"Merely pointing out that models aren't perfect predictors, or that some esoteric and uncontrollable phenomenon is responsible for some of the warming does nothing useful to help us decide how to act."
Neither does obfuscating the data and the models and how they work. Another commenter mentioned "transparency", and I think that's a key element that's been lacking from the climate scientists. They say they're "terrified", but when they're asked for the raw data and the source code to their models, they refuse to provide it, making it impossible to verify that their terror is justified.
What information they do reveal does not inspire confidence in their analysis: for example, read the latest IPCC report and see how many key causal factors have a "low" level of scientific understanding. (It's true that greenhouse gases are not in that category, but the fact that we understand them pretty well does not justify simply ignoring the other factors when we admittedly don't know enough to judge their impact.)
Also, the IPCC predictions for how much the climate should have warmed by now, given the actual increase in CO2 levels, have basically been falsified: CO2 has been increasing faster than all but their most pessimistic predictions, yet climate has been warming slower than their most optimistic predictions. So as far as deciding how to act, I don't trust the IPCC predictions, and since those are driving all the policy recommendations from those who are "terrified", I don't trust those recommendations either.
"critics should be proving that something else is causing the recent heat records."
No, the burden of proof is on those who want to implement highly disruptive policies without adequate justification.
Neither does obfuscating the data and the models and how they work. Another commenter mentioned "transparency", and I think that's a key element that's been lacking from the climate scientists. They say they're "terrified", but when they're asked for the raw data and the source code to their models, they refuse to provide it, making it impossible to verify that their terror is justified.
What information they do reveal does not inspire confidence in their analysis: for example, read the latest IPCC report and see how many key causal factors have a "low" level of scientific understanding. (It's true that greenhouse gases are not in that category, but the fact that we understand them pretty well does not justify simply ignoring the other factors when we admittedly don't know enough to judge their impact.)
Also, the IPCC predictions for how much the climate should have warmed by now, given the actual increase in CO2 levels, have basically been falsified: CO2 has been increasing faster than all but their most pessimistic predictions, yet climate has been warming slower than their most optimistic predictions. So as far as deciding how to act, I don't trust the IPCC predictions, and since those are driving all the policy recommendations from those who are "terrified", I don't trust those recommendations either.
"critics should be proving that something else is causing the recent heat records."
No, the burden of proof is on those who want to implement highly disruptive policies without adequate justification.