The first and largest was "what did your simulations actually DO when calculating this predicted climate change?"
And yes, the answer was, basically, "shut up - we know what we're doing, you don't need to see the computer code."
That's interesting. You seem to be suggesting that the common practice is for people doing research in climate science to publish without giving the details of their models, that most climate scientests are not using their models as an exploratory tool but to produce a predetermined set of answers, and that modifying data sets is a common practice.
Can you cite some sources for this?
The straw man questions you post were, oddly enough, not that straw-mannish
If you're not familiar with the ready refutations of each of those questions, I'd be happy to reproduce them and cite some at length sources.
the guy who is the godfather of the global warming computer models
Are you talking about Lorentz?
I guess you didn't know that, though. It's another of those "dumb" questions you didn't even know was asked, much less the answer to...
I'm not sure how escaped your apprehension that I brought that topic up, since you're replying to my post.