I am a scientist, albeit not a climate scientist, and I would be interested in seeing some examples of this. I don’t regularly follow the climate science journals, I have neither the time nor the interest, but if scientists have been presenting fraudulent results, exaggerating effects, and dismissing or ignoring measurements that did not agree with their “narrative” and doing so for years, I would love to see evidence of that! That would be huge news in the science community! So what scientists have been doing that and how have they been censured?
By the way, no scientists I know have a “narrative”. They have hypothesis; is this what you mean? That scientists have been holding onto a theory in spite of evidence that conflicts said theory? Can you elaborate what you mean and show examples of this too?
---
### Author:  [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/44 "2017-05-09T22:07:34Z")
> [@davida03801](#):
>
> The problem with advocates is that they are advocates. They believe in the righteousness of their cause to the exclusion of all else, including the truth … Climate change advocates is not immune to this … Keep that in mind when you view any climate models.
The first sentence is true. But it’s irrelevant to this discussion, unless you misspelled “scientists”, in which case none of what you said makes any sense and contravenes the fundamental principles of science. This misspelling of “scientists” as “advocates” is very annoying, as if every climate scientist was a charter member of Greenpeace by profession instead of actually being, you know, a researcher in a scientific discipline.
The problem with any incompetent amateur armchair analysis of scientific evidence is that it is, by definition, amateur and uninformed, and if said incompetent also has a self-interested preconceived opinion, then the resultant conclusions will generally be wrong. That’s why we rely on scientists for scientific advice, and doctors for medical advice, and engineers for engineering advice.
The argument against “climate models” is beyond absurd – it’s at the level of “not even wrong”, just stupid. There’s no such monolithic entity as “a” climate model. There are everything from simple energy balance models right up to coupled atmosphere-ocean global circulation models and comprehensive earth system models; there are weather models, and short-term climate models, and long-term climate models; there are finely grained regional models and large-scale models and global models. What models do the denialists think are “wrong”? In what respect – temperature projections, sea level rise, ice melt or ice cover projections, vegetation change projections, or any of the hundreds of other factors?
Specific critiques of specific model behaviors invariably turn out to be misleading as already noted about the arguments cited by the OP. It’s based on the tired old tradition of implicitly assuming that a complex subject is actually very simple, presenting some misleading and simplistically simple piece of evidence as an apparent flaw, and then letting stupid armchair analysts reach stupid conclusions – the same armchair analysts that have no problem at all relying on science and medicine for expert guidance in areas where they don’t have a vested interest.
The short answer to it all is that climate models build up simulations from physical basics about which there is no doubt whatsoever, such as the forcing that is imposed on the climate system by every increment of CO2, which is given by the CO2 radiative transfer code, and which is at levels unprecedented in millions of years. There is no doubt about the rapid melting of the Arctic and the general loss of ice mass in the Antarctic, the rise of sea levels, and record global annual temperatures being set year after year.
It gets more complex when factoring in how large-scale feedbacks – mostly positive ones but some negative ones, too – affect the net global climate forcing. It gets still more complex when trying to relate the net forcing to projections of global temperature change in any particular timeframe, or with global circulation changes or hundreds of other physical manifestations that are modeled in climate simulations, but some of those destabilizations are associated with subjectively small temperature changes and many are already being observed, like significant precipitation anomalies. But the uncertainties in more specific projections should never obscure the fact that present CO2 concentrations and directly observable changes in the earth’s energy balance are completely unprecedented in human history and pose a serious threat to the stability of the climate system.
---
### Author:  [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2017, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/45 "2017-05-10T01:36:28Z")
> [@drewder](#):
>
> As they say 95% of climate models agree that the observations are wrong. [http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/](http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/)
And, my flippant response would be that in fact the history of corrections to Spencer and Christy’s analysis of the temperature record provided by satellites shows that indeed this is correct…The “observations” for lower tropospheric temperature trends in the early days (1990s), which initially showed cooling, were in fact incorrect and the climate models were correct. If one looks back at why the temperature trend disagreed so dramatically with the latest version of their analysis (which may or may not really be correct itself), about half the error was caused by the shortness of the data record at that time and about half was caused by errors in their analysis that have since been corrected.
