> Climate Science is a bunch of computer models All of science is eventually a bunch of models. > models [that] are not testable. When they're run and compare

> Climate Science is a bunch of computer models All of science is eventually a bunch of models. > models [that] are not testable. When they're run and compared to what actually happened they're always off You do realize these statements contradict one another, right? Also, you're wrong. There have been plenty of successful predictions: https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/successful-predictions-of-climate-science/ https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/successful-p... > Climate Scientists don't release their model's code False. Some publish code before/with their papers, some don't publish at all, and some publish code with a lag after publication (to clean up the code, tussle with legal about IP and/or political issues, etc. Fair IMO as long as the code is eventually published). The major models, including the NASA one, are open source. Google it. > Name a single climate science model that predicted "the pause" starting in '98? Predicting century-long trends and predicting 5 or 10-year variations within that trend are extremely different tasks. It's certainly possible that we have models that are exceptionally accurate on the scale of 20 or 50 or 100 years but cannot make accurate predictions over the course of 5 or 10 years. In fact, in a stochastic system, that's exactly what you would expect to be the case -- trends that are globally but not locally discernible. More-over, opponents to the climate change thesis don't bother to provide their own models and predictions for falsification. And when they do, they're just as wrong on small time scales and much more wrong on long time scales. > I'm saying that labeling dissenters as deniers (reminiscent of holocaust deniers) is beyond the pale. This largely depends on what is being denied: - CO2 effects climate (requires extraordinary new evidence -- we have both historical Earth data and inter-planetary data). - Temperatures are changing (requires new evidence -- the '98 "hiatus" as largely played out and skeptics failed to make any predictions that made it through the decade). - CO2 is causing temperatures to change on earth (again, requires new evidence). - Concrete predictions about near and mid-term effects of climate change. IMO fair game, but I'm not sure what the point is from a climate policy perspective unless we're really that selfish. There's also an important difference between skepticism and denial. Being skeptical of Newtonian physics and providing a competing model against which we can compare is of course fair game. Denying Newtonian physics in favor of "no particular opinion on how the world works, and let's not try to figure out" is of course worse than useless. In other words, make your own predictions or get off the pot.