(many thanks to LM for pointing this out)
- “[GCM] model outputs at annual and climatic (30‐year) scales are irrelevant with reality“
- “model predictions are much poorer that an elementary prediction based on the time average“
- “The GCM outputs of AR4, as compared to those of TAR, are a regression in terms of the elements of falsifiability they provide, because most of the AR4 scenarios refer only to the future, whereas TAR scenarios also included historical periods“
Those are not the insane ramblings of yours truly, but the conclusions of D. Koutsoyiannis et al’s “Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series“, a poster presentation at the European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2008 in Vienna, Austria, 13‐18 April 2008.
Of course, it’s only a poster presentation…and of course, there was really no space at all to talk about it in the news, eg on the BBC.
Well, there is one good thing that has come out of this though: some explicit references in RealClimate about the need to have “a very civilized and friendly chat“, “to be respectful, sincere, and show courtesy in our criticism, even when we argue why we think that a paper has flaws“, and that “we some day may be mistaken, so it’s important to be humble and check our drafts amongst ourselves“.
This will mean no more verbal attacks about “negationism”, and few if any displays of condescension. Sure it will…