In article .com,
"Roger Coppock" wrote:

WOW! Steve Schulin mined another quote. WOW!

All peer-reviewed published models predict warming in
response to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.

LOL - the climateprediction.net team reported that their modeling
experiments have indeed included outputs with cooling projected instead
of warming. They didn't include them in the range they reported in
Nature, because they looked at them more carefully than they looked at
the rest and decided they depended on modeled stuff that couldn't
actually happen.

In other words all complete theories of the atmosphere
that exist have increasing CO2, CH4, N2O, and CFCs
causing the current warming.

Complete enough for government work, you say? I respectfully disagree
that the state-of-the-art climate models are nearly complete enough to
have a predictive value of more than dubious for purposes of policy. One
example I've mentioned several times here in 21st century is the failure
of models to account for the type of large variability in outgoing
longwave reported by Wielicki et al and Chen et al in Science, and
updated by work first highlighted here by Dr. Tobis. The forcing trend
over just the satellite years is greater in magnitude, and opposing in
sign, to the entire industrial age CO2 forcing value. You zealots have
been quite successful in overselling the predictive value of the models.

What more is needed for policy? See recent statements
by the NAS, AAAS, AGU, Royal Society, . . .

I agree that these are worth reading. For example the blue-ribbon panel
report often called the NAS Report from June 2001:

"Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability
inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time
histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a
causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
and the observed climate changes during the 20th Century cannot be
unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observed
warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in
climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not
constitute proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient
in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale."

This excerpt is from p. 17 of the report. The National Academy of
Sciences has made a version freely available for online reading at
http://books.nap.edu/openbook/030907...tml/index.html -- And for
those who still have an open mind about the science, I urge you to read
the body of this report before reading the summary. Then read the
summary and see if you think the summary actually summarizes (and even
draws all its material) from the report.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com