---
### Author:  [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2017, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/46 "2017-05-10T08:26:03Z")
> [@davida03801](#):
>
> The problem with advocates is that they are advocates. They believe in the righteousness of their cause to the exclusion of all else, including the truth. One of the more important things to them is to convert the non-believers to their side. Therefore they will gladly falsify their data, exaggerate their claims and the effects of their cause, and dismiss and excuse anything to the contrary.
>
> **This is often true of advocates on both sides of the political aisle.** Every few months there is an example of this that reaches the news in one form or another. The most recent that pops into my mind is the U of Virginia Rape article in Rolling Stone. Proven to be totally false.
>
> Climate change advocates is not immune to this. They had their share of falsification of data claims. They have for years been exaggerating the claims they make on the effects to occur, and they dismiss and excuse anything that does not fit their narrative.
>
> Keep that in mind when you view any climate models.
(Coloring mine.)
In this post, you made two completely distinct, unrelated statements, as I have highlighted here. In the first statement, you complain about advocates. And there’s really nothing wrong with that statement. There have been plenty of global warming advocates that missed the mark. “An Inconvenient Truth” had some famously bad scientific claims in it (although on the whole it wasn’t that bad, and it was far better than its opposite, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which was pretty much just all wrong all the time), Greenpeace is often full of shit, and quite a few advocates flub more complex facts such as [why islands are sinking or whether hurricanes are increasing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pa8duiMiS0).
Then, out of nowhere, in the second statement, you start talking about scientific models, which have exactly fuck-all to do with “advocates”, unless we’re talking about models made by amateurs, rather than peer-reviewed science work, which is what most people mean by “climate models”. I’m not sure what the connection is, honestly; maybe you can clarify it?
---
### Author:  [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2017, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/47 "2017-05-10T16:13:57Z")
Climate models do not produce certainties … they produce probabilities … we shouldn’t be expecting accuracy …
We have a scientific theory about this … so the question we put to the models is whether the models confirm this theory … we do want to avoid “proof by graph”, but gee whiz look at these graphs … _clearly_ we’re on the right path to understanding … these models are a great tool, but the tool itself builds nothing …
[smile] … these models are getting better and better … whatever value the models are _today_ … they will be much much better in just a few years … climatology as a science is in it’s infancy, without these new fangled computers we’d be stuck modeling N-S with slide rules … hahaha …
Yes, the climate models are inaccurate … but we know _exactly_ how inaccurate they are, and can assign probabilities to their results … that’s just as important and maybe the best we can hope for …
---
### Author:  [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2017, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/48 "2017-05-10T21:57:28Z")
The biggest uncertainty regarding future climate is not the technical accuracy of the models but the extent to which we will be willing and able to mitigate carbon emissions. That’s why a lot of the important modeling work is currently being done based on four different climate forcing assumptions for the year 2100 called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), ranging from the best possible mitigation scenario that would result in an increased forcing of 2.6 W/m[sup]2[/sup] to a worst-case business as usual scenario that is projected to lead to an increased forcing of 8.5 W/m[sup]2[/sup].
If we fail to take sufficient action based on the stupid excuse that climate models are somehow “not good enough”, then we end up with the worst case, and with catastrophic and irreversible consequences. We know this not only from models, but from direct observations of events already happening and from paleoclimate evidence of the results of [previous abrupt changes in climate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrupt_climate_change). The most concerning aspects are increased incidence of extreme weather, rising sea level, ocean acidification, loss of biodiversity, significant and long-term changes in some regional climates, and the potential that we could hit irreversible tipping points like changes to the earth’s thermohaline circulation. All of these are risk factors and they don’t all need to happen to pose a serious threat – any of them could have serious consequences, and some are already happening.
---
### Author:  [@davida03801](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davida03801)
#### Post date: [May 11, 2017, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/49 "2017-05-11T12:14:28Z")
> [@scr4](#):
>
> But most scientists are not advocates for a specific scientific theory or result. Keep _that_ in mind when reviewing science papers.
I will agree with you on most scientists, and in most subjects but not all.
However climate change is a subject in which the line between being an impartial scientist and being an advocate is very thin and not clear. My belief is that a number of scientists studying this issue are not impartial and have crossed the line to being an advocate. That is my point.
---
### Author:  [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)
#### Post date: [May 11, 2017, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/50 "2017-05-11T12:57:20Z")
> [@davida03801](#):
>
> I will agree with you on most scientists, and in most subjects but not all.
