}snip{
Sorry, what 'evidence'? A wacky model that after some 'adjustments' seems by coincidence to coincide with historical data and then is supposed to 'confirm' the many theoretical assumptions on which it is based, but still needs 'adjustments' to make it happen.
But no worries. 'Everybody' 'seems' to get 'more or less' results with their own, 'seemingly' different models but still adjustments to 'make' them fit the data. Oh wonder, now AGW is 'confirmed'!
Ehh..., not.
(And I'm not even a right-winger, or so I say...)
}snipped a lot of more blackmouthing{
joe