Error Theory Blog has a very interesting analysis of the germination of global warming theory.
what I found interesting was this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich Dr. Ehrlich espouses setting up conditions to terminate part of humanity (especially in industrial countries) so as to reduce global warming.
My analysis: it is interesting that global warming advocates are interested only in esoteric solutions. Instead of using humanity's creativity to "get us out of this mess".
I would actually argue with you on statistical basis that we are not in a global warming mode created by man. Maybe the fluctuations of the sun, or the standard seasonal ebbs and flows, but not warming by man.
We cannot predict how much snow we will get (The big ice storm in St. Louis was to also include 4-8 inches...) Only to receive 1-3 inches.
But we can predict the massive and complex scenario of global warming.
Let us look at this scientifically (sorry have a systems engineering background)
How many variables would effect global warming?
wind speed? wind direction? ocean speed, direction, temperature in air, ocean, land.
What about the sun's effect?
Does CMB have any effect (Cosmic Microwave Background radiation)?
If we pick the ocean temperatures only: how many different temps are there? and where would they be, and how does it effect the others?
You can easily look at this problem and decide that it is non-linear in nature - linear is what everyone of the warming enthusiasts want you to believe.
Difference between linear and non-linear. Linear explanation is explained by an easy algabraic equation: 2x=50 so x=25. non-linear is 2x/4y+5z-10xyz = 125
Tell me what is x, y, and z equal to?
And my postulate is that we have hundreds if not hundreds of thousands of variables.
Which is why this whole complex problem can be villified, since it is not easily refutable.