> Why don't we start at the IPCC? Here are some analyses: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/ http://www.realclimat

> Why don't we start at the IPCC? Here are some analyses: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansen... http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-u... http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-vs-hansen-1980s.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-v... Current climate models are pretty accurate in their predictions. > Which isn't surprising at all, given no one has been able to show a working model of Earth. I am not sure, at this point, if you are just trolling. Every model has a certain limits, but it doesn't mean it is "not working". If you actually knew history (I always recommend https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm) it is a remarkable achievement that we can model climate at all. > There's no way you can know that. CO2 may be completely dominated by other factors. Sorry, this is just trolling. Of course, in the same sense, we cannot predict the path of the Earth around the Sun because what if an unknown dominating factor comes to its path? When creating a model, we simply try to account for every important factor we know of. And given that the predictions are quite accurate (look at Lindzen comparison!), we probably know of all the important ones.