Gring o gives the correct answer. As the great George Box said (if you don't know who he was, go back to school) "...all models are wrong, but some are useful."
No one has ever claimed that models were "data" or that models are perfect, they're not. But we know the physical properties of the atmosphere, we know how much energy is coming in from the sun and how much is being radiated back to space. There is an imbalance there that is caused by human additions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Now you can say the models are no good, but just saying that doesn't mean the imbalance goes away. If you ignore the models then you're just left with even more uncertainty about what might happen.
A better question from the 'True Deniers" is why do you take the world of Anthony Watts, not only not a scientist, but apparently not even a college graduate that is untrained in science, over most of the world's foremost scientific societies? Do uneducated people have special insights into science and mathematics that people trained in these fields don't have?
Or is it just easier to bury your heads in the sand and pretend there's no problem?
The best available scientific analysis of the limited available data was applied to create the early models for the rather good purpose of testing various ideas in order to develop the knowledge that would permit the predictive power now claimed.
Unfortunately, the models were hijacked to produce predictions supporting the ideas the hijackers doubtless sincerely thought were correct even if unproven, and to push policy they likewise thought desirable. It was not that the models became data, but that the models' output was given a weight that was wholly unmerited on how they were based on limited data themselves and that their predictive run were too short to be considered meaningfully verified by reality.
Ed Markey uses models to predict the future , thus the so called need for Carbon taxes. He does not explain how wealth redistribution would affect the climate? . If you notice the Nations debt graph and Manns hockey stick they almost match .
They didn't.
Next 'question'.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/07/climate-skepticism-the-show-me-state/
Did it happen all at once or was it a gradual occurrence. Did they realize that real world evidence wasn't supporting their fears and think:"But the models do. Oh yeah!"?
