snide comments implying the stupidity of, coincidentally, everyone who disagrees with them.  

Here's a clue: That's about as much "discussion" as the IPCC report is "science". 

Tactic-Claim the system one is trying to model is too complex, therefore any model, no matter how nascent, must be inaccurate because the task is impossible.That is your claim. The system is too complex to model, so whatever is said must be wrong, right? And you can judge this how, by the way?

It's been said MULTIPLE TIMES that you cannot pull a ten year data set and use it to judge the whole model. It has been said MULTIPLE TIMES that all models must be refined. You choose to ignore those posts, because if you set up the premise that AGW proponents believe the current theories and models are fiat and then find a flaw, the whole thing goes down in rubble. Once again, thankfully, science does NOT depend on you. A REAL skeptic would propose a counter model, or, if it is felt that the system was too complex, show why modelling it is folly. I see NEITHER of those things from a credible scientist. Do you?

Added in edit-You state that the "IPCC prophets" are not willing to acknowledge the limits of their approach. Once again, this is such utter crap. The scientific process takes care of the limits of the model. How? By showing the model does not match the data seen. This is PRECISELY where the power of the skeptics comes in. And I ask once again-where is the model or the data from the skeptics that supports your POV that the model is wrong? This is what science is. I can't see why you can't grasp that.

Sooo...there is no model for the interior of a star because that is too complex. Oh wait...here is one http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CFUQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.physics.utah.edu%2F~springer%2Fphys3060%2FLectures_files%2Flec17-2013.ppt&ei=m0hfUta_BpPc8ATF94H4DA&usg=AFQjCNETZLU3J4CVRKJu4wi7dayAOXvg5A&sig2=NLPXNJv66QKFIElht--MHQ&bvm=bv.54176721,d.eWU

There is no model for ocean currents because there is too much going on. Oh wait...here is one as well http://www.opc.ncep.noaa.gov/Current_fcasts.shtml

There is no model for Van der Waals forces because the interactions between electrons and molecules is too difficult to understand. Hold on...http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020768305001587.

Soooo...yeah.

Sorry...I forgot You were giving me a clue about how the IPCC isn't science. You determined that how? Besides your gut feelings, how have you come to that conclusion? I'd love all the clues I can get.

These have nothing to do with my point.  At all.  It's strawman nonsense.  For one, none of these are our globe's climate.  Secondly, I freely admit modeling complex problems happens all the time.  I have done it at several points in my career in support of business decisions my bosses had to make.  Those were obviously simpler problems than modeling global climate and it was still hard and we still had to make assumptions in order to get the model to an executable complexity.  And I say again:  I understand that assumptions are made and certain factors are removed to make the models workable.  I admit all of that and did so in my previous post too. 

My point was this:  Basing major worldwide economic policy that will significantly impact the quality of life of hundreds of millions of people on incomplete models and unfinished science is foolish.  Doubly so given that we seem to be incapable of having an honest discussion about the limits of modeling (more on this in a  moment).  Triply so given that, from what I've seen in this thread, no one has a solution that would actually fix the supposed problem right now anyway (except for Jafo looking to sterilize a bunch of folks...). 

I'm not ignoring anything you have said in your posts.  I'm not saying anything at all about the size or the quality of the dataset being fed to the model.  I'm saying that incomplete models are a tool for understanding the problem.  They're not definitive science and they are not the magic bullet to fully understanding a problem.  In this case we have incomplete models that, at best, need further refining (if they're not just flat out wrong).  And yet we are supposed to just accept the conclusions based off of those incomplete and in-need-of-refinement models, shut up and go along without any discussions or dissension.    

Finally, thank you for proving my larger point that we can't have an actual discussion about the limitations of modeling without snide bullshit like:

and 

Translation for the first:  This is a tactic.  A claim to undercut something I've already decided I don't like (for reasons you've implied previously are not honest).

Translation for the second:  I'm not a real skeptic.  Meaning I have ulterior motives for my skepticism that are somehow bad or wrong or evil or whatever.  Never mind that I've now explained twice why I think the system is too complex for complete modeling.  

