Computer models are key to
the IPCC circular argument.
Not exact matches
the «kludge»
argument that the
IPCC using indirect modelling makes their
argument «
circular» doesn't have evidence to back it up.
Does
IPCC rely sufficiently on Ammann to make this a
circular argument?
Willis Essenbach brings out how
IPCC is begging the question with a
circular argument on the linearity of climate sensitivity: Climate models assume linearity.
In short, I think although the uncertainties are there, as you correctly point out, the limited information you give can be misleading and the «kludge»
argument that the
IPCC using indirect modelling makes their
argument «
circular» doesn't have evidence to back it up.
But one has to be careful that the unstated assumptions in this
argument by the
IPCC concerning the post 1940 period does not become a
circular argument when comparing to post 1980 period.
I will show here that the first three
IPCC assessment reports contain erroneous scientific
arguments, which have never been retracted or formally corrected, but at least have now been abandoned by the
IPCC — while the last two reports, AR4 and AR5, use an
argument that seems to be
circular and does not support their conclusion.
This subsection argues that the
IPCC's detection and attribution
arguments involve
circular reasoning, and that confidence in the evidence and
argument is elevated by bootstrapped plausibility.
The
IPCC, Al Gore, Jim Hansen, Michael Mann (and all his hockey - stick co-horts), Gavin Schmitt et al... a self - serving
circular argument if ever there was one.
So, essentially, he provides
circular argument of anthropogenic garbage by referencing
IPCC 2007 report, yet
IPCC has stated they do not do science but put together different scenarios using grey literature, propaganda, news clipping, and the supposed science K.T. does.