Sometimes I wonder why I bother reading Ars Technica anymore. Years ago I really liked their in-depth reviews of hardware architectures and operating systems, but those have disappeared since Jon Stokes moved on. Recently they've hopped on the "liberal science" bandwagon, especially concerning global cooling warming. Today's latest cheerleading piece, "Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science", is another example of their unintentional comedy.
If climate science was simple science, then I doubt there'd much debate. There would be models that could accurately predict the past, the base data wouldn't need to be endlessly manipulated to provide the desired results, and we wouldn't have researchers desparately hopping on the AGW bandwagon in an attempt to secure funding. Instead, what we have are many researchers trying to prove a theory because they can get paid handsomly to do so, and those researchers have to resort to all sorts of number-fudging to get the results their sponsors desire. Anyone who doesn't toe the line is relegated to backwater journals and conferences, or is savaged by the mainstream.
So, yeah, I'll start trusting climate models when their creators can start performing unbiased science. Until then, just leave me alone.