There's an excellent article at The American Thinker called Numerical Models, Integrated Circuits and Global Warming. It appeals to me because it is written from a Chemical Engineers' viewpoint. The major premise of the article is the difficulty of creating a predictive model. As an engineer for 30 years now, I have attempted many times to analyse data and figure out what has happened in a "controlled" chemical process. This is extremely difficult because there are many variables that are "uncontrolled" or even unknown that are effecting the process output. It is even more difficult to make a predictive model of a process and try to estimate what will happen if "X" changes. Models are so unreliable that, in my opinion, they are exercises in futility. Here's an analysis of the accuracy of existing models 1 good, 27 invalid, 4 undetermined.
Another article I found today by Roy Spencer called "Not that Simple: Global Warming what we don't know, highlights some of the many variables that are unknown or unaccounted for in these global warming models that predict with 90% certainty that we will be flooded by melting glaciers. Any scientist with any humility would admit that we know only a small percentage of the true variables that could create global warming and how they effect warming or cooling. And what percentage of these variable is mankind able to control? If it is 1% I would say they are being overoptimistic - my guess is that the effects of our actions is less than 0.1%.
And, finally, from a purely statistical standpoint, the amount of data we have to work with is too small for meaningful analysis. And Manns' data, from which much of this hoopla comes, is obviously fudged, since it excludes the Medieval warming.
All this confirms my hypothesis that global warming advocates are religious nuts. Or just hypocrites, like Gore. This is rich - Gore's not really even buying carbon offsets - He's buying stock in his own company who's profits go up the with Al's scaremonger tactics - LOL