One point you alluded to isn't made often enough generally, I think -- the basic power of the simple *early* models to pretty accurately predict temperature response to CO2 is a robust indicator that the physics is right, later refined by more complicated calculations. I can imagine that if only recently had we been able to hone in on the temperature signal, critics could say that the temperature rise is only one of a multitude of possible consequences of so many input parameters. The simple case of energy in = energy out and an IR-absorbing layer (warming lower atmosphere, cooling upper atmosphere) is incredibly hard to argue against.
One point you alluded to isn't made often enough generally, I think -- the basic power of the simple *early* models to pretty accurately predict temperature response to CO2 is a robust indicator that the physics is right, later refined by more complicated calculations. I can imagine that if only recently had we been able to hone in on the temperature signal, critics could say that the temperature rise is only one of a multitude of possible consequences of so many input parameters. The simple case of energy in = energy out and an IR-absorbing layer (warming lower atmosphere, cooling upper atmosphere) is incredibly hard to argue against.