Yes, on your part, since you claimed there was no published methodology, and have now - apparently - found it.

No, you haven't convinced me that your claim ("climate change is a time travelling zombie conspiracy!") is correct. I won't be convinced until you provide your evidence.

Baseless assertion.

Yes you do. You claimed they ("the models") have failed - in other thread where this claim was discussed in detail you showed a remarkable propensity for avoiding any verifiable, workable definition of failure, can't name the models you claim have failed, can't reference a published paper detailing the failure, can't elaborate on whether you mean a suite of models or a class of models, constantly demonstrate clear ignorance of the purpose of models, their usage, bounds.

If you are the expert on model that you claim to be, then by all means, produce a model that is more accurate and publish it. If sensitivity is lower than the climate record shows, then by all means, publish a paper that better defines the sensitivity and matches the climate record. If you are not prepared and not skilled or intelligent enough to do that, then too bad. You don't get to tell us whether the models are successful or not.

You're delusional. Here's what you actually gave me:

1. A link to a nature article which contradicts your central claims

2. A link to the blog of a conspiracy theorist

3. A link to Phil Jone's biography on wikipedia.

With these links you plan to overturn 150 years of climate research.

Call me skeptical, but I'm struggling to believe a word of it.

That's speculation, not evidence. I said evidence.

So in fact, the feedback could be greater than the models predict, since (you baselessly allege) the model predictions are uncertain.

Thanks for validating the need for urgent action.

Relatively stability compared to what? Other versions of the earth?

No it wouldn't. You have no idea what you are talking about. DNRF.

Righto then. You can't - or won't - explain what is supposedly wrong with their methodology, then what are you expecting to achieve?

Do you have a feeling that something isn't right with it?

Let me be clear we don't care. Unless you can prove that there is a problem with the methodology you might as well be claiming that there are no owls. Your allegations amount to nonsensical babbling. Go away, do some research, and only come back when you have something non-ludicrous to say about climate change.

That's right.

They don't need to justify their methodology to every ignorant moron who thinks they are qualified because they edit a blog, any more than I need to prove the existence of owls to owl deniers.

It's very apparent, yes.

Very well then - I, and the vast majority of the scientific community, and humanity with us, will continue to accept the 150 odd years of climate research behind AGW, and push for mitigation until governments are forced into action. And you can sit quietly, or continue to scream about conspiracies and other delusion rantings like a homeless guy off his meds.

Nobody cares about your unproven (and obviously unprovable) assertions, anymore than we care about people who have doubts about the relative size of 15 versus 5, or the existence of owls. Your delusions are your problem.

Err... Congratulations?

Comprehension fail on your part - your problem.

We wait with bated breath for you to justify your assertions with something reproducible.

Sorry, you immediately drifted off topic :

Is it a problem if there is no statistical warming for 17 years? Why is that a problem?

Which 17 years are you referring to? Which datasets are you referring to?

Why are you asking me? It's your assertion, you prove it

Should models be falsifiable?

Remember it's YOUR job to convince us that the science is wrong.

Feel free to offer whatever evidence you have for your theory (which put simply, states: anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases defy the laws of thermodynamics, whereas pre-industrial traces of those same gases do not). Publish this work for peer review.

And yet you lot constantly assure us that the temperature will not continue to rise because of the increased concentrations of CO2, and apparently this prediction is so obvious that you needn't offer any explanation or proof or evidence and any criticism of your methodology is met with cries of conspiracy and dishonesty.

Have you the faintest notion of how weak your argument sounds? "Nobody can predict the future - except me of course"

You don't get to decide where the burden of proof lies. Nobody cares if you don't "believe In" climate change.

Your moronic ignorance and bizarre paranoia is not impressive and is not a convincing argument.

This is probably something you should have decided upon before implying there was a problem with the adjustments.

No it isn't. They don't owe you an explanation, you owe us an explanation. You implied there was something wrong with the adjustments made, now you think because you say there is a problem, NOAA should hop to it and consolidate the methodologies used into a pamphlet for you to read and satisfy yourself that all is above board. That is, to be frank, moronic. NOAA is not there to answer the every whim of ignoramuses. Do your research, find out what the correct method of adjustment should be, and if the existing results are wrong publish a paper on it.

Otherwise "I don't know" is not an argument that will convince anyone that that there is a problem with the methodology.

You imply that round earthers bear some responsibility for the ignorance and stupidity of flat earthers. That is a complete nonsense. If people are stupid, then calling them stupid is merely an accurate diagnosis. If they are deliberately choosing, through ego or fear, to not accept something obvious, then they, and they alone are responsible for that choice.

Climate scientists are not responsible for the small group of people who choose to remain ignorant of the facts in order to preserve the denialist myth. They themselves are responsible. If they get their way and delay action on climate change, and the worst that happens is that some people on the internet call them a nasty name, they should count themselves as lucky. Delays in taking action will wipe trillions off the world GDP. Someone, somewhere will one day ask if we should recoup that money from the people responsible for the delay.

That's disappointing. I've heard you argue in a relatively intelligent tone for your cause - albeit you are somewhat gun shy of producing any proof of your assertions. This might have led me to think that your (relatively) rational tone arose from a position which you had formed via a rational process.

But is seems instead (by your own admission) you arrived at this position through onboarding mysticism, magical thinking, circular logic and fallacy.

A pity.

I don't recall anyone pretending it was a scientific statement - it is a refutation of the central argument of denialism, which is that the scientists need to convince them (the denialist) personally, plus every other 2 bit ex-weatherman blogger and paid off stooge before the science can be considered valid. In other words, 85-90% of the arguments made by denialists rely on a burden of proof fallacy.

And hence the problem with the denialist position, there is no "proof", or even demonstrable evidence in support of it. It isn't science.

Once again, nobody cares whether you believe it. You beliefs are irrelevant to the debate, and making statements of belief in response to statements of fact is indulging in fallacy.

What matters is whether you can prove. The strength of your assertion (that climate change is caused by x where x != anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases) rests on your proof of the assertion.