>
> However climate change is a subject in which the line between being an impartial scientist and being an advocate is very thin and not clear. My belief is that a number of scientists studying this issue are not impartial and have crossed the line to being an advocate. That is my point.
Taking your premise as granted: yes, much in the same way scientists studying the ozone layer in the 80s did: by necessity.
“Hey, Paul, I dunno if you noticed, but if we don’t do something, a whole lot of people are going to die and shit’s gonna get really fucked up.”
“Hmm, well, yes, this is true, but I don’t want to be branded an ‘advocate’, so maybe we’d best just keep publishing papers, and let other people deal with it.”
Is that how you’d rather it go down? Because I don’t think that’s a particularly good way to do it, and I don’t think it’s fair to expect the people closest to the subject matter to ignore the moral imperatives of their own findings. And meanwhile, none of this does anything to address the actual scientific findings or the data, or to point to any impropriety in the actual research.
But that, of course, is taking your claims as granted. Which I don’t. I think it’s an absurd claim based on absolutely nothing. I think a great many climatologists, particularly those most often in the firing line like Michael Mann, have been entirely impartial and reasonable on the subject. The people who have been “advocates” and made claims out of sync with the evidence are people like Willy Soon and John Christy.
---
### Author:  [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)
#### Post date: [May 11, 2017, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/51 "2017-05-11T14:13:05Z")
> [@davida03801](#):
>
> I will agree with you on most scientists, and in most subjects but not all.
>
> However climate change is a subject in which the line between being an impartial scientist and being an advocate is very thin and not clear. My belief is that a number of scientists studying this issue are not impartial and have crossed the line to being an advocate. That is my point.
How many? Who? Let’s name some names.
Regardless, i have to know what the overall point of this is. Let’s say there are a dozen or so scientists that have become advocates (however you want to define it); does that invalidate the work of the other several thousand researchers in climate fields? Does their advocacy make ALL the science wrong? What about the advocacy of people like Mockton? What effect does that have on the field?
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
---
### Author:  [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)
#### Post date: [May 11, 2017, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/52 "2017-05-11T14:19:05Z")
> [@davida03801](#):
>
> However climate change is a subject in which the line between being an impartial scientist and being an advocate is very thin and not clear. My belief is that a number of scientists studying this issue are not impartial and have crossed the line to being an advocate. That is my point.
Which ones?
And if you are talking about ones that are public advocates - why do you think it’s their advocacy and political bias that is influencing their science, rather than their scientific findings motivating their advocacy?
---
### Author:  [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)
#### Post date: [May 11, 2017, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/53 "2017-05-11T14:29:56Z")
> [@wolfpup](#):
>
> [snip] … with **catastrophic** and irreversible consequences … [snap]
The word I emphasized above is ill-defined in science … it’s a philosophical term …
> [@wolfpup](#):
>
> [snip] … The most concerning aspects are increased incidence of extreme weather … [snap]
The poles are warming faster than the equator … this would inhibit violent and extreme weather events …
Hyperbole may have a place in some discussions … but let’s try and keep it within the laws of nature … because if there’s supernatural and/or philosophical forces involved, we’re fucked no matter what we do …
I’m curious as to the probabilities of the 2.6 W/m[sup]2[/sup] and 8.5 W/m[sup]2[/sup] numbers you’ve given … and what results have the _highest_ probability … because the way you’ve stated this data, you’re implying that it’s accurate to 0.05 W/m[sup]2[/sup] … or is this just more hyperbole? …
I think global warming is a whole lot less of a problem now that Hanford has begun disgorging her nuclear waste … 5ºC doesn’t make any difference to a biosphere full of plutonium waste … just saying …
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [May 11, 2017, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/54 "2017-05-11T14:41:05Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> But that, of course, is taking your claims as granted. Which I don’t. I think it’s an absurd claim based on absolutely nothing. I think a great many climatologists, particularly those most often in the firing line like Michael Mann, have been entirely impartial and reasonable on the subject. The people who have been “advocates” and made claims out of sync with the evidence are people like Willy Soon and John Christy.
Indeed, many times those advocates of inaction rely of the support from industries that would benefit the most from that advocacy.
> **[Smithsonian Gives Nod to More 'Dark Money' Funding for Willie Soon - Inside...](https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05042016/willie-soon-climate-change-contrarian-harvard-smithsonian-donors-trust-dark-money/)**
>
> The Smithsonian Institution’s new transparency policy hasn’t kept prominent climate contrarian Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon from reeling in $65,000 in “dark money” to fund a secret research project. The grant came just days after the Smithsonian, the U.S....
