Everyone (Dr. Gray especially) keeps mentioning the ice age predictions in the 70s... but one must take into consideration that those predictions were based on really simple one dimensional climate models from Budyko and Sellers. Like all simple models, they are great tools for understanding aspects of the climate system (like feedbacks), but cannot be taken seriously to model reality. The science and the models have greatly progressed since the early 70s and to say that the field is simply hemming and hawing is a great misrepresentation because climate models have progressed from one dimensional to fully coupled 3D General Circulation Models (GCMs). I'm not saying the current GCMs are flawless, but given that many of them can simulate the past climate reasonably well, I'd like to think, unlike Dr. Gray, that GCMs are worth the time and effort.
What disturbed greatly at the AMS conference was Dr. Gray's outright dismissal that climate models are worthless and he even said that -- and I paraphrase -- that if global warming is occuring, there is nothing we can do about it, so we should concentrate on more important problems. I think that is a very dangerous message to be sending to the public in general (I say this because there was a TV crew filming his presentation and only his presentation). He says everybody extrapolates, yet he himself does the same thing to make his predictions. He claims the water vapor feedback is bogus without presenting any data.
I have no problem with Dr. Gray trying to argue against the consensus because disagreement and debate is always good for the science, but I see many flaws in Dr. Gray's arguments, and I wish he would be more robust, especially in front of his peers.
If you want to be kept up to date with global climate change science. I suggest
http://www.realclimate.org/
It's maintained by scientists to educate the public about the latest advances in climate research. The scientists contributing to this site are very well respected in the field.