This way of thinking might be much more appropriate when it comes to analyzing
current economic problems like the highly
complex phenomenon of the financial crisis of 2008
than the former neoclassical
models, because the latter seem in complete lack of practical applicability.
The world's climate is way too
complex... with way too many significant global and regional variables (e.g., solar, volcanic and geologic activity, variations in the strength and path of the jet stream and major ocean
currents, the seasons created by the tilt of the earth, and the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere, which by the way is many times more effective at holding heat near the surface of the earth
than is carbon dioxide, a non-toxic, trace gas that all plant life must have to survive, and that produce the oxygen that WE need to survive) to consider for any so - called climate
model to generate a reliable and reproducible predictive
model.
Right or wrong, I think Stephen's article clearly demonstrates that
current climate
models are using the equivalent of Grade 2 mathematics to solve something probably more
complex than Einsteinian physics.