a few people on here might see themselves here. http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/24-types_of_libertarian.png
Ok mayne, here is my abbreviated argument. Descriptive stats applied correctly are a useful tool, and when using a fully parametric model, statistical inference makes sense as it will be accurate as long as the model isn't flawed. I am ASSUMING (as I have never seen the models) that in the "science" of gw, they are using semi-parametric models at best (as not all variables are known/or fully understood), and using a a very tiny % of actual data from the total population because they don't have it, meaning that it is NOT statistically significant. "Inferring" anything from this type of model is nothing more than a guess, because the model is flawed going in. If this is not the case then your best bud Hansen should be able to tell us, with a very high degree of accuracy, what the temp will be at certain dates in the future. If his models can predict out to 50-100 years then he can predict next year 5, 10 years out etc, and if he coulda he woulda. If I am wrong about this make sure u provide a link to these models. All that aside, you suggesting that there are not any other feasible explanations is a pretty arrogant assumption IMO. We don't even know that this temp increase is out of the norm, because we don't know what the norm is. We don't know what the avg temp on this planet has been over the last 100k years or mil years or bil years, so how do we know that we are even on the high side of the Earth's natural range? And what about claims that carbon in the atmosphere lags temp?