By writing "Just as the famous "hockey stick" graph could not hold up to scrutiny," you show a particular bias. There was a huge political uproar because both sides tried to make too much of one study in isolation.

When the data is examined in totality, the key concerns that the "hockey stick" has raised are holding up to scrutiny. What we should do about those concerns is a valid political question, but too many people are using political arguments to obfuscate scientific conclusions.

That's why I said to follow the questions for yourself and to beware of politically biased summaries clothing themselves as scientific skepticism. We're always better off if we learn enough about the science to read the primary source material rather than relying on others to summarize it for us.

However, if you want to see a variety of summaries, including the political solutions advocated by Newt Gingrich, the books I review (and sometimes criticize) are listed at this link.

You'll also find some interesting back-and-forth discussion at some of my older blog entries, including discussions of Kilimanjaro and warming on other planets. The bias of many commenters is in full blaze there, as are my (I hope) more reasoned responses.

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

Many thanks, I'll read up on it.

I'm not looking for an "absolute certainty" I'm looking for statistical significance of accuracy. It's fair to say that these models that we are referring to are either accurate or they are inaccurate.

I'm sure nobody would want to base public policy on inaccurate or skewed data. That is my quest. Just as the famous "hockey stick" graph could not hold up to scrutiny, I would like to examine these claims that computer models are showing. Follow the questions...right Fred ;)

Anonymous hints at a political agenda when s/he asks for "proof" (since science can disprove but never prove to an absolute certainty), although the comment also includes a better statement, "Where could I find the results from previous computer models scenarios? I would like to see how accurate they are."

I'll give Anon the benefit of the doubt and assume "proof" was an inadvertent slip.

The evidence lies in volumes of scientific literature, and without knowing your current level of knowledge, it is impossible to suggest what will help you to read through it.

Certainly the references in the books I cited will help (and the references in those references). Chris Mooney's Storm World, for example, discusses the science of predicting hurricane patterns (the subject of this thread) in considerable detail. It's an excellent source to understand the historical tension between modelers and those who look for empirical patterns.

(As a person whose doctoral thesis and post-doc work included developing models for condensed matter physics phenomena, I certainly could appreciate the limitations of models as well as their usefulness. If you want to see the only place where my name has become attached to a long-standing computational technique, Google "Bortz Kalos". That will lead you to work I did in the mid-1970s that is still cited today.)

Mooney's references will lead you to the work of many modelers and empiricists.

If you are dealing with the larger issue of climate modeling and its implications for climate change, the best source is probably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. These are full of citations to primary source literature and include discussions of the value and limitations of the various climate models that the panel has used.

Now this citation is certain to draw out right-wing ideologues who will bash the IPCC as alarmist and question the ability of any organization associated with the United Nations to produce good scientific analysis intended to guide policy-makers. They will conveniently leave out the other organization behind the IPCC, the World Meteorological Organization, and they will trot out the same small group of scientists advocating the minority viewpoint while neglecting the IPCC's recent Nobel Peace Prize.

Why Peace, you may ask? Because the consequences of climate change, if not addressed pro-actively, could lead to economic and social disruptions. (I recommend a book called The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1350-1800 for insight into the impact that even small changes in climate can have on human affairs.)

As you can see, I take a middle-of-the-road approach here, focusing on what science and modeling can and cannot do. I want our policy-makers to have the best science available for making their decisions, and I think political wisdom can come from people of varying perspectives.

So my recommendation is that you gradually work your way toward the primary source literature. Don't accept the conclusions of any of the authors whose books I have reviewed, and don't blindly follow any summary of the literature. Keep an open mind, giving the scientists who have produced the primary source literature credit for doing the same when they present their results. Of course they are human and favor their own viewpoints, but the process of consensus-building always manages to take that into account as well.

I always tell my young readers to "follow their questions." That's my advice to you as well.

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

That's all well and good Fred, but what I'm looking for is proof. I would like to see, where a climate model predicted five years into the future or however long, and see how accurate that computer model was. Where could I find the results from previous computer models scenarios? I would like to see how accurate they are.

Anonymous, you seem to be confusing weather modeling with climate modeling. I think you might benefit from some good books written for the educated nonspecialist.

If historical perspectives help, you might want to visit my page of book reviews on the subject, which I have been writing for more than 10 years.

Early books, such as The Change in the Weather through more recent ones, like The Weather Makers all do a very good job of describing how climate is changing and what that means for day-to-day weather.

The previously cited Storm World makes specific connections to predictions about changes in hurricane patterns (climate). Predictions about the course of an individual hurricane fall under the heading of weather.

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

Has there ever been a computer model on climate forecasting beyond several months that has a high degree of accuracy? If so can you point to me where I might find info on it?

This is an interesting area of the connection of science and politics. Instead of the usual nonsense, such as Anonymous' tongue-in-cheek attack on what appears to be reputable science, that swirls around it (pun intended), I have a better place to begin your understanding of this topic.

I reviewed and recommend Storm World: Hurricanes, Politcs, and the Battle Over Global Warming for a nuanced, well-researched, and very readable discussion of the science, the politics, and the importance of developing policies that work in a changing world.

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

I have just completed a computer "weather model" program that predicts, hurricanes will increase in number and drop off in number, while at the same time, increase in severity and decrease in severity.

It also predicts that the global temperature will increase slightly and decrease slightly for the rest of eternity.

Amazingly, it also predicts that taxes will continue to increase no matter what happens.

I am hoping to get a large government grant and huge infusions of money from the academic world to support my ongoing research. It seems only fair.