OK, the first of your references I checked spent most of the 120 some pages of their 'report' telling why their computer projections didn't match their conclusions. They wanted more something or other to study further... Not a good sign for your side.
You list something called 'New Scientist' magazine. I thought that was one of those 'Popular Science for Democrats' type of magazines. Anyway I didn't read much of what they said because they seemed to be quoting the first report without any of the 'sorry that we couldn't actually prove what we are positing, because our computer models don't seem to match what our direct observations tell us' stuff.
Tell me something, please? Isn't the entire 'Science' of climatology based on Computer Models? and if those Computer Models don't match the direct observations within a 3 sigma margin of error, doesn't that lead you to suspect that either the computer models are wrong, or the conclusions drawn from that very mismatch are suspect? Now, if a 'Scientist's' entire field is based on Computer Modeling, and he can't get it right, doesn't that bother you a little bit?
Everyone who does really huge Hydrodynamic Codes knows that modeling is really hard. The Physicists that I worked with, (and the ones I talked about in my first note,) deal with modeling the effects of an atomic bomb blast underground. There aren't many codes bigger, or more important to 'get it right.' So, when a code looks like it works to model something up close (in time) and then diverges over time, there's usually a problem with the code. Since the divergence we are talking about here is the entire basis for their claims that 'the sky is falling', don't you think it might be more productive to develop a code which didn't diverge from their own observations?
Originally Posted by New Scientist describes themselves
On top of that, our expert team of writers explores key developments in depth, in at least four feature-length articles every week.
So, 'New Scientist' is written by writers, not Scientists. I'll bet, when you're paid to write a story, you write it the way they tell you to write it. I know I did back when I was a Technical Writer for about six years.