I didn't read it prior to your response based on the bull shit comment:

"The almost blind trust that scientists have in advanced computer models, even when they are based on inadequate experimental data, is a phenomenon that has spread rapidly to almost all branches of science."

That is a totally unsupported comment used as a basis for argument. Scientists tend to trust models because they have a proven record of utility in most branches of science. This is exactly why I distrust anyone who thinks predictions based on models are inherently worthless. However most competent scientists and engineers know Larry's oft quoted phrase that "they are only as good as their underlying assumptions" and does not rely on them based on blind faith. That may be true of the public but not the people who develop and improve models. Using this as a basis for dismissal implies that you have reason to believe the assumptions are wrong. As I have said before the climate models are simplifications for very good reasons of computational power limits.

Another major flaw was no mention of the questions raised about the accuracy of the satellite temperature data.

Other than those two items I found the article to be a good review of the point counter point issues involved. The satellite data is very intrigueing and the heat island issue has been verified. It does make me question the 70% certainty figure I quoted earlier, but it does not in the least make me think we should be ignoring the problem as the Rebublican party has steadfastedly tried to do. Alternative technology should be available in the event the hazards are proven and to guard against limits of a geological, economic, or political nature on fossil fuel availability.

Regards,
Mark