A
great article on how ridiculously inaccurate the current state of climate modeling is presented by Patrick Frank, a Ph.D. chemist with more than 50 peer-reviewed articles, on
http://www.skeptic.com/.
Quoting from the article:
"So the bottom line is this: When it comes to future climate, no one knows what they’re talking about. No one. Not the IPCC nor its scientists, not the US National Academy of Sciences, not the NRDC or National Geographic, not the US Congressional House leadership, not me, not you, and certainly not Mr. Albert Gore. Earth’s climate is warming and no one knows exactly why. But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all. "
Further he says:
"If our knowledge of future climates is zero then for all we know either suppressing CO2 emissions or increasing them may make climate better, or worse, or just have a neutral effect. The alternatives are incommensurate but in our state of ignorance either choice equally has two chances in three of causing the least harm.
35 Complete ignorance makes the Precautionary Principle completely useless. There are good reasons to reduce burning fossil fuels, but climate warming isn’t one of them.
Some may decide to believe anyway. “We can’t prove it,” they might say, “but the correlation of CO2 with temperature is there (they’re both rising, after all),
36 and so the causality is there, too, even if we can’t prove it yet.” But correlation is not causation,
37 and cause can’t be assigned by an insistent ignorance. The proper response to adamant certainty in the face of complete ignorance
38 is rational skepticism.
And aren’t we much better off accumulating resources to meet urgent needs than expending resources to service ignorant fears?" (Emphasis is mine)
It's a worthwhile read.