> [@](#):
>
> Soon’s previous failure to divulge funding sources prompted the institution to impose new transparency rules. Researchers now must report the source of any grants of at least $10,000 when publishing under their Smithsonian affiliation. It was revealed last year that Soon published 11 studies in nine scientific journals without disclosing that fossil fuel interests financed the work. Many of Soon’s papers questioned the extent, severity, cause or existence of man-made climate change brought on primarily by the burning of fossil fuels.
>
> “Donors Trust is nothing more than a pass-through black box on the other side of which is a vested interest being obscured by the anonymity process,” said Robert Brulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University in Philadelphia. “It gives us no transparency, only mistrust.”
And “experts” like that got the ear of conservatives with the willful help of professional poisoners of the discussion like Newt Gingrich and later Republicans.
[http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-key-reason-why-u-s-politicians-dont-understand-scien-1575132934](http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-key-reason-why-u-s-politicians-dont-understand-scien-1575132934)
> [@](#):
>
> ```
> In defending his party's dismantling of OTA, Gingrich has advocated what one might call a "free market" approach to scientific and technical expertise. In the Speaker's view, members of Congress should take the initiative to call individual scientists and inform themselves, much as Gingrich himself did…. "Gingrich's view was always, 'I'll set up one-on-one interactions between members of Congress and key members of the scientific community,'" recalls Bob Palmer, former Democratic staff director of the House Committee on Science. "Which I thought was completely bizarre. I mean, who comes up with these people, and who decides they're experts, and what member of Congress really wants to do that?"
>
> But quality scientific advice needs an institutional structure and consistent procedures and methodologies behind it; it can't simply be privatized….With OTA gone, Gingrich's troops didn't hesitate to invoke their own favored experts to undermine the scientific mainstream in hearings devoted to subjects such as ozone depletion and global warming. The attacks came as the new Republican majority sought to free up the market in another way as well–by ramming through a major "regulatory reform" bill that would have prescribed rigid and inflexible rules governing the use of science to protect public health and the environment.
>
> ```
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [May 11, 2017, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/55 "2017-05-11T16:17:04Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#):
>
> The poles are warming faster than the equator … this would inhibit violent and extreme weather events …
Uh, nope.
> [@](#):
>
> I’m a research professor at Rutgers university in the marine sciences department. I’ve been working there for the last 15 years or so, the jet stream is a very high level or high up in the atmosphere flow of winds. You can think of it like a river of wind
> high up in the atmosphere that goes completely around the northern hemisphere and it has kind of a wavy line that it follows and these waves in the jet stream are what forms the storms, the weather that we actually feel around the surface.
> [@](#):
>
> Now the reason the jet stream is important is because it marks the dam that contains the cold air to the north and the warm air to the south, the jet stream is south of you, you’re going to have a very cold winter. The jet stream pushes to the north of you well you get very warm conditions and record warmth.
> [@](#):
>
> It’s very much consistent with the kinds of patterns that we expect to see happening more of and it just is all a question of where these waves happen to set up at any given year but it’s it’s the same idea. Once the jet stream gets into one of these very wavy patterns it’s very slow to shift, now many types of extreme weather are related to weather patterns that get stuck. If you will so think of a drought, for example, it happens when you have dry weather for a very long time.
>
> Heat waves, maybe you had one hot day it’s not news but if you have a whole string of them like we had in Texas this summer that becomes big news or if you have snow storm after snowstorm like we had last winter and the winter before along the east coast that’s also big news so what we’re finding is this tendency for these waves to move more slowly in the jet stream, is increasing the probability for the types of extreme weather that are related to slow-moving weather conditions or prolonged weather conditions or weather patterns that seem to be stuck.
>
> These types of weather patterns are not new in themselves and there’s always been droughts as always been snow storms and so forth but what we expect to see is the fact that they’re occurring but they may last longer somewhere and so their impact will be stronger.
BTW, that was Jennifer Frances from Rutgers University, the very same researcher whose research was used by climate change contrarians in the past in an attempt at telling us that we were cooling down.
