I'm glad they're still improving models. Wake me up when they can accurately predict if it's going to rain this time next week.

This entire argument is a red herring.

The issues aren't technological, or about computer models, they're political. Most of the people and organizations pushing the global warming issue have a political agenda, and they will pick and choose their data accordingly. One would have thought the Earth Summit would have made this blatantly obvious to even the dimmest observer.

Do industries, oil companies, and others opposing the idea of human-generated global warming also have an agenda? Of course they do, and their data needs to also be examined carefully with that in mind.

The problem we have is that somehow the bias of the pro-industrial interest groups is pointed out in pretty much every last major discussion of this issue, but somehow the leftist, antitechnological environmentalist bias is never discussed, and they are allowed to parade themselves as objective, rational voices of science.

The bottom line of this whole issue is that the changes to society proposed by the environmentalists are drastic, and would result in severe, life-wrecking economic impacts around the world. If there is climate change due to human intervention, it needs a level of proof sufficient to make this negative impact worth it.

Think along the lines of what kind of weapon manufacturing proof that you would need to justify invading Iraq... ;)