The majority of scientists working with the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change think not. The San Francisco Chronicle reported last month that most of them find local climate projections unreliable.I agree with much of what's in the article, but one thing I disagree with is:
Pielke dismissed the paper on his Climate Science blog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/), stating that Diffenbaugh's method of prediction is not accurate enough to "add appropriate insight to be used by policymakers."One point I make in my book and here on this blog is that decisions to act are ultimately value judgments. While Pielke Sr. and Christy might not be moved to act based on a new scientific research, that does not mean that everyone shares their values. If I owned a bed and breakfast in VT and much of my business was based on tourists coming in to see the leaves turn every Fall, I'd be very concerned about changes in the New England climate, and might be spurred to act by this new research, even if others were not swayed.
Christy, who's also Alabama's state climatologist, also distrusts localized forecasts. He told the Chronicle, "I would not base economic decisions on the output of regional predictions from these models."