I disagree with you. I don't think that what you presented actually answers the points I've made except to rationalize why the models are completely wrong. Let

I disagree with you. I don't think that what you presented actually answers the points I've made except to rationalize why the models are completely wrong. Let me is simplify things. Is there a model based on CO2 that explains the variations in global surface temperature of the last 1200-5000 years, as mentioned in the OP's article? That should be easier to project given that we are not talking about a period of 20 years, correct? I genuinely don't know, which is why I'm asking and I would like to learn more. Is there a model that projects the various ice ages and subsequent warmings over a longer period of time, including the medieval warming period, which you claim should be easier? And a question for you: what evidence would you personally require in order to no longer in the greenhouse gas theory? I know what I need to see in order to start to believe in the greenhouse gas theory: I need to understand how CO2 is responsible for the variability of the Earth's climate pre-industrial revolution. If CO2 wasn't responsible for the Earth's climate change pre-industrial revolution, then what was it and could that same thing be responsible what for we see today? What I've seen from people who believe this theory is that they will believe it no matter what. For example, if climate gets warmer, that's because of CO2. If the climate gets colder, that's because of CO2. If the climate goes wild, like during the time of hurricane Katrina, that's because of CO2. If it gets calmer, like it did after Katrina, that's because of CO2. I can't think of a single climate outcome that will disprove the theory, since all outcomes appear to prove it. In my experience, a theory that can't be prove wrong despite different outcomes isn't a theory, it's a religious statement, which is not science. I believe that believers in the theory have moved over into the religious territory, which makes it about as fruitful as talking to a creationist.