Of course they should be able to simulate the last 1000 years. The point was it takes almost a year to run a simulation. How rapidly do you expect software improvements under those circumstances? The run mentioned may have been just what you asked for or to test the soundness of the program, but it is not clear to me which is the case. I certainly did not read it as a 1000 year extrapolation into the future. Your interpretation may have been biased by the context of my post which may have implied it supported global warming and the comments in the article which indicate it is clearly intended to be used to evaluate GW. I did not mean to imply this model was some new proof of global warming, but rather to demonstrate a number of issues I've raised with regard to climate modeling which you and others have yet to respond to.

As for "Science is a rigorous process"

I'm still waiting for even a half ass attempt let alone a rigorous one on your part to explain why a rigorously proven greenhouse gas can be added to the atmosphere with no concern about global warming. I'm also sorry if my "political objective" of minimizing potential loss of life and property conflicts with your political philosophy.

I'm also waiting for an answer on how you concluded public policy was based on rigorous science. While I wish it was, it certainly is not in most cases even where appropriate. On technical issues such as global warming science should clearly play a key role and has. Unfortunately you are either playing make believe or have an ivory tower mindset if you believe every issue can wait for absolute scientific certainty before action. This is a fundamental issue you have yet to address.

Any time the risk of inaction has more potential for harm than taking the wrong action, action should be taken. This is a principle I have to apply daily working in the chemical industry where decisions must be made based on technical information which is often incomplete. The risks of inaction can range from major safety incidents to the economic loss of having to burn a bad batch. It would be nice to wait until 20 lab batches told me how to finish a problem batch, but I would loose a month's production in the mean time. I usually have to just judge which cause is the most likely source of the problem and act appropriately. If I make a mistake I learn from it and adjust my method of risk assessment. Trial and error is also part of the scientific process when approached systematically rather than at random.

It would be nice not to spend a dime on global warming until we knew with absolute certainty it was a real issue (although of course that will not happen without spending money on reasearch), but while we twiddle our thumbs as you desire it is quite likely loss of property and lives will mount. I'm happy for you that you can always wait for certainty. Most of the world can't.

When science is incomplete you can at least try logic. Your stance is not logical at all. We see a truck coming at us with "proven ability" to kill (Venus) yet you want to assume it will somehow miss us because no one can pinpoint the exact time it will hit us rather than debate which method of dodging it is best.

It also appears you have not even tried to address the issues raised back at http://www.habitablezone.com/space/messages/24418.html . I find it perplexing that you spout claims of belief in scientific rigor and debate when you aren't even willing to address technical questions with a yes or no answer. Feel free to claim scientific prowess and superiority while avoiding technical questions if you wish, your opinion and statements to that effect mean little to me under the circumstances. My repect for you has fallen not because of any comments you have made on the technical issues of GW, but because of the way you have tried to personalize and politicize the debate rather than address technical questions. You haven't even tried to key in on the key differences between us, you simply repeat the same point about model validation over and over and over despite the fact that I agree the models are not validated. Perhaps it is a result of a military mindset where rank is the only thing that matters in determining the "correct choice" rather than serious debate and trying to understand other's viewpoint. As I've said before your facts are correct, it is your conclusions and interpretations I disagree with.

Regards,
Mark