There seems to be a gradual realisation in the climate science arena that the various computer models of climate are hall marked with “Failures, Flops and Fumbles” and that if only we could get extra funding to construct even more complex models, then all will be solved.
Albert Einstein is alleged to have written that insanity could be defined as the expectation that repeating an experiment will lead to new results, here by the use of ever more complex global circulation models finally proving that increasing atmospheric CO2 will cause climate problems.
The point I want to make is that in terms of the scientific method, if the various iterations of the global circulation models (GCMs) or climate models keep failing, then it isn’t the models that are at fault per se, but that the theory these models are based on which is wrong; to wit that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causes the atmosphere’s temperature to rise.
All computerised climate models assume as a starting point the definition of climate sensitivity, that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause a rise in atmospheric temperature, and if these models keep failing, as is the documented case, then it’s the theory that is the problem, not the models. Since global warming is inbuilt into the climate models, and the models still fail, then it’s the assumption of climate sensitivity that appears to be flawed.
As I pointed to in a previous post, the belief that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to a Venusian Hell here on earth was based on Carl Sagan’s fabrication of the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus to counter Velikovsky’s deduction that if Venus was indeed seen by our ancestors to have been recently formed, as related in various histories, then it had to be extremely hot as a result of its relative youth as a planet.