Here is where I started on my self-directed course in "Climate Models 101". This is highly recommended . Here's a sample: My M. Sc. in math allows me to at least read these equations, if not understand them. I note the caveat at the bottom, which admits right off the top that these equations assume a world that is not quite ours. This theme is repeated over and over in the IPCC reports but pushed aside in the "executive summaries." I do happen to know that these equations describe a chaotic physical situation, even in the ideal case, which means they cannot be used to predict anything with confidence. In fact, this discovery was what launched the whole field of Chaos Theory. The clue is that some entities appear on both sides of the equations above, a sign that the system has feedback . Feedback is the fingerprint of chaos. We also see the IPCC models struggling with feedback. With this background, I move on to the "meat and potatoes" of Climate Scien...

LARGE CHUNK OF THIS RECORD VANISHED -  Let me use this place to insert a few key ideas and who agrees/disagrees all observers agree that there is warming at least ....  ocean rising ... radiative forcing due to C02 is logarithmic. Diagrams miss this. Due to my skeptical nature and long experience in big computer projects, I have honed what I call my "Cassandra complex", which is the ability to see catastrophic failure far in advance. This ability has gotten me fired more than once. Oddly nobody has ever thanked me for warning them when the projects actually fail, which they inevitably do: so far, I have never been wrong. The attempt to model climate (actually dozens of attempts) have been motivated by the panic started by Gore's "Inconvenient Truth". Looking back, virtually nothing in this award-winning "documentary" passes the smell test, yet thousands of computer nerds set to work to prove what Gore maintained: that C02 emissions were out of control...