Not exactly the best arguments: > "Models are unreliable" Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean. T

Not exactly the best arguments: > "Models are unreliable" Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean. There are many aspects to climate change that you need to convince somebody of who doesn't believe in it: * The climate is in fact changing * The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising * The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising because of human activity * The rising CO2 levels cause global warming * Climate change is a bad thing * Human produced CO2 does not have a short term effect that can be absorbed by CO2 sinks in nature * It's economically sensible to take action While there is extremely good evidence for some of these points there isn't as good evidence for all of them as some people would have you believe. IMO simple graphs like this (http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_10000_years.gif http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_10000_years.gif) are far more convincing than complicated climate models that can be fitted to historical data. Having seen first hand how easily conclusions can be drawn without good evidence due to biases and faulty methods in science I have very little confidence in them until proven otherwise. Once climate models start to consistently predict considerably more accurately than simple curve extrapolations it's best to leave them out of climate change arguments.