In a number of recent postings, I have criticized the dominating role computer models are playing in the global warming debate. Here is the conclusion of a recent posting from Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. The entire post is here.
Why is this a problem? Because at the heart of science is the reproducible and testable hypothesis. Climate models provide neither.
The University of Chicago Center, as presented in the news release and on the CIM-EARTH website, appear to be perpetuating the scientifically flawed approach of using untestable climate model predictions to communicate economic and other human impacts decades from now to policymakers as robust science. The National Science Foundation needs to be challenged on their funding of studies which are based on untestable multi-decadal global climate model predictions.