Researchers have found that climate change models have poor long term forecast accuracy. They also do no better than random walk. See here..
http://www.thegwpf.com/ross-mckitric...-reality-test/
It has been shown that physics and climatology adds little. Government policy on climate change is based on models that are outperformed by random walk.
This means that the optimum way to address climate change is to toss a coin and go with the result rather than take some policy based on fitting models to data which gives a result worse than 50%
ZNP seems a true believer in the power of science to predict the future just as economists are believers in the ability to forecast markets. Just as we can't accurately forecast markets we cannot accuratey forecast climate.
Just as investors lose thousands listening to the experts who claim they can predict the future by drawing a trend ...those who claim they can forecast climate are selling a lie.
It is the human way to see patterns in data which arent really there. It fools people in finance and fools people in science too. Most of all it fools the general public.
The optimum way to address climate change is not to look at the weather going up because of some ficticious trend line in the data over a random walk and then panic and implement costly policies that destroy industries. That gives a result less than 50 percent success.
Scientists don't like simple random models because their careers are built on their knowledge being valued. A model without physics puts many of them out of a job with no papers to publish. They need to be seen as valued by governments. No scientist is going to tell a government that they only need to toss a coin.
ZNPs detailed and thorough post of all the factors remind me of a financial advisor explaining all the reasons why the company stock price went up or down. But they are no better at predicting it than chance.