"You're on record as saying there were no probabilities or math".

I didn't say either thing. I really can't tell if you are just making this up or truly don't understand the issue.

And I don't care either way.

MHAZE: "I didn't say either thing. I really can't tell if you are just making this up or truly don't understand the issue."

MHAZE on THE MATH:

"No one did the maths. You just made it up. JUST MADE IT UP" http://tinyurl.com/uwzl8ct

MHAZE on THE PROBABILITY SPREAD:
“Now you're on this "highest probability" rubbish. Again you completely misunderstand the science and the maths. Nowhere does anyone say they took the "highest probability", because they didn't because no such thing exists. Again, you just made it up although its probably you just failed to fathom the truth. The graph you think is a probability curve is in fact a histogram of simulation outcomes. The highest point isn't more probable than those around it,”
http://tinyurl.com/uwzl8ct

MHAZE: "And I don't care either way."

We KNOW you don't care about the truth! We've known that since you came out as a climate denier.

1. I said no one did the maths to get to your 565gt. And despite you making up stories about how they did that maths, you now implicitly agree that no one did the maths but instead ran simulations. None of which got to the 565gt figure you spent 2 years hilariously trying to defend.

2. There are probabilities - never said otherwise. There is no such thing as "highest probability" in regards to sensitivity ranges. That was another thing you made up as you spent 2 years hilariously trying to defend the 565gt figure.

3. I never came out as a denier. Another thing you made up as you spent 2 years hilariously trying to defend the 565gt figure.
The only thing I deny is that you have a clue.

And now I'll abide by Socrates advice...."Do not argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

Might be better if Max Green & Mhaze take their squabble elsewhere.
There is a possibility, that as a skeptic I have to acknowledge, that
both Svenmark and AGW could both be true.
The sunspot count is important. It has an eleven year cycle.
The minimum count that it reaches also has a cycle in that each
minimum is not the same but it appears that the minimum has a 600 year cycle.
My understanding is that at the sunspot minimum minimum the earths
magnetic field is the least disturbed and so lets in more cosmic rays
which generate more clouds which shade the earth and reflect more
sun energy back into space off the white cloud tops. So the earth cools.

There might well be another complication. It is suggested by the
Turku Uni group and others that the Milankovitch cycles get in the act.
These are the variations in the earths orbit around the sun.

Can we reduce the effect of the next Maunder minimum by burning all that coal ?

2019 AWARDS TIME!
For showing sheer smug certitude while demonstrating awful ignorance across 3 years, this year’s Dunning-Kruger prize goes to …. (drum roll) … MHAZE!
It starts Jan 2017 http://tinyurl.com/ulnfnlh \

Smug http://tinyurl.com/stx7b74

Smug: "No one did the maths. You just made it up. JUST MADE IT UP" http://tinyurl.com/uwzl8ct

Certitude: “Now you're on this "highest probability" rubbish. Again you completely misunderstand the science and the maths. Nowhere does anyone say they took the "highest probability", because they didn't because no such thing exists. Again, you just made it up although its probably you just failed to fathom the truth. The graph you think is a probability curve is in fact a histogram of simulation outcomes. The highest point isn't more probable than those around it,” http://tinyurl.com/uwzl8ct

But the climate models are ALL physics and MATHS, and the models cluster around certain PROBABILITIES. Which MHAZE would have known if he’d bother to read even the basic wiki’s! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_budget
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

Both have the results of the models (math), limits, and probabilities. Indeed, if he’d bothered to even read the climate sensitivity wiki 3 years ago when he pretended to know all about the ECS/TCS debate, he would have seen the link to NASA which clearly shows the ‘right skewed’ probabilities with this great summary:
“…the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases.”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/what-if-global-warming-isnt-as-severe-as-predicted/

Let alone the IPCC spelling the probability range out around a 420 GT highest probability carbon allowance for 1.5 degrees at 66% probability, even as they also allow for a range 100 GT either side depending on how other things go!
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

So while MHAZE blusters and lies and tries to divert attention, we can all SEE what's happened here. There's no escaping it MHAZE, no matter how much you want to try and reframe what's happened. We can ALL suffer from overconfidence in things now and then. But we really should be adults and apologise when caught out. Otherwise it just looks bad, like a REAL case of Dunning Kruger's!

Better links...

2019 AWARDS TIME!
For showing sheer smug certitude while demonstrating awful ignorance across 3 years, this year’s Dunning-Kruger prize goes to …. (drum roll) … MHAZE!
It starts Jan 2017 http://tinyurl.com/ulnfnlh \

Smug http://tinyurl.com/stx7b74

Smug: "No one did the maths. You just made it up. JUST MADE IT UP" http://tinyurl.com/uwzl8ct

Certitude: “Now you're on this "highest probability" rubbish. Again you completely misunderstand the science and the maths. Nowhere does anyone say they took the "highest probability", because they didn't because no such thing exists. Again, you just made it up although its probably you just failed to fathom the truth. The graph you think is a probability curve is in fact a histogram of simulation outcomes. The highest point isn't more probable than those around it,” http://tinyurl.com/uwzl8ct

But the climate models are ALL physics and MATHS, and the models cluster around certain PROBABILITIES. Which MHAZE would have known if he’d bother to read even the basic wiki’s! 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

Both have the results of the models (math), limits, and probabilities. Indeed, if he’d bothered to even read the climate sensitivity wiki 3 years ago when he pretended to know all about the ECS/TCS debate, he would have seen the link to NASA which clearly shows the ‘right skewed’ probabilities with this great summary:
“…the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/what-if-global-warming-isnt-as-severe-as-predicted/

Let alone the IPCC spelling the probability range out around a 420 GT highest probability carbon allowance for 1.5 degrees at 66% probability, even as they also allow for a range 100 GT either side depending on how other things go!
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

So while MHAZE blusters and lies and tries to divert attention, we can all SEE what's happened here. There's no escaping it MHAZE, no matter how much you want to try and reframe what's happened. We can ALL suffer from overconfidence in things now and then. But we really should be adults and apologise when caught out. Otherwise it just looks bad, like a REAL case of Dunning Kruger's! http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/images/icon_link_grey.gif