You wouldn't. Moving the goalpost is a fallacy, though given your complete inability to do original research I doubt you could ever find that out on your own. This thread started because you asked for unreasonable evidence in response to a post that said "They are proven to be unreliable over a signifcant period, and we don't know if or how often that's also true of the past." (emphasis mine).

This is a clear claim that climate science researchers have not done basic statistics when presenting new models. This claim has been substantiated by nothing except you requesting more and more detailed analysis from non-experts, which you discount every time we provide it because you assert that you would only listen to an expert.

Ironically, you are actually failing to respect the authority of experts, because the discussion is fundamentally an accusation that experts are failing to do basic statistics. You are accusing us of not being experts so you can't listen to us in the defense of the experts you're attacking by proxy.

I seriously fucking doubt you understood any of this. But it doesn't matter, I won't return. I have no tolerance for people who argue by asking questions and petulantly demanding unreasonable proof while providing absolutely nothing of their own.

Thanks for ruining hacker news.