questioner wrote:There is no such thing as CAGW except in the mind of Mike Davis.
I assume that means that you think CAGW theory is the same thing as AGW theory and that AGW theory therefore implies a large and positive feedback. It's your theory, so if those are the term definitions you want that's fine by me.
questioner wrote:The problem with models is that they are not exact and will be correct only in a statistical sense.
Models are not statistical, neither is their output. They are approximate solvers for the mathematical equations used by AGW theory to describe the climate system. You are right that initial conditions need to be specified in order to solve these equations. The problem is that AGW theory assumes that there are no long-term natural changes and that the system therefore starts from a state of energy balance. This is not plausible (see for example viewtopic.php?f=5&t=482), and is one likely reason why the theory makes unphysical predictions.
questioner wrote:All realizations of climate models predict future warming given the postive inputs of radiative forcing factors that are expected.
Of course the theory predicts warming given an increase in forcing; the issue is over the amount of warming that is predicted. Given the flaws, if the theory is to be taken seriously it must also predict other effects that can be tested by real world measurements.
questioner wrote:I pointed out that Climate Models are falsifiable. All that is needed is calibration data that is distinct from validation data.
I presume that by calibration data you are referring to the years of trial-and-error needed to get the models to successfully hindcast 20th century changes. If you are claiming that "validation data" is what renders the theory falsifiable, then I think you need to be a lot more precise over what you mean by "validation data". To me it just sounds like another cop out. Personally, I don't think there are any known ways to properly validate climate models in the context of AGW theory.
questioner wrote:Of course if you assume everyone working on these problems are stupid, fraudsters, purely politically motivated, or are being paid by Maurice Strong, then an argument like this is meaningless from the start.
Shame on you Q! This is exactly the kind of thing you express about every working scientist who holds views different from yours. To be honest, I doubt any except a small minority of professional scientists hold opinions as extreme and closed as yours.