There’s no reason the IPCC can’t report on more conservative models whilst keeping all relevant effects in accurate models. Usually their conservatism is in choosing more realistic assumptions. In this case they ignored a realistic effect.
I’m not siding with anyone. I’m criticising a particular groups models which they have admitted to not contain critical effects and thus don’t match recent observations. I don’t deny climate change, I deny that the IPCC models are good.
Yes, that's precisely the sort of thing that would elicit flak. If they openly say "here is an under-egged model for the climate deniers, but here is the real, alarming model" which one do you think their climate-denying flack machines are going to take aim at?
"No, you think fox news would really do that? cherry pick data?!" :)
So just to clarify, you agree that “the models are inaccurate” is true, but that is is because of pressure from climate deniers and is systematically conservative.
So because of political pressure, the modellers didn’t include a well known effect and missed predicting the highest temperatures on record. A model confirming event which could have convinced millions that climate is worth worrying about.
But instead the IPCC listened to fox and neutered their models? I think that is a lot less likely than “their models aren’t very accurate, they simplified a part of the model which turned out to be very important.”
I’m not siding with anyone. I’m criticising a particular groups models which they have admitted to not contain critical effects and thus don’t match recent observations. I don’t deny climate change, I deny that the IPCC models are good.