Ben zelf geologisch modeller: ervaring daar is ‘all models are wrong (in terms of predicting the future of complex systems with limited data/understanding), but some models are useful (to evaluate alternative future development options)’.

Wellicht dat het dus ook in de klimaat modellen nuttig kan zijn om meer aandacht te geven aan onzekerheden, en hun impact op verschillende mitigatie / adaptatie opties, en welke extra of nieuwe data nodig is om modellen te verbeteren….

typo…

The rest of the papers doesn’t have a position

The figures for the authors who don’t give a position in the abstract of their paper, but give their opinion in the second round is very interesting:

Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus.

That gives a complete different view on the 60% papers which don’t give an opinion in their abstracts. If we may use that figure for all of the 60%, then we have complete different ratio’s of endorsement for AGW:

Within the margins of error of the search (which still are huge):
97% of 3894 papers (with position in the abstract) + 53.8% of 7931 papers (without position) = 67.4% of 11944 papers which endorse the AGW position. The rest of the papers doesn’t have no position (the bulk), are neutral or oppose AGW.

That is the figure that Cook should have published. That would have him spared a lot of criticism.