I suppose the fact that we have lost 75% of the Arctic ice volume since just 1979 isn’t a cause for concern then? Geez, wake up and smell the roses. Every piece of evidence we have tells us the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate and that mankind is the primary cause of the warming.

You are exactly the type of person that cartoon is aiming to depict and you don’t even realise it. How sadly ironic.

Of course the models are being touted as proof.

What utter poppycock!

The models – based on observational data and the fundamentals of physics, BTW – project what is likely to be the future effects of something that we have measured happening.

The models are not proof of AGW. The trend of increasing temperature and the human-caused increase in greenhouse gasses are the (main parts of) the evidence that demonstrates that AGW is the overwhelmingly logical conclusion.

What the models do is tell us what is most likely to happen next. But even if no models existed at all, we’d still have the evidence that tells us that GW is happening and that human activities are the principle cause.

Otherwise we wouldn’t have the wailing and gnashing of teeth about climate catastrophe and calls for drastic changes to the energy infrastructure and the economy by scientists such as James Hansen and politicians such as Al Gore, just to name two of the most famous.

What?

What do you think is being claimed as evidence that AGW is real?

And how do you think the claimed reality of AGW links to projections about the future?

What do you think that global temperature data are actually telling us?

And what do you think of the basic premise that GHGs cause retention of heat that would otherwise be lost to space, and thus that more GHGs = more heat retention?

Observations make no such claims of impending disaster.

True, but what of it?

Observations tell us that AGW is real.

Modelling is not like some lonely guy in an attic with a train set, you know. Modelling of Earth’s climate is the mathematical application of the laws of physics and the data that we have so far to project what is likely to happen in future. All of the models – even the most conservative ones – project significant warming (> 2 °C in average global temperature) by 2100.

This by itself does not predict impending disaster, until one applies it to the basic physics of how our seas and ice caps behave. Then you get predictions of significant rises in sea level – enough to inundate cities such as London at every high tide. When you apply the same temperature projections to global wweather patterns, you then end up with predictions of dramatic changes in rainfall, and you end up with predictions of increased frequency of extreme events such as droughts, hurricanes and floods.

With no reason to doubt the validity of such predictions, it is only sensible to alert people to the potential hazards.

But thanks for the deep insights into the meaning of the comic and explaining what science is. It perfectly demonstrates the problem with faith in models… (it hampers the ability to critically evaluate actual data).

You are aware, aren’t you, that predictions that Hansen made in 1981 have been largely borne out by data acquired since then? And if you don’t trust the existing models, what is the alternative? Since all of the models agree in broad terms, what basis do you have for predicting anything other than rising temperatures, rising sea level and redistributed rainfall?

Second, the whole point of the comic is that dogmatists refuse to change their mind until we know absolutely everything about a question with zero doubts of any kind, which is never possible in [reality] in the first place.

Fixed that for you.

Strawman question.

Not really, given the content of the OP.

It’s not about sides,

Really? ‘Cos your post #49 makes it sound very much as if you object to the consensus of climate science with no stated basis, which is exactly the same as what the conservative Think Tanks and most of the GOP politicos have been doing for the last 10 years.

it’s about simulations failing to match observations yet being touted as proof of an hypothesis.

Who has claimed that simulations prove an hypothesis?

I was under the impression that it was the mountains and mountains of data that have been accumulated over the last 30 years, and that match (or slightly exceed) predictions from 30 years ago, that prove the hypothesis (if not precisely correct, at least approximately so).

And faith that an untested action will solve a perceived problem.

WTF?

In what universe is this even an argument?

Who has such faith as you describe?

What the blazes do you think all of the pilot projects in Europe and other parts of the world are setting out to achieve?

As for your claims, you obviously don’t have a clue about the science behind AGW. Even just looking at predictions, there is a lot more to them than just models. Analysis of past worldwide and regional warming events, analysis of how species and ecosystems are already reacting, analysis of the behavior of the physical system, and much more. Models help us paint a more detailed picture on a local level, but they are just one of many pieces of the puzzle when looking for the overall result. Even if we threw out every single model it would not change in the slightest our understanding of the results at a general, global level.

But thanks for the deep insights into the meaning of the comic and explaining what science is. It perfectly demonstrates the problem with faith in models… (it hampers the ability to critically evaluate actual data).