Climate guesses...  otherwise known as modelling carries at all times disclaimers.

The confidence that can be placed on GCM climate projections is indicated by the disclaimers that the CSIRO always includes in its climate consultancy reports.

For example:“This report relates to climate change scenarios based on computer modelling. Models involve simplifications of the real processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO ... for the accuracy of forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any person’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this report.”

Pretty colours....  bout all its good for considering the computer models are all crap and the theory is unproven and as you said we don't understand everything yet and considering climate is vastly more complex than anyone here on your side seems to admit

SCIENTIFIC COMPUTER MODELING METHOD 101

I'm a bit dismayed about how computer models have come to be more important than actual observations and so I offer a formal statement of the Scientific Computer Modeling Method.

The Scientific Method

1. Observe a phenomenon carefully.

2. Develop a hypothesis that possibly explains the phenomenon.

3. Perform a test in an attempt to disprove or invalidate the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is disproven, return to steps 1 and 2.

4. A hypothesis that stubbornly refuses to be invalidated may be correct. Continue testing.

The Scientific Computer Modeling Method

1. Observe a phenomenon carefully.

2. Develop a computer model that mimics the behavior of the phenomenon.

3. Select observations that conform to the model predictions and dismiss observations as of inadequate quality that conflict with the computer model.

4. In instances where all of the observations conflict with the model, "refine" the model with fudge factors to give a better match with pesky facts. Assert that these factors reveal fundamental processes previously unknown in association with the phenomenon. Under no circumstances willingly reveal your complete data sets, methods, or computer codes.

5. Upon achieving a model of incomprehensible complexity that still somewhat resembles the phenomenon, begin to issue to the popular media dire predictions of catastrophe that will occur as far in the future as possible, at least beyond your professional lifetime.

6. Continue to "refine" the model in order to maximize funding and the awarding of Nobel Prizes.

7. Dismiss as unqualified, ignorant, and conspiracy theorists all who offer criticisms of the model.

Repeat steps 3 through 7 indefinitely.

I'm sorry the IPCCCCCCCCCCC changed their predictions based on the fact that the original modelling was hmmmm  how can we be nice about this.... UPDATED.  guess what they are still wrong.

Sounds to me like you're the one visiting the same incorrect sites. 

Quote:
  Yep 

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/fatal-errors-in-ipccs-global-climate-models/

scroll down to.... 

PCC’S FATAL ERRORS

INTERNAL MODELING MISTAKES BY IPCC ARE SUFFICIENT

TO REJECT ITS ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING CONJECTURE

ALBEDO REGULATES CLIMATE, NOT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT.

CO2 HAS NO MEASURABLE EFFECT ON CLIMATE.

I'm not sure why uncertainty is such a difficult concept for some people to handle. If you shoot a gun, can you ever predict exactly what is going to happen? Does this mean we don't know enough about guns to manage the risks involved? None of the global warming policy that has been implemented hinges on being able to make accurate predictions. It is all about risk management. Less than perfect understanding of global climate systems is not a good reason to continue releasing GHG's on an industrial scale. In fact, the opposite is the case. There are appears to be some basic logical errors undermining Grendel's argument, assuming he is still pushing the same old barrow.

What exactly is your point Grendel?

So you still think a mysterious cabal of evil scientists is coercing the overwhelming majority of scientists, statisticians, and even politicians into endorsing their theory on climate change Grendel.
To what end is this conspiracy supposed to be working?
How do they achieve the compliance, and secrecy of so many who have the knowledge to unmask their evil plot?

Too many reputable people accept the facts as presented for your contentions to appear as anything more than the churlish rants of a denialist who cannot accept they may have chosen the wrong side, for political reasons.

If you were honestly concerned about just seeing better science done, and greater understanding achieved, then that would be admirable, but you just are hoping for a chance to say, NYAH NYAH, I told you so, and you are so desperate for that chance that you latch onto every charlatan who has a new line of bull to spin.

It is getting tiresome Grendel, unless you have some new information which will illuminate, rather than confuse, then you are just acting as a mindless spoiler.

Happy wrote on May 22^nd, 2009 at 1:33pm:


Where did you get that piece of wisdom from?