There are major problems with the logic in the article. He's basically trying to argue that the average of a variable in a chaotic system over some finite period of time can't drift or change dramatically due to chaos alone. His only support for this is that it doesn't happen in the simplest possible one dimensional discrete chaotic system. What about the Lorenz attractor? If you aren't familiar with it, it basically acts like two well behaved oscillators that you switch between after some "random" amount of time. If you take a time average of a space coordinate with the Lorenz attractor you'll see chaotic swings between periods of relative stability in the two oscillators. As you make increasingly complicated chaotic systems with more and more variables you open up the possibility of having all sorts of longer term behavior that would effect what he calls "climate". He is absolutely wrong about this.<p><i>When you increase greenhouse gases and therefore inhibit heat loss, you change the dynamics — the “equations of motion” as it were — and that will change the climate. In ways that are predictable.</i> He's wrong here as well. From bifurcation theory we know that tiny changes in the parameters of a dynamical system can have huge seemingly unpredictable effects on the behavior. Subtle differences in models can have huge impacts on where and how bifurcations occur. We have only various educated guesses that might very well be dramatically wrong.<p>By the way, I'm not arguing against climate change. I just think that this article is terribly wrong.