> Because when you put in an AGW term, the models do much better than if you leave out any AGW term
And what if they did better by subtracting in the average clown shoe size at the time to the computed average global temperature?
> If you can demonstrate that models with the average shoe size of red-headed clowns as a factor do better than those without, then I will absolutely accept it as a parameter
Then I believe this proves you are an idiot.
> Kind of have to, mathematically
Only if you don't understand math.
> How is it you are so ignorant of what is, not only the basic tenet of mathematical modeling, so completely intuitively obvious, that factors which make the model fit significantly better are kept, those that don't are dropped? Are you expending a lot of mental energy to maintain this impenetrable denseness? Why?
I get it. Rather than understanding why a model that fits best doesn't mean the model is correct or even close, you spend time convincing yourself you should dismiss me.