[neverdem]

"But Spencer argues that the models have mixed up cause and effect and asks, 'What if the warming was caused by fewer clouds, rather than the fewer clouds being caused by warming?'"

Science has other ways to determine the validity of hypotheses aside from "lab experiments".

Invalidating fundamental assumptions is an elegant way to wreck an argument. Spencer's statement is another version of the chicken and egg argument: "What came first"?

Combine that with the perfect example of the limitations of computer models, GIGO. Reassuring computer models said everything was OK with Wall Street and the housing bubble. Only a relatively few people could recognize "The Black Swan" staring AIG, HUD, Fannie and Freddie in the face.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Spencer's statement is another version of the chicken and egg argument: "What came first"?"

The egg, of course. According to evolution, that which laid said egg was not yet a chicken.... :^)

Of course, the creationists have a different take.