Isn't it funny how you haven't read about this anywhere?
"My main complaint with the IPCC is in the methods used to 'evaluate' computer models. Proper 'validation' of models should involve proved evidence that they are capable of future prediction within the range required, and to a satisfactory level of accuracy. Without this procedure, no self-respecting computer engineer would dare to make use of a model for prediction. No computer climate model has ever been tested in this way, so none should be used for prediction. They sort of accept this by never permitting the use of the term 'prediction', only 'projection'. But they then go ahead predicting anyway.
There is a basic logical principle that a correlation, however convincing, is not proof of causation. Most scientists pay at least lip service to this principle, but its widespread lack of acceptance by the general public have led to IPCC to explore it as one of their methods of 'evaluating' models.' The models are so full of inaccurately known parameters and equations that it is comparatively easy to 'fudge' an approximate fit to the few climate sequences that might respond. This sort of evidence is the main feature of most of the current promotional lectures.
The most elaborate of all their evaluation' techniques is far more dubious. Since they have failed to show that any models are actually capable of prediction, they have decided to 'evaluate' them by asking the opinions of those who originate them, people with a financial interest in their success. This has become so complex that many have failed to notice that it has no scientific basis, but is just an assembly of the 'gut feelings' of self-styled 'experts'. It has been developed to a complex web of 'likelihoods', all of which are assigned fake 'probability' levels.
By drawing attention to these obvious facts I have now found myself persona non grata with most of my local professional associations, Surely, I am questioning the integrity of these award-winning scientific leaders of the local science establishment. When you get down to it, that is what is involved.
I somehow understood that the threshold had been passed when I viewed 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. Yes, we have to face it. The whole process is a swindle, The IPCC from the beginning was given the licence to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide evidence' that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to 'prove' their case."