E.M. has accepted my invitation and here is his guest post taking issue with my commentary. As agreed I have only added formatting for clarity and tried correcting for the list numbers error that I don't have time to figure out. I'm hoping E.M. leaves a comment acknowledging that I've left his words untouched. I will be responding in a following post or two. Hopefully I'll have the first one finished and posted by this evening.
___________________________________________________________
E.M. writes: I’m going to start this post by pointing out that you are taking the substance of my thoughts completely incorrectly. I put this on myself, as my thoughts were quickly written in a comment section and not articulated nearly as clearly as they could have been. My original statement came out poorly, and the questions I posed were intended not to critique the science of AGW, but to point out the limitations that arise from scientific modeling, easily the hardest task any research team is faced with.
I would like to articulate now the ONLY point I was trying to make at any point of this discussion: AGW is real. That is clear. That is obvious. I am making no sort of denial of this fact nor am I being “disingenuous” by stating that we don’t fully understand the way the climate system operates over a long period of time.