Climate modeling is an ever developing interpretive science. It has produced some models that do not accurately predict the amount of global warming. But, all the models do is predict the amount of global warming, and the distribution of the warming. Just because this model, or that model, is inaccurate does not disprove the existence of global warming. Although the models to predict the degree and effects of global warming are complex the basic physics and chemistry of the problem are not. I have seen no one dispute the fact that sunlight falling on the earth's surface causes radiation of infrared radiation back towards space. Nor have I seen anyone dispute the fact that carbon dioxide warms up as a result of absorbing infrared radiation. I haven't seen anyone dispute that burning of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide and that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is increasing. The amount of carbon dioxide we have added to the atmosphere can be, and has been, calculated. The amount of sunlight falling on the earth and the amount of infrared radiated back has been measured with great precision. The amount of heat produced by carbon dioxide absorbing infrared radiation is a known quantity. Saying that this prediction model or that model is flawed does not change the physics of the situation. The critics do not produce reasonable models of global cooling which show effects large enough to offset the predicted heat input from the physics and chemistry. Instead they poke holes at the global warming models or say the warming is not from carbon dioxide, or that all the increased carbon dioxide is not from fossil fuels. But none of these arguments argue against those facts. Until someone comes up with good science showing global cooling large enough to offset the heat produced by gigatons of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, I'm a very worried man. Bill B.