Climate models are the primary cause of unfounded alarmism. Bert Bolin, first IPCC chairman, created very primitive models back around 1957 and despite their crudity, the output was treated as gospel. They even played a part in creating the IPCC in 1988, and it to continued with making alarmist claims according to the output of crude models. In its 2007 report the IPCC shows us that knowledge of many climate factors is poor (WGI chapter 2, table 2-11, pg 201) and that models have known flaws (chapter 8), including the inability to properly model (i.e. describe and predict) natural climate forces such as the occurence of El Nino events.

I am baffled that anyone believes incomplete - and it logically follows, inaccurate - climate models. Sadly the pivotal chapter of the 2007 IPCC report was written by climate modellers who of course are reluctant to admit that their models aren't worth a cracker.

Dear Rob, on a recent thread we tried and failed, to break the assertion that the UN demonstrates the following three control mechanisms. It is these that make skeptics skeptical and maintains the single orthodoxy.

1. There is only one International, Global, and non-sovereign governance authority for AGW it is the UN (Through the UNFCCC or FCCC). It is a single entity for governance.

2. The UN has a “single” orthodoxy, which is”Global Warming caused by human C02 emissions.” There is no other orthodoxy from the UN; it is a singular “official” mandatory orthodoxy.

3. The IPCC does not, has not and will never include material from contrary science, only that which supports “their” singular orthodoxy; others may get a mention but no papers. For the UN to do otherwise would be contrary to self interest.

The IPCC’s “modeling” is just another example of “their science” supporting only “their” orthodoxy.

Contrary science has been asleep at the wheel for too long, this is where the challenge must come from.

The author wrote: "Without the large opportunity costs of climate modelling we might choose to invest more in surface and upper-air global observing networks."

I do not understand. I thought climate modelling is merely using the data from observations to make a coherent picture of what is happening to our climate. If we are not going to do any climate modelling I see no point in gathering data.

Very good idea

If models predict warming

We should ignore them

Shintaro

Gold!

Unfortunately the models come from the perspective that Carbon Dioxide produces the changes that occur in the climate. Therefore the models do not work. The point to modelling is that they need to work and clearly they do not. Anyone who wants to develop a model needs to start from scratch and take out the assumption that Carbon Dioxide is bad and then see if a model can be developed that actually does work.