NO such thing as Climate Change?, page-248

do you understand why the IPCC runs numerous models? its to gain the average of all models in order to ascertain a probability with some degree of certainty. even this degree of certainty however is technically uncertain. modelling provides only one thing, a guess at the possible outcomes founded on information derived from accurate observations. they aren't predictions as such, simply a rough guide as to the direction which the changes that are clearly obvious are going.

there are numerous flaws in your argument according to the informed scientific explanations. I do understand you to be putting a sceptical argument, but in order to put forward your areas of disagreement we first need to fully understand the science and effects described by physics. should you do appropriate research on genuine science you'll learn why your argument, a term used not in a combative sense but used to describe the position you hold, is flawed.

alarmism is coming not from the science or even from the vast majority of political decision makers but from those who reject the science. note that the majority of denial arguments are based on claims that the scientists are paid to distort science. to use faulty data, even deliberately falsified data.

good luck with your scepticism. I've been studying climate changes for over 30 years and have accepted the science as valid. perhaps you might learn enough to form a better informed opinion.