Mole, I guess you're acknowledging that the climate has changed in the past due to natural factors we don't fully understand.

Because now you're saying it's the RATE of warming that's unprecedented and unnatural.

Yet, I've read that it has stopped getting warmer, and Revkin in the New York Times recently wrote that models now suggest it won't start warming again for a decade.

So, when did this supernatural (or, if you prefer, anthropogenic) rate of warming occur? We know it wasn't between 1940 & 1970. So, are you talking about 1975-1998? If not, when? And how much warmer did it get? What was the rate? And what was the second fastest rate of warming scientists know of?

Just curious.

Mole, you wrote this: "Look, making predictions then seeing if they come true is how science works. ANY science. It is what I do every day. By any scientific standard, AGW is very well supported by the evidence."

Generating hypothesis and testing them through experimentation is at the heart of the scientific method. Climatology is not as rigorous as say, Chemistry, because it's hard to have controlled experiments. Chemists don't rely on models as much as climatologists because they can experiment. Similarly, new medicines are tested on actual subjects with rigorous controls, not through models.

I'm not saying that makes climatology not a science. But, we need to be careful about how much weight we put on models. If there was a truly reliable climate model out there, we'd know about it. It doesn't exist. There's too many variables and unknowns. Models have a hard time RECREATING PAST CLIMATE.

I'm not saying AGW doesn't have some logic to it. I just think it's vastly overstated. My biggest problem with it, is that the media and advocates have designed it to be unfalsifiable. There has not been a single major meteorological event in the last 20 years that hasn't been used by someone as evidence of AGW. At some point, a theory that is supported by everything stops becoming a theory and becomes more like a religion.