uses the same models as those modelling the effect of greenhouse gases.
Ah, but that is the whole point, don't you SEE it? The models don't seem to be doing a good job. I don't know that I can offer a better model, but I learned a long time ago to not bet on a lame horse.
G, you don't want to hear this; you won't let yourself hear this. But our side of the argument has found too many cases where it looks like someone is "cooking the books" to get the result they want without regard for one of the BASE CONCEPTS of science - data-source consistency. When you compare apples and oranges, you frequently get a fruit salad, which usually looks like a non-homogeneous mess.
Michael Mann's infamous "hockey-stick" graph uses INCONSISTENT data sources and somehow whitewashes data in a way that I find unconscionable. I've seen comparisons of the data and to be honest cannot believe that his paper wasn't outright rejected over questionable data treatments. Mann has lost a lawsuit that he filed against someone for the slander of his work and I have seen too many reports that compare raw data vs what he posted. They don't agree at all. I have posted videos here where the data sources WERE referenced explicitly.
I remain a skeptic because I smell skullduggery. Pure plain and simple.