Roger,

One of the major problems with this discussion is that there is a lot more to it than the complexity of climate science. Since all of these doom and gloom scenarios are based on computer models; you have to bring in the whole subject of statistical analysis and computer modeling REGARDLESS of the underlying science. And neither of those areas is simple itself no matter what you are studying or modeling.

This was the downfall of the infamous hockey stick. It was not proven worthless by examining climatology but by examining the statistics. Computer modeling is a whole nother subject and the warmenistas fail pretty miserably on that too (an area I have some knowledge of).

Like any scientific proposition worth its salt you first come up with a theory (aka guess) then you define predictions from your theory; then you do experimentation/observation that supports (NOT proves) your theory; or discover evidence that disproves your theory. Given the difficulty of the experimentation phase this can be a real challenge. (Read about the testing of Eistein’s theory about gravity bending light waves)

As far as has been published, the theory has made no testable predictions that have been tested and shown to be correct, but several that have been shown to be wrong.

This is not science no matter what Arnie says; it is religion.