Why do you think the models are inaccurate?
Back around 2000ish when ipcc climate modeling first started getting some mainstream attention (or at least when I started paying attention) and of course Gore helped bring them to prominence with his movie, the dire predictions of the models never came to fruition.
Since then, to my knowledge the methodology of generating these models hasn't changed. They make the model based upon historic data. They then test the model against historic data to determine if it is accurate.
I understand why this is how they do it, unlike with other disciplines where you can carry out experiments in the short term waiting 10-20 years to get feedback on the accuracy of your model is clearly sub-optimal.
But the way science is supposed to work is you test your understanding by making future predictions. And this is where the models to my knowledge continue to fail.
And when I say fail, I don't mean they aren't perfect. I don't expect them to be perfect, but they are not even close. At least the model predictions that were made in the past and we've now can look back at and see.
Further, if you watch that video link you can see analysis done on the models and see the propagation of error over time. Roughly paraphrasing the main point of the video is that all the models allow the propagation of large amounts of error over time so the further out the prediction the more error has been introduced.
Also, I get the complexity of global climate and making models of such a complex system. But this is precisely why the overselling "the science is settled" type rhetoric doesn't help the cause but actually generates distrust.
I seriously doubt you can find prominent physicist that will announce the science is settled when it comes to gravity. And yet we can so accurately model the celestial mechanics of our solar system that we can launch probes with planned trajectories that intercept planets years in the future.
Perhaps planetary climate modeling is far more complex than gravity, but then lets not get over zealous and make statements like the science is settled and call someone a denier when they are skeptical. After all, all "climate deniers", "global warming skeptics" aren't people that think we faked the moon landing, the earth is flat and the universe is 6k years old.
(My background is data analysis).
Then I would enjoy your feedback at that video especially.
By all means be sceptical about things but sometime you simply have to act on the best information available.
Sure, and this is kinda where these discussions eventually end up.
And I agree, it's better to be proactive. The unfortunate thing here is that now is when the politics gets injected into the matter when you start trying to decide what is sensible based upon our confidence in our predictions.
We don't all feel the same regarding what measures are "sensible".
It's a simplification, sure, but it's true. It was first postulated by the (great) Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius more than a hundred years ago, and no-one have since been able to falsify that hypothesis. Quite to the contrary, it has been supported by data to the extent that it's been a scientific
theory (as in "theory of gravity", "theory of evolution" or "theory of relativity", not as in a TV crime show cop saying "I have a theory") for several decades now.
Sure, "all things being equal more co2 will have a greenhouse effect". That's the big if or premise though, the all things being equal part. Clearly, on the global scale there are many other dynamics and feedback that are involved. Otherwise how would you explain 4000ppm in prehistoric times with glaciation?
