[say_]

I disagree. Quantifying the energy balance of the planet is easier than quantifying the aggregate behavior of individual, semi-rational actors in the marketplace. What happens within the climate system of the Earth is chaotic, but the energy balance itself is measurable.

If you'd like to see a chart summarizing the various climate forcings, then look at page 4 of this link: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm...

I'm not going to track down all the literature behind those numbers here, but there are published, falsifiable arguments supporting them. Climate models aren't similar to Wall Street voodoo.

[zeteo]

Looking at the Summary for Policymakers that you linked to, we are given measurements of [+0.6 to +2.4] W/ sq m at 90% confidence. Notice the huge interval: the interval length is three times the least value. If we'd re-scale it for 95%, or even 99% (the FDA will require that much for some drugs!), the warming disappears completely.

And this is simply the measurement part. _Predicting_ what will happen is a thousand times more difficult. If you want predictive science based on the laws of physics, look at astronomy. 4000 years ago, the Babylonians could predict astronomical events with much more precision than anything today's climatologists can predict about average temperatures.