“If a climate scientist follows scientific protocol, calls out the assumptions in their predictive models (better yet, call out the possibility that their models may not correspond with real behavior), and do proper peer reviews including people who aren’t excluded based on their AGW views, then I will consider the work to be unbiased.”
Ok, let me get this correct.
You are an admitted climate science amateur, to the point that you are not capable of discerning the difference between pseudoscientific astrology/numerology and real science.
Yet, you are somehow also able to accurately judge current climate models, the peer review process and bias of the primary investigators?
Have you considered the possibility, at all, that perhaps you are mistaken?
Assuming you are, will you now expect Exxon/Mobil to cover the trillions of dollars of damage caused by fossil-fuel induced climate change?
