(My friend Tom, certainly among the most analytical and intellectually capable people of my acquaintance, posted two long and thoughtful comments to my post of a few weeks ago about computational models in general and climate models in particular. I thought that Tom’s comments deserved better billing so with his permission I have converted them to a guest post, which follows, with some slight editing for flow. Tom raises some valid and interesting points, which I will probably revisit in a future post. Also, I highly recommend the Guardian podcast linked in Tom’s post below, in which I can find very little to take issue with other than the implicit assumption that anthropogenic climate change is a proven fact, forever settled, and about which no reasonable disagreement is possible.)

Here’s Tom:

Jack, I won’t pretend to any ability to state properly the scientific case in favor of the many nonpolitical and serious climate scientists who are presently convinced that dangerous anthropological global warming exists and is increasing. I do, however, think that your posting gives too much weight, like the litigation lawyers we both know who want to win for their clients by fair means or foul, to the possible or, as you put it, inevitable computer modeling hocus pocus and political jabberwockiness that exist in the science dispute. I personally believe, and feel it’s OK to use this, since your posting also contains a fair amount of opinion, that existential evidence of global warming caused by increasing CO2, apart from intricate computer models and hypocritical politicians, is gathering apace. Can anyone rational turn a blind eye to that? More »