+1 creepy?

I think you are missing the point. All models are wrong, but we use them very successfully for a wide array of tasks. We used models to discover Neptune for instance. The models that we used were wrong (as are ALL models), but they successfully predicted the location of Neptune based on the orbit of Uranus.

Or perhaps "If we had observations of the future, we obviously would trust them more than models, but unfortunately observations of the future are not available at this time."

Best line: "Models are not right or wrong. They are always wrong. They are always approximations. The question you have to ask is whether a model tells more information than you would have had otherwise. If it does, it is skillful."

Here is the man himself giving a TED talk on the limitations and capabilities of climate models: http://www.ted.com/talks/gavin...

Increased surface area is causing melting? Possibly the result of melting I would guess, but probably not the cause.

Antarctic ice is losing mass. That is what we care about because it causes sea level to rise. Not sure what, if anything is affecting wave size, but you know what causes ice to melt?

Yes. It turned out that carpet bombing with DDT just created DDT resistant mosquitoes.

How would you monetize that?

Likely they are already aware that DDT was never banned (and is still in use) in areas with malaria. There's no stopping the frothing of the anti-environment types though - vaccine or no.

Complete nonsense. Please show me the graph of how Venusian global mean surface temperature has changed over the last few decades. None exists. We have a few data points from which to infer (and these lead us to believe it was warmer in 1990 than in 2009 (Kostiuk 2011) which would seem to invalidate your theory).

The rest of your post is a little too nutty to parse although you seem to be implying that there is a global conspiracy to fake the temperature tends.

Interesting. thanks.

which can mean whatever straw man you want it to mean since this phrase is never found in the literature and 'catastrophic' is a pretty subjective word.

Those aren't exactly doomsday predictions, and it is not clear that they have been proven wrong, so I'm not sure they are especially good examples of doomsday scenarios that have been proven wrong. To me they just look like incremental improvements to our understanding of their subject matters.

How many papers with the phrase "global cooling" can you find that show that the current warming trend is not primarily caused by humans? None of course. Any papers with the phrase "global cooling" are looking at periods millions of years ago. Why would slogging through thousands more papers that are not focused on the current warming be expected to have any thoughts on whether the current warming is caused by humans? Please find me even one paper with the phrase "global cooling" that takes a negative stance on the human contribution to the current warming.

The papers were also evaluated by the people who wrote them. The authors themselves found greater consensus (98%) than the third party reviewers. So if the reviewers had a bias, it was towards non-consensus.