Hacker News Reader

The models are useless. Or very useful: you can choose any you like to prove a point.

Which is why, for this type of research, you use an ensemble of multiple competing models, which also helps with extracting probabilities. If you think their methodology is flawed, then have the decency to respect the enormous amount of effort that goes into this kind of research and point out actual, specific flaws.

They won't.

An old friend of mine is a professor who studies climate change. They fairly consistently get hate mail from people who insist that computer modeling as an entire discipline is utterly worthless and should be dismissed without any investigation. There are no reasoned criticisms coming from the denier community.

I respect the research. That's a different thing than having any confidence in the models created. I also do not think that methodology is flawed, but that it does not produce reliable results (yet) because of the enormous complexity involved.

Why do you feel that the people who work on and with these models for their careers have different opinions than you?

Most models point roughly in the same direction. Read the IPCC reports for expert interpretation of the ensembles.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com