No I don't get your point because it leaves out a critical point, but let me go through point by point.

I was careful to point out that Tim is a computer modeler. That means he has experience with the models, which is more qualified than either Evans or I am. What I do not know is whether Lambert has published peer reviewed articles on climate. If he has, then he blows Evans away completely. If not, then he at least uses actual data and cites sources, which is what scientists do, rather than merely make broad, definitive statements without backing like Evans does. But yes, I pointed out everyone's relative qualifications and said that whatever anyone's qualifications, keeping to the data is key.

Next, the predictions from the models were not vague. Stratospheric cooling within overall warming was a pretty specific prediction and one that is the real signature of carbon dioxide caused global warming. It was Evans who brought up distinctive "signatures." I was pointint out that he was dead wrong about that signature. Increased snowfall at the poles leading to thickening ice sheets followed by thinning is not vague. It is a complex prediction...and has come to pass. Many of these predictions are not just generated by some random computer out there. There are actually only a handful of these models (I know there is one running at Columbia because that is where my wife works) and the predictions I am talking about are pretty much consensus predictions. Look, making predictions then seeing if they come true is how science works. ANY science. It is what I do every day. By any scientific standard, AGW is very well supported by the evidence. Keep in mind there is not one single peer-reviewed article that presents evidence contrary to AGW, while there are hundreds presenting supporting evidence. When you are a scientist that TELLS you something.

Now as to your final point. No one has ever denied that there are climate fluctuations due to natural causes. If you had actually read the Lambert paper (sounds like you didn't) you would have seen that scientists have already compared natural warming vs. AGW and AGW is the only way to explain the current warming. It is the figure that shows each continent separately as well as ocean vs. land. Furthermore, I suspect you haven't even looked at the basic data showing warming (something even Evans admits is happening...at least sometimes). The amount of warming today is unprecedented as is the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The RATE of warming is unprecedented, as is the rate of increase of CO2. These have been unprecedented over 5 million years that they can study. Let me say that again: in the entire history of earth that scientists can study (5 million years), there has never been anywhere near this much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, nor has there been a warming event that has happened this fast. That is two unprecedented events that have never happened in the entire period scientists have been able to study. That indicates something different is happening. AGW explains these two unprecedented events well.

Some deniers talk about the Medieval warming as evidence that this has happened before. That warming was smaller and slower than the current warming. Rate is a big thing in the current warming. It is SO MUCH FASTER than anything that has happened in 5 million years.

No natural cause can explain that unprecedented rate of change. AGW does explain it and it has made predictions about what will happen that have largely come to pass as predicted or have come to pass FASTER than predicted. No amount of denial can change all this.