I think one little bugaboo, fly in the ointment, in the whole AGW debate is that no computer model has ever (or could ever) completely model nature. That would be Mommy Nature, the ever complex and surprising.
Either way, once the hyperactive religionists uses the terms (A) “anthropogenic global warming” and (B) “climate change” interchangeably, they lose me. They’re really quite separate topics, and even if (A) is a fact, (B) doesn’t necessarily follow.
When they use the terms as equals, I can tell they’re about hysteria (or a “hinge” issue for self- aggrandizement, see esp. Al Gore) and not about information. This is why I equate it to the (scare tactics) often used in religious pronouncements.
(BTW, Al Gore’s energy bill for the Tenn. mansion alone is something like $16,000/month ! That’s just one dimension of his elaborate personal carbon footprint.)
When I was more “up” on this topic than I am now (about 2 years ago) the thesis of a quiescent sun/low sunspot activity and “warming” seemed very valid.
