Your derision and perspective are more appropriate for a religious zealot than a scientific thinker. Skepticism is the heart of science. I have not invested e

Your derision and perspective are more appropriate for a religious zealot than a scientific thinker. Skepticism is the heart of science. I have not invested enough time in understanding the currently best climate models. I must, therefore, take a skeptical approach and question conclusions drawn from that evidence. Especially so for a projection. For the level of assurance you seem to have, I assume that you have rerun models yourself, have a deep understanding of complex systems and statistics, and done other climactic work? Even that is skepticism applied and questions asked.