Quote Originally Posted by mraynrand
No shit F=MA works at far below sublight speeds.
OK, but point is that F=MA was always imprecise model at any speed, and people didn't realize it. They thought they had discovered some fundamental truth. Same deal with quantum mechanics. I'm blowing hard about this only to make analogy to Global Warming model, fact that it will someday be revised does not mean it is bad science or useless.

Quote Originally Posted by mraynrand
Huck have you read the primary papers on global warming? Go read the original articles from Science and Nature for the past four to five years. Look at the models. Even for a scientists untrained in climatology, I can tell bullshit science when I see it. Global cooling trends in equatorial regions are ignored, 'inexplicably' high CO2 levels over China and the Pacific ocean and far lower CO2 levels over the USA are dismissed with a hand wave. Projection models are confused with Predictive models. Measured and predicted temperatures are routinely ignored when they don't fit the paradigm.
There are anomalies. A thickening of ice in parts of Antartic. The fact that temperatures cooled slightly from 1950-1970 during industrialization period. But it's untrue that the problems are ignored. I read explanations for these discrepencies, they sound plausible to me, but what do I know?

How are we to evaluate the quality of the science? Well, the Republicans in the Senate were suspicious/disgruntled with the science, so they ordered a non-partisian panel from the Academy of Sciences to do a year-long review of the scientific methods. The report came back two weeks ago, it described uncertainties in the predictions, but generally substantiated the science.

Who are we to believe? Your analysis may be impressive, could even be correct. But this is not an issue where individual scientists can weigh all factors. I'm not asking a rhetorical question, please propose who/how the scientific decision should be made.

BTW, you made a misleading statement a while back, suggesting that the GW advocates take surveys of generalists to prove consenus. On the contrary, this is from the playbook of the skeptics! The community of Climate Scientists have a strong consensus in favor of the Global Warming models; in fact, a more relevant criticism is that they are locked into a group think mode, with a self-interest in perpetuating GW concern. Check the surveys, when doubt is cast about GW, it is from "meteorologists" or "scientists."

Well, to answer my own question, I'm trusting the judgment of the majority of Climate Scientists, even if this is imperfect. They are taking stock of all the data. The GW theory has been tested and debated for 25 years, and grows in credibility and acceptance.