The IPCC freely admits that they don?t understand 20% of the variables
>involved in climate. According to Professor Armstrong in order to
>formulate an accurate forecast, one must understand 100% of the forces
>at work. Anything less then 100% is nothing more then guessing.
As I understand it forecasting is not a 100% game ever - none of the variables are understood with absolute precision - the reason they call them weather "predictions." So Armstrong is lying in his statement.
Then there's the pesky matter of the empirical evidence.