Funny you should say that. We just did a post on scientific uncertainty that I think you'll find interesting.

>Computer models are only as good as the info put into it.

Actually, the most vulnerable part of computer models of climate is the models themselves. The data going into it is accurate. There are excellent measurement tools today. We did a post about climate modeling that explains how it works. You might want to take a look:

Climate Models: How Good Are They?

I am not quite ready to get behind a movement that is far from conclusive in their science. I also think that we should not be making world economic decisions based on theories. Remember, people were punished for saying the world was round at one time in history. We should learn from the past, not repeat it.

Computer models are only as good as the info put into it. You could make one say we will burst into flames next week and by next month be froze solid. My B.S. radar says proceed with a grain of salt in hand.

Now as to the hypothesis of human induced global warming. And if you are and honest scientist you will have to admit the it is hypothesis not a theory or a law. Since the is not enough evidence to make it to a theory. If you were to take the evidence and weigh it you can say the following.

The climate is warming. C02 is increasing. With these two facts and they are facts, you cannot say the following. CO2 is causing the warming. You can say CO2 may be causing the warming and that some evidence leads you to beleive it is human induced. The evedence is years from being proven or verified. If you are honest you also have to say there is some evidence the CO2 is a follower not a leaded on warming. If you are honest you wouls also have to it is a fact (and I did mean fact) CO2 is not a good predicator on how warm or how cold the earth will be at given l level. The evidence supports that CO2 level have little to do with warm or cold. As most of you should know. The earth climate had been colder with high level of CO2 and it been much warmed with lower levels of CO2 These are facts. From the evidence I have seen CO2 is a poor predicator of the earth temperatures.

As to the computer climate models. For someone whom has made his living in the computer industry for the last thirty years. Garbage in garbage out. I computer is only as good as it programing and what I have seen with must programing it is low quality. I will only trust a computer to tell me what I can check directly. In weather models you can only make suppositions on what you think is happing and program on that bases. I know that the models are incorrect since the have failed to accurately predict the changes in the last ten years. The programs have contently overstate the rise. Granted the rise has been in the low end of computer models bus as to that.

I not a climatologist or a computer programmer. But I could have created a model the would have been able to do what the present day models have predicated.. It been a good bet that if you created a module that predicated a temperatures increase following the line of what has been averaging in increase for the over the last 1000 years you would be right. And you know the actual temperatures rise is right in those lines and they do look dramatic in the last 20 years since we did have a minor cool down in the fifties sixties ans the early seventies. Now that that trend has ended and we are making up those losses the rises do now look pretty dramatic. Yet they are not out of the norm for the last 1000 years.

From what I can see the present state of so called science in my adult life it that science is dead and it been replace a a pseudo or political science. Far to many hypothesis or theories are accepted laws when the are not.

I find it funny the the global warming crowd has to lie about what happen in the past to prove the hypothesis or theories. When people like me point that out we are consider Luddites of low beings not worthily of you appointed knowledge. Yet I can take solace in that, these were also science considered facts. The earth was the center of the universe. A vacuum could not exist. Radio wave traveled on ether. And all all time good one is that the earth was flat.

So I will state on other fact for you enlighten man made global warming worshipers should know yet will refuse to beleive. The climate is going to change and there is not a thing you or we can do about it. It will either get warmer or colder. I sincerely hope if it when it changes it gets warmer for if it get colder where I presently live, Ten thousand years more or less there was a sheet of ice covering it. Warm I can cope with colder that a far different problem, or are going to tell me that that also incorrect. Since you have already eliminated the little ice age and the medieval warming period. Now are you going to tell me glaciers never covered the over half of the North American continent!

Oh by the way it seem that if glaciers did exist here ten thousand years ago life adapted pretty well to the climate change since when I look out my door I do not see bare earth covered only in lichens. I also know the plants and animals that are present in this area today were not here then. So much for plants and animals not being able to adapt.

the globl warmin crowd have to lie about what happen in the past to prove the hy

Everyone knows that we need to return earth to being a pristine planet. We do not need your tone of "preachiness", since this does not advance our cause of a social move toward eco-friendly policy.