No. Making up a model is an absurd way to predict anything, because there is no validation. Useful models have shown to be predictive over time (except when they aren't, and then someone amends the model). "I'll model this by assuming..." is only fooling yourself through confirmation bias. A new model can tell you anything you want it to tell you... An accurate model is the only useful one, and there is rarely any basis for accurate macroeconomic models until decades after a change happens.
Statistics don't come after lies and damn lies accidentally. A naive model of liquid cooling ends in a fatal explosion and the discovery of phase change.
I think models of this type are a useful way of "thinking things through" further than you'd be able to do in your head, and a push to make sure you're being concrete about what you are and are not considering. It's not "doing science", it's not meant to give reliable predictions - there are too many degrees of freedom; it's meant to help with reasoning. It would follow, though, that "The simulation says X, therefore we should Y" is an inappropriate use of it.
Right. The doing science thing is a red herring. Its not claiming to generate reliable conclusions because it is scientific. Its claiming to generate insightful analysis because it is systematic.
That it is systematic implies you can use it to generate insights into things that are causally linked. In the case of tarot cards, that's maybe a little about the traditions it grew out of but not a lot about the present or future. In this case, it's about the reasoning and assumptions you are using in trying to work out whether the policy is a good idea. This is only indirectly tied to the question of whether the policy is in fact a good idea. Insights about that need support of, y'know, evidence. But this kind of thing can totally be useful for understanding what questions need to be asked.
Incidentally, I am not convinced that tarot cards cannot be useful at generating insights - privileging random hypotheses and reconsidering your situation could be a useful means of reducing the impact of hypotheses you're privileging for other reasons. Everything must still be evaluated in light of actual evidence, though, of course, before conclusions are drawn.
That it is systematic implies you can use it to generate insights into things that are causally linked.
Only if the model is accurate. If (as in the case of tarot reading and failed gambling) you have a system that doesn't correspond to the world you will draw conclusions that are detailed and reproducible but not insightful of the world. Inaccurate models are only misleading, not vaguely insightful.
Systematic interaction with a model can be used to learn things about the model whether or not the model is accurate. Otherwise we are in agreement, I think.
It works for the IPCC it can work for this guy too. If your model doesn't predict anything just make a new model predicting even worse things and go get more funding.
Having once looked at an IPCC report, I can tell you they incorporate a huge amount of data. Whether they are treating that data correctly and whether the process is warping the conclusions in inappropriate ways are not quite the same question. In this case, there is no testing of the model at all.
Statistics don't come after lies and damn lies accidentally. A naive model of liquid cooling ends in a fatal explosion and the discovery of phase change.