"Rejection of models because just because they are models is pure bullshit. Rejection of a particular model because you disagree with an assumption or equation in it based on real data is fine. I have yet to see evidence that anyone here has an ounce of meteorlogical expertise compared to those working in the field. I usually find the model pot shots taken here rather easy to reject based on basic science principles and common sense with only mass and energy balance related expertise yet the replies are often ignored because "they are too long winded" or handwaivingly dismissed as dogma. Neither response is remotely scientific for people claiming to having a scientific basis for rejecting global warming."
****

Nobody has rejected models per se. Those of us with some experience have simply pointed out the propensity for flaws in complex models that are not just basic engineering/physics calculations. Models that have empirical non-linearities, undetermined weighting factors for a multiplicity of variables, etc. In other words, the class of models that have for decades been used in academic battles with results somehow proving what the advocate wants.

What Larry J , myself & others have objected to is faith in models that over a period of years have made falsified predictions. How good are these models? Why aren't we out of oil, overpopulated, buried in pollution? The models of the 1970s said we would be. There are climate models that say we'll enter an ice age because of some postulated then calculated shift in the gulf stream.

Here's the difference: If we falsely accept a model of planetary formation, nobody gets hurt.
If we fallaciously accept a flawed climate model we could wreck our ecomomy and compromise the well-being of the US. There is a higher std of proof for such drastic actions. That std has yet to me met in the opinion of many, including moi.

-philw