Climate Research needs Re-direction

The CAGW meme and by extension the climate and energy policies of most Western Governments are built on the outputs of climate models. In spite of the inability of weather models to forecast more than about 10 days ahead, the climate modelers have deluded themselves, their employers, the grant giving agencies, the politicians and the general public into believing that they could build climate models capable of accurately forecasting global temperatures for decades and centuries to come.
The modelling approach is inherently of no value for predicting future temperature with any calculable certainty because of the difficulty of specifying the initial conditions of a sufficiently fine grained spatio-temporal grid of a large number of variables with sufficient precision prior to multiple iterations. For a complete discussion of this see Essex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvhipLNeda4
Models are often tuned by running them backwards against several decades of observation, this is
much too short a period to correlate outputs with observation when the controlling natural quasi-periodicities of most interest are in the centennial and especially in the key millennial range. Tuning to these longer periodicities is beyond any computing capacity when using reductionist models with a large number of variables unless these long wave natural periodicities are somehow built into the model structure ab initio
The IPCC climate models are further incorrectly structured because they are based on three irrational and false assumptions. First, that CO2 is the main climate driver. Second, that in calculating climate sensitivity, the GHE due to water vapour should be added to that of CO2 as a positive feed back effect. Third, that the GHE of water vapour is always positive. As to the last point, the feedbacks cannot be always positive otherwise we wouldn’t be here to talk about it. For example, an important negative feed back related to Tropical Cyclones which is not included in the modelshas been investigated by Trenberth, see:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outreach/proceedings/cdw31_proceedings/S6_05_Kevin_Trenberth_NCAR.ppt
Temperature drives CO2 and water vapour concentrations and evaporative and convective cooling independently. The whole CAGW – GHG scare is based on the obvious fallacy of putting the effect before the cause. Unless the range and causes of natural variation, as seen in the natural temperature quasi-periodicities, are known within reasonably narrow limits it is simply not possible to even begin to estimate the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate. In fact, the IPCC recognizes this point.
The key factor in making CO2 emission control policy and the basis for the WG2 and 3 sections of AR5 is the climate sensitivity to CO2. By AR5 – WG1 the IPCC itself is saying: (Section 9.7.3.3)
“The assessed literature suggests that the range of climate sensitivities and transient responses covered by CMIP3/5 cannot be narrowed significantly by constraining the models with observations of the mean climate and variability, consistent with the difficulty of constraining the cloud feedbacks from observations ”
In plain English, this means that the IPCC contributors have no idea what the climate sensitivity is. Therefore, there is no credible basis for the WG 2 and 3 reports, and the Government policy makers have no empirical scientific basis for the entire UNFCCC process and their economically destructive climate and energy policies.
It is time to move away from the IPCC outputs and reports as a basis for discussion of future climate and impacts .The entire UNFCCC circus has no basis in empirical reality and needs to be stopped before it does more damage to the reputation of science and the world economy.
For forecasts of the probable coming cooling based on the natural 60 and 1000 year quasi cycles seen so clearly in the temperature record and using the 10Be and neutron count data as the best proxy for solar activity go to several posts at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Much more likely successful forecasts can be produced at a tiny fraction of the IPCC cost merely by using common sense and staying closer to the empirical data than do the fanciful, politically driven , assumptions of the IPCC modelers,

I tend to vote moderate middle of the road, with a slight liberal bias in that they seem to be the more caring group, basically the lesser of the evils, but I place high value on integrity. The cagw crowd wreaks of dishonesty and ulterior motives and I am angry about all the money being poured into that pit. I will be leaning strongly republican for the near future. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are many middle-of-the-road types feeling the same way now, which could allow republicans to take a strong majority and force some major funding changes for all this climate crap. Their utter refusal to publicly debate this science that has been paid for by the tax payers makes my blood boil, I would happily vote to have climate research funding cut from billions to millions per year, with zero funds going towards models that are demonstrably false. I would like to see more candidates publicly promoting slashing this funding, that would likely get my vote.