?
I'm not sure why you would claim I'm making a straw man arguement given the number of times climate computer models have been ridiculed here. My other comments were meant to show common ground with you not act like you are ignorant of potential flaws. I know you are aware of these flaws, but think you focus too much on them in dismissing climate model predictions. Models are educational/scenario building tools, they are not laws or infallible. It just bothers me to see an imperfect tool rejected because it's not flawless when nothing better is available and there is plenty of reason to believe that the predictions are reasonable. The model in the link above is admittedly flawed yet still provides useful insite.
Regards,
Mark