Again you guys are making some mythical denialists up. Straw men as I believe they are known.
All figures from memory:
Burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere. For some reason the natural feedback in the carbon cycle responds with a time constant longer than 150 years, which is quite odd in itself. As a result 60% of CO2 from FF burned in the last 150 years is still in the atmosphere.
Adding CO2 to Earth's atmosphere will, on balance, increase the global surface average temperature.
So, so far I'm a lukewarm warmist.
But, the CO2 effect used in the models has to be massively overemphasised to match the historical temperature record. The claim is that much of this represent positive feedbacks associated with water, which according to NASA is responsible for 80% of the greenhouse effect, as clouds, albedo, and vapor.
It seems to me that any model that uses calibration factors of the order of 200% is not really modelling the system properly. Until we can model clouds and albedo properly we won't have a predictive ability that is robust.
So call me a computer model skeptic. (My day job is in the field of non linear time based modelling, and statistics).
I'm afraid my answer is that more data is required, the current models are shite for predictive purposes.