I just continue to find it so funny that you attack Daldoma for citing sources and then proceed with a massive appeal to authority with *gasp* blog citations from a . . . software developer.
http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/who Meanwhile your entire attack on Richard Lindzen is a giant ad hominem against someone who has done a lot more research than you ever will. Do you really not understand that the 'scientific consensus' means nothing compared to the reality of things?
Anyway, I read your Nature article. I can only say . . . HAHAHAHAHAHA. Let me see if I can explain to your mongoloid brain why those authors should be taken out and beaten with a hose. Google the name of the paper (its free to download) and skip down to 'methodology'. Then see if you can tell me with a straight face that a 3-layer neural network with 10 nodes and 12 input parameters can represent our Earth, the sun, its atmosphere, and so on. All of this stuff ends up being the same BS: when you train on data since 1850, both CO2 and temperature have increased. If you throw any statistical measure at this of course it will say they are correlated. Now, repeat after me: correlation is not causation!
Well, I've utterly destroyed all your links, so how about you say something about mine? I mean, other from your usual ad hominems. Flame away, just know that a good post has many ingredients, not just trolling.