I wanted to make a point that it’s easy to spin a yarn about something seems realistic but is clearly useless pseudoscience. It’s not hard to make it look authentic.
Bringing up pseudoscience is a ploy to distract alarmists from the real issues by making manipulated claims that seem valid causing the alarmist to waste time refuting the claim.
Another tactic is to present pages of information and then ask if it has been read. That is followed by more questions and demands for answers.
Also asking a series of questions that are not directly relevant seems to be a planned approach as most deniers persist in wanting answers to their claims of proof for an issue.
You did that a few days ago, demanding my answers and when I presented a response, you conveniently ignored it. That happens regularly in these threads.
Below is your post and my response Post #: 36779305
"Notwithstanding how poor Hansen’s predictions actually were, I think we should still keep before us his assessment of computer modeling: “There are major [my emphasis added] uncertainties in the model, which arise especially from assumptions about (1) global climate sensitivity and (2) heat uptake and transport by the ocean, …” He should have mentioned also the need for parameterization of clouds in the models. In any event, we should take computer model ‘projections’ with a grain of sea salt – and anything that Hansen says with a block of salt."
