Er, no, he doesn't say that the main climate model is useless, or that "it's rubbish and doesn't work". He doesn't say anything even slightly like that. It doe

Er, no, he doesn't say that the main climate model is useless, or that "it's rubbish and doesn't work". He doesn't say anything even slightly like that. It doesn't make any difference what judgements he pronounces. What matters most is his factual observations. At one point he notes that a sum of squares routine sometimes produces a negative result(!). He also notes that they are not able to reproduce their earlier results using the model. Reproducibility is one of the foundations of science. Not only can others not reproduce their results, they can't even reproduce their own results. This raises a further question that I haven't seen mentioned: was this code and data under version control? And was that lack of version control considered a bug or a feature? We are talking about billions of dollars being spent based on models that apparently had no source control . If they did, they should be able to reproduce.