Re "And you ignore the language of uncertainty used. "May" is frequently used. Scientists acknowledge the uncertainty here. I repeat myself because you are ignoring the argument."
And there it is, scientists acknowledge the uncertainty but still say the science is settled. Uncertain and settled hey?
Re "Actually I did. Perhaps you weren't listening."
You said "Weather patterns are chaotic" but that is not what the IPCC are saying.
"except, as described by the IPCC, in a nonlinear chaotic system were accurate modelling is not possible. Irrelevant and out of context"
The IPCC said the topic was a nonlinear chaotic system were accurate modelling is not possible. how is that out of context
"So yes, those two different ends of the spectrum, as you put it, are exactly what scientists expect - high variability. You need to read and understand what they say and not make up straw man falsities about what they say."
WTF? So they know it is a certain science and beyond discussion, but they have not the first idea what will happen between flood or drout (or somewhere in-between).
