Don't give me hand waving without anything to back it up!
You asked for predictions with details. I gave them to you (not that I expected you to read them, like I said they're probably above your reading comprehension level). In turn you offer no evidence to back up your positions, just a lot of hand waving. Excuse me but I can't give a lot of credence to you if you won't cite actual scientific research to support your position.
Regarding your little point about Greenland, well over 90% of the ice that is currently on Greenland was there during the medieval times. If it wasn't it would be obvious because sea level would have been significantly higher. There is enough ice on Greenland to raise sea level by over 20 feet and there wasn't even a 1 foot difference between sea level then and the 20th Century average. Greenland was never a land of lush greenery, just slightly less cold and greener at the southern end of the island.
Yes, there are a myriad of factors that affect climate but not all are of equal effect. For example the single biggest thing that affects climate is the incoming solar radiation. Without that the Earth's temperature would be near absolute zero. Probably the second biggest factor is the Earth's albedo which determines how much of that incoming radiation is retained and converted to heat energy. Probably the third most important factor is the levels of the various greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. All in all if you select the 10 most important factors in climate you can probably account for over 99% of the effect and the thousands of other factors are just tweaks on the major effects.
No matter what you think science is never perfect. All it can do is describe reality as best it can, adjusting the explanations as new evidence comes along. There is still lots of work to do in improving our understanding of Earth's climate but that doesn't mean what we currently know is useless until we know everything. If you want to overturn the current understanding of climate it's not enough to just try and tear down the existing research, you have to offer something that does a better job than the current theory.
But, I suspect as I surmised before that you are simply scientifically illiterate and unqualified to really judge the validity of climate (or any) science. You probably get your talking points from places like WattsUpWithThat and ClimateDepot and from people like Lord Christopher Moncton. And you will continue to be frustrated because real world events will continue to support their climate theory.
