[Phil153]

Since wacki is busy (and probably bored with this) I'll have a stab.

In their current state, the predictive value of climate models is unproven.

As an assertion this is a failure as it fails to quantify anything. It also seems dubious. Weren't the climate models used on past data? I believe that's one of the many criteria for any of the many models to be taken seriously. Haven't the predictions of the climate models from last century held up in the last 8 or so years?

If climate models are so inaccurate or useless, why do they all show the same trend and similar ranges, even though the underlying algorithms are quite different? Why has no one come up with a climate model that works accurately on past data and predicts no temperature increase?

Your criticism of the models lacks depth.

The second argument I'm making is that climate models will improve significantly over time and will evolve. In expect that we can't imagine the improvement that will take place over the next 50 years.

Sure...but that doesn't mean the current models will be proven wrong. The most likely scenario, imo, is that the error ranges of the current models will narrow as precision increases. #2 is neither here nor there as relates to this debate.

Third argument is that people are putting way too much stock in what climate models in their current state are predicting.

Exactly how much stock should we be putting into it? If the eight or so more accurate models on past data, using different underlying physics and algorithms, all come to the same conclusion, are you suggesting we should be ignoring them? Exactly how much stock do you think we should be putting in these models?

Fourth argment is that politicians are exploiting the situation to promote their own agendas.

How does this relate to the truth or otherwise of the science? As far the IPCC goes, the main role of politics is to water down the scientific conclusions to make them more palatable to governments who have to sign off on the report.

Fifth argument is that the conditions for 3 and 4 are a disaster for funding research.

You'll need to elaborate on why this matters.