Why do you consider any of those links to constitute "debunking" of the original linked post? Most of the points therein seem entirely compatible with the curre

Why do you consider any of those links to constitute "debunking" of the original linked post? Most of the points therein seem entirely compatible with the current claim Most notably, the link on "climate models" says "Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean." and goes on to discuss hindcasting. But the argument here is about forecasting - how well the models did after predictions based on them were first published. How successfully do they turn out to reproduce temperatures since 2000? Not nearly as well as since 1900. Bringing up 1900 in this context seems like a red herring. Further note: There's a difference between disagreeing and debunking. It can be assumed that skepticalscience will disagree with this sort of sentiment, but that doesn't make them correct to do so.