Too often people thing that models have to "show reality" when in fact they are just tools, and best used in comparative scenarios because absolute outcomes are not as important as the relative ones.  Many of the mainstream folks make the datal assumption that models have to be precise and accurate.  They'll instead say "look, you can't even predict tomorrow's weather!"  Of course, the weather is modeled by about a hundred different super-computers around the globe.  Nobody reads the disclaimer that any model outcomes should be used as guidance and not fact -- although NOAA and NASA are getting better about this. 

On such subjects as different ways to model things, there are many specialties and aspects and it is correct, there have been some HUGE fights among scientists about the right way to do things, like using parametric monitoring instead of any stochastic or determinant model at all.  But the concept of whether the Earth has been warming since the Industrial Age, over the long haul, is pretty much accepted by the scientific community. 

Where we failed was to explain how these models should be interpreted.  The media doesn't want to mess with all the the mumbo-humbo, assuming that most people are dumb jackasses, and will report that "the sea level will rise by "x" feet by "y" date.  Well that's just plain stupid, yet we promote it!  We're the ones shooting ourselves in the foot!  This is nearly an out of control situation, and the deniers love picking that kind of stuff to death. 

I don't think you can solve the problem by listing denier claims and refutations side by side, as it doesn't address the fundamental, root problem.  I find all this rather intruiging, because some of the early dispersion models were created so that Big Business could emit more pollution into the atmosphere, while not poisoning grandma.  Those models were considered a success back in the day (the late 70s and early 80s).  Did you ever notice that when models show the need for draconian reductions, those models all the sudden become "bad"?  LOL, now you're catching on.

Spatial and temporal variation is a b!tch.

The AGW side has won.

They convinced society to expend vast amounts of resources on its proposals; clearly they have become the accepted paradigm.

Standard argumentation at this point is irrelevent, since we know from Kuhn that paradigms are like fashion.   Arguing about AGW now would be like arguing to an 11 year old girl that Jonas Brothers is a really crappy band.  

You may be right, but no one will listen to you.

A former professor used to say, "All models are wrong, but some are useful."

If the question is, "Are the GCMs 100% accurate?" then the answer is, "Of course not.  They're models."

But the important question is, "Are the GCMs accurate enough to warrant GHG reductions?"  It certainly looks that way.  Let's remember that the models are based largely on physical laws and that there are a number of validations that test their fitness (see here).

Even given the models' complexity, climate assessments such as the IPCC's give ranges, rather than one value, for their predictions.  For example, the AR4 gave a sea level rise range of 0.18 to 0.59 meters over this century.  This range encompasses smaller ranges for each of six emissions scenarios.  So if the media throws out one value, it's because the media is more interested in getting your attention than being scientifically meticulous.

Finally, we have observations of what has already happened.  It doesn't take a model to know that 11 of the 12 years from 1995-2006 were the warmest in the instrumental record, as the AR4 reported.  It doesn't take a model to see the coral reef bleaching that has already occurred.

And it doesn't take a model to accept basic, undeniable facts: some gases have the property of letting through solar radiation but trapping infrared radiation.  These gases, some of whose atoms had previously been buried in the Earth, have been emitted into the atmosphere nonstop since the Industrial Revolution and are now in higher concentrations.

It's just a matter of people accepting reality and taking responsibility for their actions, even if that might not be the most politically expedient thing to do.  Even if it means that they have to admit that they were wrong.

All in all, the "economy" is the last reason that should be considered as a determining factor in "doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing."

The way most laws such as the Clean Air Act are written, there is consideration of new technology costs which is mandated to be in every rule, such as for new car standards or BACT and other alphabet soup prescriptions for industry.  But the overal effect on the ecomomy is NEVER taken into consideration -- with one exception, which is during a national emergency such as a war or a fuel crisis. 

But hark, that's exactly what the deniers are saying -- that the overal effect of "cap 'n' trade" would be thousands of dollars per taxpayer and billions for industry, while we're in the middle of a hopeless recession.  That's not a salient or pertainent argument. 

Let me help you here, if the EPA said that all coal powered generating facilities had to pump their stack exhaust into the deep rocks, as BACT, then yes this would be a relevant argument.  So far they have not done that.

I do tend to agree with Des Emory that there is no such thing as classical supply and demand.  It's more regulated, sujected to futures trading and hedges, and works by game theory and behavioral science rather than by anything so simple as just "supply and demand."  Many price structures simply defy gravity.  Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas City anymore.

Global temp declining for 8 years

Ocean temp declining for 3 years

Sea level falling for 3 years

"More than 90 percent of the world's glaciers are growing" Robert W. Felix

All while CO2 increased over 5% since 2000.

Yes, CO2 is a problem.  Yes, CO2 is a problem.  Yes, CO2 is a problem 'cause the GC Models tell me so!

I've tried to have a rational argument with some of my co-workers that believe in AGW.  You can't debate with someone that is so emotionally tied to a result because they can't allow themselves to consider any other point of view.  The cannot risk taking an honest look at their beliefs for fear that they may be wrong.  If wrong, their entire foundatation as a person will crumble.  That's too scary to face.  I understand their dilema.  So, they cite the IPCC and the EPA and say that "most experts say" yada yada yads, but they will never engage in an honest discussion about the science and the data available.  I had the courage to to... It is quite liberating.