Some climate deniers should be pitied, but none deserve respect., page-629

"It is a good and sobering article and something deniers should attempt, although they most often don't see any point in reading such an article as deniers know climate change caused by humans is crap!"

So now you've meandered off the original point under discussion, and that was a request for validation of your assertion that - to quote you - "Peer reviewed models show a close correlation between forecasts and real outcomes."

And the way scientific validation works is by independently-conducted audits of the accuracy of a sufficiently representative sample of climate forecasts that had been made in the past.

Which you have not provided.

Instead, what you've put forth is an article written by a journalist, which is:

1. not independent (neither the publication nor the author of the article, who also wrote for Greenwire at one stage)
2. makes zero reference to a representative sample of forecasters, and .
3. gives actual detail, whatsoever, of forecast accuracy, using even basic statistically measures such as averages, distributions around means, and standard deviations.


Effectively, your substantiation takes the form of quoting another article which is also unsubstantiated.

..