Sure it makes more sense to rely soley on the bible or self interest of the wealthy. These are major factors in political decisions. Do you believe these are a more scientific/rational basis than computer models for determining policy?

Computer models are used all over the world in many applications. The assumption that you can reject computer models simply because they are only as good as the underlying theory assumes the theories are wrong. I'm quite sure the people building these models know more than you or I about climate variables.

It is also ridiculous to act like every possible variable has to be in a model. You start any model with what you think is the major factor then add complexity with other variables as you need to fit the data you are trying to simulate. The two major pratfalls are that too many variables makes is easy to fit data and that basing a simulation on a narrow range of data may not allow for a change in relative importance of neglected variables. The thing is all good modelers know this. In fact that is why models don't include every possible variable. All you model dismissers act like these people are most likely as incompetant as fresman programmers. You also complain about this or that variable being left out while at the same time complaining that there are so many variables included that they could fit any data set.

As for the comments in the article:

1) Indicating that a premise is false because a similar majority of people believe false thing is patently absurd. Most people believed the Earth was flat at one point, but that did not mean all that they believed was false. All that shows is the impact of movies and popular culture on beliefs and that public opinion is no basis for evaluating scientific fact.

2) Likewise climate variability from other variables in the past does not mean those same variables are reasponsible for current variability. It is reason for pause however. In the absence of any other data it would actually be reasonable to assume the same factors are at work now.

However:

a) We do know CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
b) We do know it has been increasing over the current period of warming
c) We do know that the models used as a basis for Earth's warming models were developed and applied accurately to Venus and Mars
d) We've learned about methane hydrates resevours in the ocean which could be released with mild warming causing far more rapid warming as methane is a more potent GG. Don't know if this has been taken into account in attempting to predict past warming events.
e) The snowball Earth model has made some verified predictions of major climate changes in the past based in part on climate models and indicates how climate can swing precipitously starting with fairly mild change.

In the face of this data it is not reasonable to simply ignore the GW issue because you don't like the idea of spending any money to stop it. It is obvious that the economic issue is the prime motive for opposition. Economic motives are certainly valid issues when waying the pros and cons of responses, but they are not a reason to dismiss the issue when the costs of doing so also have large possible economic effects which Phil and Larry have consistently ignored addressing in their frequent model bashing posts.

Again guys how much increase in damage from storms and floods associated with warmer weather do you need to see before you think any money should be spent on preventing global warming? How hot does the Earth's average temperature have to get in order to separate out background variability in order for you to believe GW models at least point in the right direction? Given a plausible culprit do you believe we should just ignore mounting losses due to warmer weather until we no absolutely for certain what the culprit is?

3) Point 2 is a good one although I have heard some counter claims that the orbiting temperature data set was flawed by not taking into account orbital decay. I have not read enough to judge whether the original claim or the decay explanation has proved the more accurate interpretation upon further review.

4) Point 3 is a conclusion without support in the article. It's nice to be able to wave around an article that supports your conclusion, but it does not even have the quality of many of Larry or even Phil's (whicjh are usually briefer) posts on the issue.

5) The point about emmision scenarios is silly. The whole point is projecting current emmision trends and saying this will happen if we don't change them. Expectingb that they will just magically resolve themselves is irresponsible. Many past bleak environmental and economic outlooks failed to come to pass precisely because action was taken to change the trends.

6) The author sites one person who does not believe in the computer models, but does not provide any balance from those who do. The averaging comment also misses the point. No one claims that the average of all models is correct. The point is most models based on different assumptions as to which variables are the most important to include in a model predict significant global warming. The point is not that the average must be right, but that warming is not as dependent on assumptions as all you modelar rejectors like to imply.

It comes down to the fact that the sun is the major heat input source to the atmosphere and if you do something to retain it the atmosphere will warm. It doesn't take a computer model to make this prediction.

It is also impotant to note that no model can accurately predict what the temperature actually will be based on the scenario argument used in the article. Anyone saying predictions are speculation on that basis is entirely correct. That does not mean that predicting the Earth will wam if current trends in CO2 emmisions continue is false. This could very well be a case of comments taken out of context.

7) As for the local argument let me ask how many of you people in northern regions worry about hurricanes? As tropics expand it should be obvious that the probability of hurricanes will increase.

Regards,
Mark