Global Warming, page-152

You mean geologically.

There was little to no global climate cooling/warming science in 1975 ... "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data" concedes the NAS report. There has undoubtedly been progress in climate science, but ...

So we have massive computers that can do large scale climate modelling. If the assumption that CO2 is the only/exclusive/ultimate culprit was fallacious 15 years ago (circa 2000) then it was garbage in garbage out. Stick with the same assumption and now it is garbage in massive garbage out.

The scientific method is that if the theory/model doesn't agree with/reproduce the observed data then modify the theory/model and include drivers in addition to CO2 (i.e. solar radiation, or even fragmentary ocean temp?). Don't continue to bash the square peg into a round hole with a bigger hammer (= massively more powerful computer). Of course, having bet the house on CO2 their only (last?) resort is to tweak the data. So now we have gone from 'hide the decline' to 'hide the pause'. Shades of "1984".