There are always those who believe they should attempt to change to world. As we began to learn new things, certain people believed they were informed well beyond their fellow humans and they sought to change the world as they saw fit.
<<
These theories have now been tried and most have failed dramatically but those described above consider themselves smarter than those who failed in the past so they repeatedly repeat the past mistakes.
<<
I agree that we should fear those people. They caused massive havoc to the world last century.
<<
The first is naked self-interest. They have discovered that with climate change they are on a real winner. They can claim that the government needs to fund them so that they can find ways of overcoming the effects of climate change, even reverse it. The more that is done on climate change, the more that needs to be done. As a research topic it appears to be one that can be milked forever.>>>
They have never met a crisis they didn't want to exploit even if they had to invent the crisis.
<<
Models are easily manipulated to say what you want them to say. Some people are easily convinced that models are synonymous with reality.
I don't know I would say IPCC is addicted to models but I would say that without them, they have next to nothing to hang their hat on.
First – you say “their” models as if the IPCC actually created the models itself. The models are, in fact (as you allude to), the work of climate scientists – and the IPCC does not employ any climate scientists.
Second – What they Hell do you want? Climate scientists are constantly working to refine and improve their models. If they were doing nothing, you would just bltch about that.
The correspondence you reference falls in the category of refinement of the estimate. It does not represent a qualitative or substantial quantitative difference from previous estimates
=========
edit --
>>Did you read James post?<<
Yeah; So what? He's wrong.
The first question to ask is what are those other methods, and are they more or less reliable than the models.
The models are being used because they have shown to accurately predict climate patterns, both in the past and future. (By future, I mean that they ran models years ago that line up with data taken recently)
IPCC should use whatever methods are available and most accurate. If that means using the models, then the models should be used. Dismissing models just because of their nature doesn't help anyone.
<
How else do you suggest we predict possible future climate change?
Crystal ball? Horoscopes?
One of the IPCC's tasks is to predict the 'potential environmental and socio-economic consequences' of climate change. Models have proven (ie, through hindcasting) to work pretty well, even when dealing with enormously complex systems such as global climate.
<<...there is an interesting essay highlighted at Judith Curry's blog which an opinion piece appropriately titled: "Too many academics are driven to abstraction by their addiction models">>
I stopped reading this 'interesting essay' when I read this phrase " They have discovered that with climate change they are on a real winner. They can claim that the government needs to fund them so that they can find ways of overcoming the effects of climate change, even reverse it. "
Typical denier BS. Not surprising, the author Greg Melleuish is an associate professor in History and Politics. Has has got no training whatsoever in any discipline associated with climate science. None. Zero. Nada.
I would say the IPCC panel and the UN office over the IPCC panel are addicted to their models.
I would like to believe the "true" climate scientists are reading the same papers you are and are actually working to get the model projections to match unadjusted empirical data sets. If they are NOT doing this then they need to drop any pretense of being called scientists.
I bet if the models showed cooling, you would not ask the question.
F=MA is a model, so is E=MC**2 > They don't make models just to p**s you off.
No.
Are you addicted to lying about science?
Yes.
I like how the questioner is, seemingly better versed than all those who posted opinionated answers.
So many waffling answers. tldr.
Yes They are not worth the numbers they put in . They want a guaranteed outcome to suit the agenda.
In the recent IPCC AR4 report and what appears to be no change in the AR5 draft, the IPCC is still maintaining a climate sensitivity of 2-4.5C with a median of 3C. These figures are essentially unchanged since the 1979 Charney report.
However, there have been numerous papers and discussion which are finding lower climate sensitivity estimates based on methods other than models. The most recent one is here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1836.html This is notable since some of these authors are the ones who are leads on the IPCC chapters on climate sensitivity. This paper and climate sensitivity is again being discussed by James Annan here: http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a-chink-of-light-at-end-of-tunnel.html and here: http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/more-on-that-recent-sensitivity-paper.html
Along these lines, there is an interesting essay highlighted at Judith Curry's blog which an opinion piece appropriately titled: "Too many academics are driven to abstraction by their addiction models" http://judithcurry.com/2013/05/19/on-academics-abstraction-and-model-addiction/
Are IPCC climate scientists addicted to their models?