This isn't a discussion for you.  It's internet chest thumping.  You're brow beating everyone who dares disagree with you.  Brad was right many pages ago (I think it was him anyway) when he said that for some people this issue isn't science at all, but a religion.  That makes me your heathen, I guess.  I've been a heathen in places before, so no big deal.  At least here I can just ignore you and continue the discussion with those who want to actually discuss things.  Which is an easier alternative than the other times in my life. 

So you forgot you said this, right? "For example:  How many of these models account for all the major factors in global temperature?  Here's a clue:  None. Because we don't have the computational power to accurately model every input into a climate system." It's "the Strawman" to your red herring (there was no strawman. It was a post directly to your misguided assertion, by the way).

I NEVER chimed in on the economics of AGW. Why? Because I don't know enough about it. Is it important. Oh yes. But I do not know enough about it to make any contribution to any discussion at this point. If you want to decry the economics of AGW, fine. I have nothing to say. But if you want to discuss the science of it, I am more than familiar enough with the scientific process (Physics major in college and the bio sciences for graduate school).

No one said you have to shut up based on the facts of an incomplete model (at least I haven't, so don't project anything onto me). What I have maintained is that deniers, NOT SKEPTICS, basically say "The model is flawed in this aspect (hockey sticks, 2003, ten year gap in events that occur over centuries) therefore THE WHOLE THING is junk". They go  further, by NOT supplying an alternative, which is anti-science. A true skeptic would supply an alternative view that explains the data (Hoyle versus Gamow). The deniers just say "You're model is wrong, and we don't have to show that we have a better explanation".

You call me an "IPCC Prophet" and do not expect a sneering rejoinder? Laughable.

In edit-Did you call someone a 14 year old and then claim that everyone else is being snide? Did you say this in post #731 "More nonsensical rubbish to delegitamize your opponents opinion simply because they disagree with you."? LOL.

I will say again. A denier will say "the current model is wrong and no one can know why this phenomenon happens". A real scientist/skeptic will say "As long as data can be collected and a testable hypothesis can be found, we can try to understand this". Your saying "Never mind that I've now explained twice why I think the system is too complex for complete modeling. " shows me you have no interest in science. Oh wait, did you mention me bringing up a strawman about complex modelling? Now why would I do that? Oh yea.

Tactic-Suggest that I called/implied you are a heathen because when I tell you that if you are a real skeptic, you would offer a competing model to explain the data, I am telling you to do something that is impossible, even though I have done no such thing. Then I can be dismissed as a prophet and hence a fanatic to be dismissed (you already called me that, right? Lemme check your previous post..."This is one of the keys to my suspicion of anything related to the IPCC and it's prophets.". Yea, you did.). Now, THAT'S a strawman.

You can ignore me and the flaw in your argument (you offer NO VIABLE alternative. You just say "It's too hard to understand and so I won't" while you claim to be interested in the science). I'm sure you can do both quite well.

Nahh, man. I'm not going to say anything like that.

When you are shown the info and you still claim nothing is happening aside from a sea level rise, I have nothing more to say.

There is a difference between saying that the reason for "event X" is this and not that, versus "event X" hasn't happened. One can discuss the merits of this and that in the first case. There is nothing to say in the second case, because according to you, "event X" didn't even happen despite the overwhelming evidence that it has.

Somehow, you seem to know more than anyone on a number of subjects, as I have noticed in this thread and others. I am not just talking about other posters here, I am talking about professionals, who have been educated, trained and worked for years in their areas of expertise (in many areas, not just climate science). The scientists are wrong, the economists are wrong, the lawyers are wrong, etc.

This is one instance where I am ok with being wrong as well.

Then you will have no problem the proof of it being disproven.

rejection is not an option.  You either disprove it, or it remains in effect.  If it is disproven, please provide the proof.  Even Trenberth would love to see that trick.

Au contraire.  Your problem is that when someone disagrees with you and you have no rebuttal, you resort to mindless ad hominems and petty insults.  I am not a republican (never have been), not a denialist (please provide even a scintilla of evidence I have denied anything), nor am I a tool for any fool.  But I am a scientist.  And I know that opinions are like nether regions, only data counts.

But I do chose not to PM you. I know better than to argue with irrational children.