Mole,

The link that supposedly debunks Evans is to a guy who has no climate credentials. His background and agenda is stated here.

Now, I think intelligent people can educate themselves on a subject without obtaining a degree, but, you seemed to think it was important that Evans was not properly accredited. So, I'm pointing this out merely because you might be trying to have it both ways on that issue.

As for my response to your comments - you are still giving climate models too much credit. Secondly, you're allowing them to predict vague things like 'thinner ice' or 'more extreme weather.' These sort of predicitions give you a 50/50 shot of being right through sheer chance.

Scientists have been publishing climate models for decades, some of them are bound to be vaguely accurate, but none are specific or meaningful, particularly when you can dismiss the bad ones and cherry-pick the handful that came out 'sort of right' ten years later.

But, you lost me before you started citing example of accurate predictions. Relying on Occam's razor, you wrote the following: "So far all alternatives... to explain modern global warming have fallen flat and been pretty much ruled out, so far anyway."

Here's the problem I have with that line of logic. Let's assume you are correct that all explanations of the current warming have fallen flat. Well, there still HAS to be a theory that can explain massive Earth warming that does not involve human activity. Why? Because there have been NUMEROUS episodes in the Earth's past which involved MASSIVE amounts of warming. Many of these episodes occurred before humans existed.

The theory of AGW is thus fatally flawed to me. It's a fact that the Earth goes through cyclical warming and cooling periods. These processes are poorly understood as you point out. Yet, this minor warming period is widely believed by adherents of AGW to be mostly manmade. How can anyone possibly know that without understanding the natural processes that have caused previous warmings and effectively rule those causes out? You can't rule a factor out until you've identified it.

See my point?