A meta-comment. You are getting a lot of pushback because it seems to me that you are moving the goal posts. Here is what I mean. You wrote "alarmist" but did

A meta-comment. You are getting a lot of pushback because it seems to me that you are moving the goal posts. Here is what I mean. You wrote "alarmist" but did not explain what you meant. I asked detailed questions so that we could get on the same page. No response, right? Or did I miss it? You give specific examples that fall into the category of, e.g. (paraphrased) "if look at X data over a sufficiently long time frame, it does not show a clear trend." Yes, this is correct for some cases. And these are pointed out in the EPA descriptions. So this does not support your alarmist claim. You complain of being personally attacked. In summary, this trajectory looks a lot like moving the goal posts away from explaining what is alarmist about climate change models. If you've changed your mind about what claims you want to make, please do so. But I have not seen good argumentation or explanation for what seemed to be your core argument.