PaulusP,
Let me update your post a little bit.
If you believe that you can spend trillions of dollars that you don't have, paint roofs white to stop global warming, and take over industries & lay people off to create jobs it is easy to imagine there are plenty of unearned riches just waiting to be explored below arctic ice.
There was an election, remember?

The size of reserves tell you nothing at all about flow rates.

Cute.

The prescription for over-enthusiasm for probability estimates for unfound oil is to calm down and not bet to heavily that it is there.

The prescription for too much faith in climate models is what, in your opinion? Do nothing, because modeling is not the real thing?

Where the oil is is where it is. We can slowly gather more information, and if it is there, we'll find it (we might not be able to afford it).

Unfortunately, the climate is a complex system. I know you want something that you can just spin around in your head and make sense out of it, but then you just end up like the simple-minded folk who reason "gosh, the atmosphere is just way to big for us to have any impact!". Complexity cannot be dealt with so easily.

You don't trust the model? Fine. Do you understand the model? I doubt it. The problem is that there are probable dire consequences for just business as usual simply because you "don't trust those fancy modelers with fancy degrees in climate science."

I only hope and pray that those that worship at the altar of the "climate" deniers stop misrepresenting the role of models in climate science.

prevaricate: : to deviate from the truth

Particularly since we know the denialist stance is primarily lies and bad science.

The American Denial of Global Warming

ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

At the same time, there is not a single paper, study or presentation that purports to show how climate scientists have a money machine built specifically to cheat the world out of its hard-earned money. This despite the FACT that this lie has been central to many denialists' claims.

Huh. Imagine that.

Onward:

Denialist claim: Models are unreliable

The Physics of Climate Modelling

Is Climate Modelling Science

Modeller vs Modeller

FAQ on Climate Models

Simple Models of Climate

General Circulation Models of Climate

Final thought: These links have been posted many times here, yet, they have been addressed by you various climate denialists exactly 0 times.

Huh. Imagine that.

Thanks jb. I don't dislike models per se. They are a valid tool. Rather it's what folks try to prove with models. One can argue all day long that the auumptions are correct. But some inputs are generaly accepted facts and others are assumptions. The problems I see arising is when folks present the models as truth without pointing out the assumptions. There is not one barrle of proven oil in the Artic region they are descibing. Is there some oil there? Almost certainly. But to use the model to assume future reserves that might impact the US/global economy to a certin degree is wrong IMO. Many folks look at model numbers and take them as promises. No honest modeler would ever present them as thus.

AGW is not my area. There are certainly proven facts in the models. There are also assumptions. As I see no possibility of the global societies ever reducing CO2 output the models don't really interest me. It's just as easy to just accept them on face value and anticipate the worst. In those models there are assumtions that probably will determine the degree of correctness (or wrongness) of the predictions. I'll let others explore those areas. I fully expect the world economies to swicth to increased coal utilization as other hydrocarbon sources dwindle in an effort to sustain the unsustainable growth model. If this destroys low areas then so be it. Industrialized economies will sacrifice those regions if that's what it takes to sustain themselves in the short run IMO.