> "The fact that GCMs can fit the temperature increase is totally meaningless. Why? Because the allowed parameter space is so large climatologists could fit any

> "The fact that GCMs can fit the temperature increase is totally meaningless. Why? Because the allowed parameter space is so large climatologists could fit anything from a small temperature decrease (as was claimed in the 70's, before the imminent ice-age) to double or triple the observed 20th century increase." Isn't this simply an assertion of fraud, made in a less direct manner? > or c) a priesthood. There is a big difference between a conspiracy and a priesthood. Priesthoods are very, very common in history, and they result in very widespread consensuses that turn out to be very wrong. See: The Catholic Church. The Catholic Church nicely matches my (a) whether you call it a conspiracy or a priesthood, and I'm sorry, but I don't see it. If one of these outsiders had a truly viable alternative hypothesis, and could back it up, there is plenty of room for them to be heard. > When you look at the raw unadjusted data, there is simply not much room for alarm. ... says one professed layperson to another. Personally I find it almost inconceivable that, given how extensively we intentionally and unintentionally alter our local environments, we wouldn't be making corresponding impacts to the global environment. Argument-by-intuition, sure, but it's just as valid as yours!