“You might think that some input choices are more reasonable or defensible than others, but no, “reasonable” is very much in the eye of the modeler. Thus these models can be used to obtain almost any result one desires.”

Bjørnskov, du skulle lige læse en ny artikel, der udkommer i Journal of Economic Literature til september. Den er skrevet af Robert S Pindyck, som bestemt ikke er klimaskeptiker.

Jeg har sjældent set så ligefremt et abstract:
.
.
Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?

Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models’ descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading.

Jeg blev opmærksom på artiklen her:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/seneste-avisartikler-om-klimadebatten-d12-e2346-s80.php#post_38543

Det er i virkeligheden dybt skræmmende, at manden kan slippe afsted med så vanvittige udtalelser.