HS, I've actually answered all of your questions already
Now, that's quite a Gish Gallop!
I know, even though you haven't actually answered the questions *directly*, or *well*, as per Duane Gish and other creationists' logic, you've *answered* back at me, even though your answers made no reference to the actual questions given
"She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents."
You've made a point (A). I've raised objections. I've given you a range of legitimate and defensible responses to those objections that were more than sympathetic to your point of view. You've chosen instead to Gishy Gish, and instead of actually answering *questions*, you've simply asserted those answers exist...somewhere...out there...
We'll call this the "microbox mambo" in honor of you
The funny thing, is you *get* what a Gish Gallop is. You understand how Duane Gish was a git, and somehow, you've imbued the worst part of his rhetoric directly into your thinking about AGW. You can fully grok exactly how wrong Duane Gish was when he refused to answer objections directly, and instead bounced through his list...your innovation is that you haven't even *provided* the list, but just refuse, time and time again, to actually *answer* a question.
The count is forty-six now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at nineteen for the "constellation" question.
Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?
Here, I'll channel you psychically and give your answer for you:
microbox: "Of course there are contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature. Although obviously this is like 'heads I win, tails you lose', I believe that someone, given enough time, could collect, *beforehand*, all of the *good* peer reviewed literature in defense of AGW/CAGW. And to answer your next question, no, I'm not going to do it for you, and yes, I do take this as a matter of faith, just as I take it as a matter of faith that there do exist unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation. It's not my job to be an expert, it's my job to believe in experts, and I've chosen to believe them. Yes, this is an argument from unspecified authorities, but just because it's a logical fallacy doesn't mean I'm wrong. It bothers me that you point out my hypocrisy with the scientific method, but not so much as to make me give up my belief system."
There, now was that so hard?