The original article notes that this result is a refinement of earlier models.

These models are always tested against the best available data and thus are in a process of refinement and improvement.

In everyday experience, you can see the value of using computer models within their proper ranges. Weather forecasts of a week in advance are no longer wild guesses. Compare their accuracy today with what was available only a few years ago.

Because the climate system is so complex, models are far from perfect. The key is to understand their weaknesses as well as their strengths. The authors of the scientific report no doubt discuss the range of certainty of their results.

But you are equating error bars to wild guesses, and that either displays a lack of understanding of science or a political bias.

A good book on the issue of modeling vs. empirical predictions is Storm World by Chris Mooney.

I've promised myself to limit my comments on this issue, so I'll leave further comments to others.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)