---
### Author:  [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)
#### Post date: [May 11, 2017, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/56 "2017-05-11T18:02:48Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#):
>
> The word I emphasized above is ill-defined in science … it’s a philosophical term …
When science provides input into direct impacts to our lives and well-being, words like “catastrophic” are appropriate when justified by the evidence, which as noted below, is an appropriate description for RCP 8.5.
> [@watchwolf49](#):
>
> The poles are warming faster than the equator … this would inhibit violent and extreme weather events …
I don’t know where you get this kind of amazing bullshit, but it’s the diametric opposite of the reality. There is a great deal of research supporting the idea of weather systems becoming disproportionately more extreme in response to increased forcing and temperature rise – see for instance the IPCC AR5 WG1 assessment or the older [IPCC Special Report on Extreme Weather](http://www.ipcc.ch/report/srex/).
> [@watchwolf49](#):
>
> Hyperbole may have a place in some discussions … but let’s try and keep it within the laws of nature … because if there’s supernatural and/or philosophical forces involved, we’re fucked no matter what we do …
>
> I’m curious as to the probabilities of the 2.6 W/m[sup]2[/sup] and 8.5 W/m[sup]2[/sup] numbers you’ve given … and what results have the _highest_ probability … because the way you’ve stated this data, you’re implying that it’s accurate to 0.05 W/m[sup]2[/sup] … or is this just more hyperbole? …
There was no “hyperbole” before and none now. As previously stated, the probabilities are largely dependent on what we are willing to do to reduce emissions. RPC 8.5 is a fairly straightforward extrapolation of the consequences by 2100 of staying on the current emissions trajectory – i.e.- of basically doing nothing. [According to NOAA projections](https://sos.noaa.gov/Datasets/dataset.php?id=438), under this scenario CO2 levels rise to 936ppm by 2100 making the global temperature rise by about 5-6°C by 2100.
One needs to keep that figure in mind – 5-6°C temperature rise – when looking at these impact projections (from the Summary for Policymakers, IPCC AR5 WG2 assessment on Impacts and Adaptation). These projections talk about impact risks with just a one degree or two degree temperature rise, and again, with greater temperature rises the risks and impacts increase disproportionately – and this is not a complete list, just a few that illustrate the risks:
[ul]
[li]Extreme weather events: Climate-change-related risks from extreme events, such as heat waves, extreme precipitation, and coastal flooding, are already moderate (high confidence) and high with 1°C additional warming (medium confidence).[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Risks of global aggregate impacts are moderate for additional warming between 1–2°C, reflecting impacts to both Earth’s biodiversity and the overall global economy (medium confidence). Extensive biodiversity loss with associated loss of ecosystem goods and services results in high risks around 3°C additional warming (high confidence). Aggregate economic damages accelerate with increasing temperature …[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Large-scale singular events: With increasing warming, some physical systems or ecosystems may be at risk of abrupt and irreversible changes. Risks associated with such tipping points become moderate between 0–1°C [of further] additional warming, due to early warning signs that both warm-water coral reef and Arctic ecosystems are already experiencing irreversible regime shifts.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Unique and threatened systems: Some unique and threatened systems, including ecosystems and cultures, are already at risk from climate change (high confidence). The number of such systems at risk of severe consequences is higher with additional warming of around 1°C. Many species and systems with limited adaptive capacity are subject to very high risks with additional warming of 2°C, particularly Arctic-sea-ice and coral-reef systems.[/li][/ul]
---
### Author:  [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2017, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141/57 "2017-05-12T08:46:20Z")
> [@scr4](#):
>
> Which ones?
>
> And if you are talking about ones that are public advocates - why do you think it’s their advocacy and political bias that is influencing their science, rather than their scientific findings motivating their advocacy?
Take, for example, Richard Muller of [Berkeley Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth). An outspoken critic of climate models, who was funded by Koch and co. to develop a new and better methodology to disprove the consensus.
> [@](#):
>
> Given project leader Muller’s well-publicised concerns regarding the quality of climate change research, other critics anticipated that the Berkeley Earth study would be a vindication of their stance. For example, when the study team was announced, Anthony Watts, a blogger who popularized several of the issues addressed by the Berkeley Earth group study, expressed full confidence in the team’s methods:
>
> _I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. … [T]he method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren’t any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell. … That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet._
>
> — Anthony Watts[17]
Of course Watts backtracked after Muller’s results were published:
[QUOTE=Richard Muller]
“Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”
[/QUOTE]
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-models-inaccurate/786141.md?page=2)