[LINK] the weather makers

[Danny Yee]

Alan L Tyree wrote:
> But a form of "validation" certainly requires "predicting" the past to
> give some confidence in the models. My confidence in the models would
> be greatly increased if they were shown to "predict" the 20th century.
> Doesn't need to be entirely accurate, of course, but it should at least
> be able to identify the high points.
 
The models we have _do_ accurately fit many of the historical data
we have.  Heck, some of them match historical data back a long way
before the 20th century (Milankovitch cycles and suchlike).

Sure, we'd like to have more, and more accurate, historical data --
and there are people working on obtaining this, from ice cores and
tree rings and all kinds of other sources.  And we'd like to have
better models -- and there are people working on this too, continuously
refining models to reflect better understanding of mechanisms, better
data, faster computers, and so forth.

Making blanket assertions that climate models aren't any good is
just wrongheaded.  If you have concrete suggestions as to ways
they could be improved, go for it.  If you are pointing out that
they have uncertainties and errors, well that's how science works.
If you just want to spread vague doubts and general FUD, then you're
doing no one any service.

There is no conspiracy on the part of thousands of climate scientists
to not look for or to ignore fundamental data and mechanisms.

Danny.