so if i point out that it's really #@#!@# hot all over Australia at the moment, you'll concede that it's true? FFS the weather responds to the energy balance, it's not a nice +2 deg added to everyone's location.
"Energy balance"? Sure, but that's close to just a tautology. The 'rub' is working effectively with the collection of all the fine details that determine energy balance.
For how to predict the weather 50 years from now, when we can't predict it five days from now, is a bit much to swallow.
Actually, the global warming alarmists are no closer to good science and have nothing better than the Lock Ness Monster devotees.
Maybe 50 years from now the temperature of the earth will be higher, lower, or just the same as now, and no one knows the answer, no matter what within the realm of reason we assume about CO2, methane, water vapor, sun spots, volcanoes, ocean currents, snow cover, deforestation, etc. E.g., the IPCC's Ramaswamy's 'radiative forcing' fills a much need gap in the literature and would be illuminating if ignited.
There has been a big crowd of global warming alarmists: Some see global warming as not a problem but a way to talk the public into other things that they like such as 'renewable' energy. Some are using global warming alarms as a way to raise money, get government funding, sell books, do venture capital deals, get attention, get a professorship, etc. Some people want to get some new taxes they can use for whatever. Some want to 'stick it' to the oil companies or whomever would get hurt by attempts to respond to global warming. Some people want subsidies for high speed trains, wind farms, solar panels, biofuels, high 'feed in tariffs', etc. The list of reasons some people find to go alone with the alarms is endless and with next to nothing actually to do with science. So, the whole thing is looking like, say, the people who stand to make money off the Lock Ness Monster. That was my main point -- global warming alarms will continue for much the same reason as the Lock Ness Monster.