You are welcome. And thank you for the opporunity to post another rebuttal.
"The fundamental mistake made by the IPCC was to neglect or pay little attention to natural changes, except for solar changes and volcanic effects, thus eliminating both
the Medieval Warm Period and the LIA (Little Ice Age). The IPCC adopted the so called hockey stick figure
in an attempt to demonstrate that the abrupt and unexpected temperature rise during the last century began as a result of the hypothesized manmade causes. If the IPCC had taken the LIA
into account, they would have found that the linear warming began in about 1800~1850,
meaning that the warming may be due to the recovery from the LIA. Their prediction has already
failed during the first decade of the present century, because they ignored the multi-decadal oscillation. They should have studied the causes of the LIA, the multi-decadal oscillation, and
other natural changes and included those processes in the GCMs. The present GCMs are still
very inadequate for the purpose of predicting future
Since they ignored both the LIA and the multi-decadal oscillation and assumed the
temperature rise from 1975 to 2000 to be due mainly to the effects of CO2 (instead of the combination of the linear change and the multi-decadal oscillation) their predicted temperature
rise in 2100 is unreasonably too high.
Climate change studies on the basis of GCMs are a young discipline. There are many
unknown processes and uncertain factors in climate change. It is inappropriate to bring results of imperfect science to the international political stage.
Link here for the complete article.