The article http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-02za.html addresses some of the issues on the difficulty modeling climate I have mentioned and model bashers ignore. Comparisons of refining models you run in 10 minutes on your PC with supercomputer simulations lasting 200 days really are a stretch. Not that I know how long some of the simulations mentioned run, but I have run pretty complex chemical process simulation programs in that time frame which I'd guess are similar in complexity to other more mundane simulation programs in use.

This article demonstrates that climate modeling is an ongoing scientific process contrary to the claims of those who wish to believe desired outputs are simply programmed in in the name of some green "dogma".

It also demostrates that this is a slow process due to run time and comparisons to progress in improving simplar models show a lack of objective evaluation and comparison of realistic software generation times.

I also notice that no one responded to the simple yes or no technical questions listed at
http://www.habitablezone.com/space/messages/24418.html despite numerous claims of software expertise. Time excuses really don't cut it when only yes or no answers are needed if anyone is really interested in a technical rather than a personalized debate. Not that I doubt those claims from several people who have proven their intelligence and technical acument in many ways over the years, it's just that I think it shows a lack of desire to debate the issue on a technical basis. It's a shame that the debate breaks down to claims of bias and dogma rather than discussing the real issues involved. It's scary how many of these arguments sound like anomalists dissing biased doubters.

Regards,
Mark