Joshua: A question for “skeptics.”
I didn’t see a question. You seem to want skeptics to prove that something is correct, whereas we mostly point out limitations in the science: showing that the IPCC/CAGW view does not rest on a solid base. In this instance, the IPCC projections are shown to be unsubstantiated by subsequent events, so there is no good reason to believe the forecast for later decades.
Ignorance is the hardest state to recognize and admit to. We document the ignorance (i.e. limits of the knowledge) and you want us to turn it into an alternate certainty. The only proper way to do that will be to continue the research until there is more evidence of all kinds. I give you “Raymond T. Pierrehumbert’s book ‘Principles of Planetary Climate’ is mostly correct, but inaccurate in detail, and the details require more study”. You want proof that some other presentation of details is correct, but every presentation is inaccurate in details. This seems to cause you anguish. I attribute to you a belief like “The consensus has to be correct because there is no strongly supported alternative”, but I give you “The consensus is full of cavities, is not strongly supported, and there is no strongly supported alternative.”