I think climate modeling is a useful tool and has been shown to coincide quite well with observed data. This allows for rough extrapolation into the future.
I agree.
However, one major problem with climate modeling is that they depend on lots of variables which are chosen by biased people (everyone has bias and everyone wants more funding by getting conclusive results that support their funding organizations).
Climate modeling does have lots of variables, that is one reason why it is important to understand what variables are used in what models and why those variables are used and not others.
However, I take some issue with the second part of that statement. In essence, you are accusing climate scientists of wrong doing and deliberate misrepresentation. I can give many citations for non climate scientists doing that, but not the actual practicing climate scientists.
These variables are "inputs" into the model which a researcher punches in directly. For example, the IPCC report used a 1% increase in CO2 emissions per year as their standard input for CO2 increase. This input was chosen for a variety of reasons but biases, ideology and pride are bound to come into it.
Can you cite which IPCC report used a 1% standard input, something doesn't sound right there. Direct measurements since 1950 have shown the average annual increase of CO2 to be 2 ppm. And again, you are making unsupported statements about wrong doing. You may believe that but anyone caught doing such a thing in any scientific field would immediately loose favor with the greater scientific community.
A researcher could tweak his inputs to make them believable but still give the results he wants.
No one is more critical toward scientists than scientists themselves. You just can't get away with such foolishness as that. The peer review process is not perfect, but I don't know of a better process.
Because of this, I am actually happier when I see future climate predictions with large error bars.
Error bars are statistically produced. All they do is show uncertainty. Do not think small error bars would be better since they demonstrate greater certainty.
If I see a researcher saying, "The Earth is going to be exactly 1.5 degrees warmer in the next twenty years" then I am skeptical.
You should be, because no sane scientist is going to use the word "exactly", nor does any published peer review climate science say exactly.
There's a lot of error, a lot of unknowns, a lot of variables to deal with. Perhaps trends can be established, but that's as far as I'll go.
Surely you are not suggesting that because there are unknowns that climate scientists don't know anything. Climate is defined as a 30 year trend or greater as opposed to weather which deals with day to day changes. The reason for such a long period for a trend to be valid is eliminate the noise which doesn't affect climate. Such noise includes volcanic eruptions, ENSO, PDO and sun spot cycles to name a few. They are oscillation and affect weather and climate on the short term, not the long term.
