But don't the climate models that predict global warming take into effect the ocean's heat absorption and the resulting ice melt and the resulting change in the earth's albedo and so on?

They attempt to. But many of those feedbacks are complex, poorly understood, and hard to model. That is one of the reasons why predictions have large error bars on them.

I know it is complicated but the 'conventional wisdom' has been that the best climate models take all these feedback mechanisms into consideration and predict a catastrophic increase in temperatures and that the science is 'settled' on this. We've been told over and over again that the models are trustworthy and beyond criticism. All the radical regulatory and economic policy recommendations are based on these models being correct. Anyone who doubts this is labeled as a 'denier' and politely escorted out of the room.

There are stupid people on both sides, and certainly a lot of people state certainties that go way beyond what scientists would consider settled.

And yet, you say that the land temperatures are not increasing as predicted by these trustworthy models. Hmmm.

They are not increasing as fast as the median prediction. But they are well within the error bars that we've had all along.

This is a disconnect between scientific consensus and popular belief that we've seen before in other fields, like evolution. Science, by its very nature, always has a lot of rough edges and unexpected bobbles. Scientists focus on these. In their discussions of all of the ways in which they have failed to perfectly understand, and how they can understand better, they say lots of things that can be (and are!) cherrypicked for propaganda among people who think that the scientists are dead wrong. But when you trace back the quotes to the source, and look at the overwhelming bulk of the research, you realize that the scientists actually had broad agreement all along (with occasional exceptional data points).

The scientist who wrote the article this discussion is about would be an exceptional data point. Fred Hoyle's rejection of the big bang theory would be a similar one. So would the creationist beliefs of Kurt Wise and Timothy H. Heaton. (Both got PhDs in geology from Harvard and studied under Stephen J. Gould.)

I list these exceptions not to dismiss them. But to say that you cannot understand the nature of scientific consensus without understanding that not all scientists will agree with it. And the nature of science done right is that people who disagree, but who manage to maintain the forms and standards of science, are permitted to maintain their arguments until the day that they die. Other scientists may disagree and shake their heads. You may get articles like http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html written in disbelief. But the contrary argument is allowed to be made. Is allowed to be heard. And if evidence is on its side, will eventually be allowed to overturn what people had thought settled. This is part of the scientific process.

However scientific history shows that while we celebrate people on the scientific fringe who proved to be right, the smart money wouldn't generally bet that that fringe beliefs were right. And at this point, denying the reality of anthropogenic global warming is very much a fringe belief. (Though one that will see you well rewarded by some powerful economic interests.)