Agreed...global climate is indeed very complicated which is why we should take extreme care in making assessments of what to do about it.. if anything. We would be pretty silly and foolish to ignore climate problems if they are real...on the other hand, we would be equal silly and irresponsible to spend billions of dollars and upheave economies on a problem which may not exist...or has less consequences than what is predicted. The bottom line is whether we can accurately predict what the future climate will be, how much of an impact it will have and whether we can do anything to prevent any damage or alter the future climate outcome.

I think Twain said it best.....

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

Mark Twain

The point of any model, map, or any other standard engineering approach is to abstract information from the real world so as to render a meaningful but solvable problem. That means that you have to have actually studied the problem, frequently by starting with simpler models, to come up with a model that will work to the accuracy you need. It doesn't mean you don't understand the problem - quite the opposite in fact.

If you model doesn't include such knowable things as the radiative properties of the CO

EDIT [various swearwords directed at the Y! Answers user interface}... If your climate model doesn't include such knowable things as the radiative properties of the CO2 molecule, you're in the position of a follower of a GPS map who doesn't know that that particular dotted line indicates a ferry route. The fact that the GPS mapmaker doesn't know the political opinions of the ferryboat captain doesn't prevent him from having a much better understanding of the reality behind the map than you do.

That's a legitimate question and in many ways sums up the essence of the debate, which seems to have been forgotten in all the highly emotionally charged political arguments. There are some people who say we have enough understanding and evidence about climate change to take action, and others who say we do not. It is not a 'given' that climate per se is not understood, but there are obviously variables that climate science itself clearly state present uncertainties.

Aside from that and assuming that enough people accept the growing body of evidence-even with its uncertainties-there follows the matter of what to DO about it, if we can do anything about it, and the unintended consequences that may present themselves if we do take action, whether climate related, economic or geopolitical.

Certainly it is a contentious issue on many levels. I personally don't see where contemporary tactics practiced by politics-at least here in the U.S-are benefitting us whether climate related or not.

EDIT: You wrote: 'JC: That greenies can't understand it is self-admittedly a given. Then add to that the Earth's temperature has declined over the last decade and you don't understand why, that is a given. In fact it is a given that you don't even acknowledge that the Earth is cooling even though your leaders, like Jones and Hansen, have told you so. It is rather obvious that you are so befuddled by the your views of the environment that you can't see your own confusion.

So out of exasperation you merely say, "The science is settled. Al Gore says the Earth has a fever and Bill Nye backs him up. That is good enough for me!"'

Once again, you completely misinterpret what I said and falsely characterize my position and opinion(s.) I have not said the science is settled, I said exactly the opposite. Jones, Hansen, Gore et al are not MY leaders and at no time have I stated any loyalty to them here or elsewhere. Nor have I stated that surface temperatures have not declined over the last ten years. The only exasperation I am experiencing is here when you get a reasonable and fairly simple response to a legitimate question and are apparently unable to comprehend it, then attempt to defame other people who are attempting to answer your question(s). I believe there is plenty of evidence that this behavior is deliberate on your part; regardless, it is one of the main reasons why so few people here have any respect for your opinions, answers and claims.

EDIT: You wrote: "However, in your case you do adhere to Gore's principle that as CO2 goes up this drives the temperature up and when the CO2 goes down the temperature will follow. That is the tenet that you and your group support so vehemently."

If your follow up comments are directed at me, that is not only completely untrue, by saying so you 100% contradict the premise of your question and statements. As to your comments about who or what anyone should support, I am not part of any 'group' and do not support anyone or anything that I see as unreasonable, poorly thought through...or IMMORAL 'in any fashion,' whether it is political or not. You are not making any sense and do not make truthful statements about science or others.

We used to have a joke we used where we grew up and that was if you don't like the weather, just wait ten minutes and it will change sometimes. There are so many factors that influence the weather in any given area that when you listen to those reporters they seem to only be accurate after the events take place, all other predictions are merely that, an educated guess as to what will happen. So, when the sirens go off, you head for the shelters and when you come out later either nothing at all has happened or your community is now gone. That's the weather, ever changing, ever interesting!

President Obama,"What we have discovered is that health insurance is complicated to buy."

And anytime errors are found, they hark back to the idea that it doesn't matter, because CO2 causes global warming. So what they mean by complicated is it is simple, CO2 causes global warming, and that's that. Everything else is just window dressing to provide an appearance of a large body of evidence in support, but as errors are found, you are faulted for not disproving the whole thing.

You don't really want to know.

You're a Denier

and the science is too sciency for you

Climate models and Phychics are the same thing. Both are trying to predict the future and both are 95% wrong or 95% are then followed and believed by the sucker target. PT Barnum said it best "a sucker is born every minute".

Madam Cleo can do a climate model just as well as a climate scientist.

People have some education and they think they are God's strutting upon the Earth, knowing all things. Usually they know squat. How many business professors would succeed in business? Few I would think.

Life is complicated too. That doesn't stop us from making plans. You hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Either that or stick your head in the sand.

Nailed it again Sagey. Climate is very trickey especialy when they try to predict the future. The only successful computer model that works is the planet itself.

We see this quote quite often, ""The thing a lot of denialists seem not to understand is, well, climate is very complicated."

OK It is so complicated the greenies can't understand it. That is a given. Then why trust a Climate Model programmed by people who obviously and admittedly don't understand the environment?

Scientists want to prove that people can be just as smart as nature. LMAO!!!!

Isn't scientific arrogance wonderful?