A fascinating illustration of Climateball(TM). Willard would be most impressed. Golf makes an assertion. I ask Golf to back up his assertion. Golf avoids answering the question and instead claims I've confirmed various things about which I haven't actually said anything. Brilliant. I think, today, you win the internets.

aTTP Your recollection and honesty is there for all to see.

As is your consistency with double standards. How long have you know thete was something wrong with Mann's Hockey Stick?

Climate DodgeBall is your speciality.

aTTP, Jones et al (including Karl) stated that UHI was not a factor in recorded temperature rises.

"aTTP, Jones et al (including Karl) stated that UHI was not a factor in recorded temperature rises."

GC, that's not strictly true, as before they said it accounts for some farcically small increase (0.05 Degrees ?).

Nial, thank you for the correction! With Nial's correction, my original response remains.

Raff,
Seeing as you've taken aTTP's part, and he as with his type is unlikely to answer for himself I wonder if you read what I wrote in its entirety?

as you will come back with that doesn't count because because because,

Your response of

Sandy, your link is to a US newspaper. Temperatures are probably in F no C. And newspapers have a poor reputation for getting the story right, so whether Hansen really said that I doubt.

As it happens the 'F/'C is irrelevant as it hasn't done what was predicted whichever you use.

Moving goalposts? Okay, let's get back to what I asked on page 1: If there were no models of climate, would you suggest:

a. models should be written to see whether anything can be learned;
b. no models should be written.

And if models are written and something is learned, why would you exclude that from policy discussions?

And then you can have a go at discussing the comparison between reality and models using actual, not estimated, forcings, which shows good agreement. Remember that a model cannot predict the sun, human behaviour (changes in aerosol levels, rates of increase in CO2) or volcanoes, nor El Niño/La Niña, the AMO, the PDO or whatever oscillation, but might still be able to explain temperature variations if given those cycles as inputs.

"And if models are written and something is learned, why would you exclude that from policy discussions?"

What has been learned?

You and ATTFizziks have already admitted you need to know future forcing values for these to be any use.

I'll answer my own question, what's been learned is that the models should have no input to policy discussions.

Of course aTTPs speciality is Theoretical and Computational Astrophysics. He has something of a vested interest in preserving the status of computer models.

Computational planets don't have Little Green Men living on them, to point out any errors or discrepancies, so he believes his modelling to be superior.

Radical Rodent
I guess it must be an own goal. Mind you my prediction was more accurate than Hansen's :-)

Mike, that WUWT post is about as dumb as "skeptics" get. If you plotted the last million years at the scale the author suggests is a "normal view" the glaciations would look like tiny wobbles in temperature. Idiotic doesn't cover it. As I said, it seems you are so scientifically illiterate that you really are impressed by nutty blog rhetoric.

Simon, in a "skeptical" model, if you change the inputs do you get the same output? Why do you assume that changing the inputs to a climate model (e.g. intensity of the solar cycle) would not change the output? Too complicated? Probably. Even a "skeptical" model cannot compute what the solar cycles will do over the next 100 years, but its authors do know the average solar cycle and they use that as a best guess. But even for this perfect, "skeptical" model, if the actual solar cycle over the next decade turns out different, the model results will be wrong. That is clear, isn't it?

Do you accept the climate models used by Dr Mears, Dr Spencer and Nick Lewis?

EM - what do you mean "accept"? Who are you asking?

aTTP still has not responded about his view on the Hockey Stick, but remains dismissive of those without his expertise on climate science.

"Climate Science is real and important" was authored by Josh Halpern, Greg Laden, Colin Maesson, Miriam O' Brien, Ken Rice and Michael Tobis. Are these all climate scientists?

And then there is another one, "Clarity of meaning in IPCC Press Conference" by Peter Jacobs, Hunter Cutting, Stephan Lewandowsky, Miriam O'Brien, Ken Rice and Bart Veheggen.

Is aTTP a climate science spin doctor aswell? What kind of scientist would want to be associated with Lewandowsky?

See gc 12:46. A Peter Jacobs was co-author of the Cook 97% collaboration. Hunter Cutting works for Climatenexus.

aTTP does associate with some well connected people. What does it all mean?

International Professional Climate Collaboration? Climate science not required.

Entropic man
As far as I'm concerned Climate Models are computerised pine-cones and seaweed wherever they come from and whoever created them.

Mike climate science skepticism is odd, anomalous even, in that it likes to believe words have one true meaning. Your journalistic experience should tell you that is not true and that 'anomaly' might possibly have more than one. Your dictionary might tell you that in astronomy, an anomaly is "the angular distance of a planet or satellite from its last perihelion or perigee". But your CS skepticism tells you that no, this isn't scientific language but that it describes "something that shouldn't be happening" and forever after you view astronomers as heretics who believe that planets shouldn't move from perihelion.

Simon, yes. Now answer mine. In a "skeptical" model, if you change the solar forcing (for example) do you still get the same output? Why do you assume that changing the inputs to a climate model (e.g. intensity of the solar cycle) would not change the output?