One of the things we have noticed here at Nobel Intent is how some topics tend to generate the same forum comments. These are usually topics for which there is some emotional connection, such as embryonic stem cells or climate change. It means that the forum debate doesn't focus on what is new in the article; instead, it generally covers the same ground over and over again.
I personally stay away from such forum discussions for precisely this reason, even though I may think the findings are interesting and may be willing to comment on them. In an effort to move the debate beyond certain hurdles, we felt that articles that outlined in detail why scientists hold to a certain opinion were appropriate. I don't hold the hope that these articles will change anyone's opinion. Rather, by understanding why someone believes something to be true, the discussion can move beyond those issues and onto new terrain.
In this article I take a look at climate modeling and in particular why the comment "They can't predict the weather, therefore climate models are not good" is just plain wrong. It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what climate modelers are trying to achieve, what is achievable and why the weather is unpredictable.
Why weather != climate: the engine behind climate models