Again, How much extra damage do you need to see to be convinced the effects of global warming are real? What temperature rise? What sea level rise? How many extra powewrful hurricanes how many years in a row? I have no quibble with comments that the models aren't proven. I do have a problem with assuming the models are not only quantitatively but qualitatively off given obvious and as far as I know uncontested here facts:

1) CO2 induced global warming causes Venus to be far hotter on average than Mercury despite a very high cloud caused reflectance.

2) CO2 induced global warming causes Mars to have the same average temperature as the Moon despite being farther from the Sun.

3) Laboratory studies clearly show the mechanism by which CO2 traps heat.

Secondly I want to know how many of you have to have absolute scientific proof of a high risk before changing your behavior at a modest cost? Most decisions in everyday life and in politics are made with far from absolute certainty. Most laws passed have no scientific basis let alone a conclusive basis. They are based on logic no sounder than if CO2 traps heat it probably causes global warming.

All this slamming of computer models is nothing more than a weak excuse for avoiding any expense related to a problem that doesn't require a computer model to see is likely to be a high risk. Geology clearly shows that the Earth's climate can swing dramatically and quickly. We are playing with fire to assume we are at some really stable climatic equilibrium that will absorb any manmade effects. There is NO evidence for this as opposed to much if inconclusive evidence for global warming.

We didn't wait for all the negative consequences of toxic pollution to manifest before we acted and most here don't sanction waiting for a city killing impact or larger before funding an adequate NEO search. Why do you want to see the impacts of global warming before acting?

Regards,
Mark