&gt; You ask for us to lie?<p>No.  I was just responding literally to the question.  Or, for a more socially acceptable response, the Vostok data has me have trouble with the idea that humans are causing climate change.<p>&gt; Those models uniformly project human-caused global warming, and are passing various kinds of sanity checks.<p>The data I have on that indicates that essentially all the models (&quot;uniformly&quot;) are wildly wrong.  They predicted that by now the temperature would be much higher.<p>Some of that data is reviewed in<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;online.wsj.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop#" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;online.wsj.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;SB1000142405297020430140457717...</a><p>The way too high predictions are plotted in<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.drroyspencer.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;06&#x2F;still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.drroyspencer.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;06&#x2F;still-epic-fail-73-clima...</a><p>&gt; Those models uniformly project human-caused global warming<p>Not all the models.  There is a model that fits the data much better -- at least since the last ice age:  The model claims that the variation in rates of sun spots causes the temperature changes and that CO2 has essentially nothing to do with climate.<p>Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas -- it absorbs in three narrow bands out in the infrared and, thus, absorbs some of the infrared radiation from the Planck black body radiation of the surface of the earth warmed by the sun.  But according to the model I am mentioning, this effect from CO2 is tiny.  Instead, again from the model I am mentioning, overwhelmingly, the main driver of global temperature since the last ice age has been just clouds, and they have varied with the sun spots.  Just why is a longer argument made clear, e.g., in<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg</a><p>So, that is another model that needs to be tested.  For now, that model seems to fit the temperature data much better than the CO2, greenhouse gas, Navier-Stokes, atmospheric diffusion, etc. models.<p>To me, the CO2 models fit the data so poorly we have to reject CO2 as relevant to climate change and look elsewhere for the significant cause(s) of climate change.  For now, to me, the best model is the one I mentioned here based on sun spots -- you didn&#x27;t mention sun spots.