ACK

I buried a friend today. It hasn't improved my mood.

EM. I'm sorry you have lost a friend and that this has altered your mode. But why share?

I like this from commieBob presently about halfway down the comment thread to which Phil alludes:

"The planet's climate is not Linear Time-Invariant so we have to use simplifying assumptions to do any analysis at all. The trouble is that we don't understand the climate well enough to get away with that."

By all means, read the thread at Watts Up. You'll not come away reassured that the positive feedback necessary to support the IPCC's high sensitivity is well supported.
==================

In conclusion, there can be no doubt that the mapping from a Bode feedback system to the climate is irreconcilably broken. Without the ability to claim amplification from large positive feedback, the IPCC looses the only theoretical basis it has for its overstated sensitivity and unless someone invents new physics that transforms 1 W/m^2 of forcing into 4.3 W/m^2 of surface emissions and that doesn’t violate Conservation Of Energy, claims of catastrophic effects from CO2 emissions will become as quaint as an Earth centric Universe.

Great. A Blog Scientist is the first to spot that the consensus science violates a fundamental Law of Physics. Except, feedback is an emergent property of the models, electrical engineering concepts of gain and feedback are used after the fact as a check and to put the feedback into context, not to calculate th magnitude. And he should be using the total flux of 240 W/m2.

Did you know that in the latest Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary they missed out the word 'gullible'. Go on, look it up. Situation Normal at Watts' place; Blog Science at its finest.

ACK

You were wondering why I was so pissed off.

Phil trips over a fallen tree and the whole forest sways.

It's a great thread. IPCC sensitivity is too high. The models run hot.

Even the Ents mourn and murmur for the Man, entropic he.
============

EM,
Please accept my condolences for your loss.
Sincerely,

hunter

Thank you.

Phil Clarke, did they replace "gullible" with "Gergis"?

Perhaps you could offer a more convincing theory as to why Climate Science can't work out why it is so wrong? William M Connelley can't, but at least Moyhu (Nick Stokes) realises more work is required. Whereas you want to carry on pretending there is nothing wrong.

If climate science can't self correct, it does not deserve taxpayer funding.

Phil Clarke, how much taxpayer money has been wasted trying to save Mann's Hockey Stick? Gergis was wrong, and got money to spend over 4 years to be equally wrong, though Climate Science Peer Review said it was excellent.

What is your case for further taxpayer funding for Climate Science, when it makes no attempt to address previous mistakes and assumptions?

The "settled science" is founded on shifting quicksand, in an earthquake zone. Without taxpayer funding from compliant Governments, why should any funding come from anywhere else?

golfCharlie. I doubt that peer review ever said the paper was excellent - if it took nine reviews (plus those for the original submission four years earlier) before the journal finally submitted.

Unfortunately climate science is funded by more than just goverments - amongst them the UN agencies, NGOs and industry (renewable energy, insurance,) and many more. Today's situation is like that at Salem, Massachusetts writ large - the authorities and most of the population are delusional.

ACK, point taken. Climate Science keeps proving itself incapable of self policing or correcting. Any attempt to look at potential problems is attacked by a well funded army of self interested experts.

Whatever the truth is about man's impact on the climate, 97% of climate scientists are wrong, and want to shut down the other 3%.

Climate science research funded by taxpayers could be 97% cheaper at a stroke. It is time climate science got real about austerity.

golfCharlie. You could write a magnum opus about your beloved [opposite of] subjects - 97% and hockey sticks. You ring near-infinite changes on these two subjects alone.

ACK, they started it! (and I trusted them, because they were experts)

My career has involved a fair amount of "trouble shooting". Sometime the problem has been technical, but sometimes it has been the "experts".

Part of the brilliance of Fawlty Tower, was the way Basil would cause a problem, and then with lies and bluster, compound the original problem.

Climate Science can't even be honest enough to admit they have a problem. 97% budget cuts are the way to go.

Scrambled climate science is Clamitee Cinces

Hi, Calf Ogler

Rash, from a man whose name is as anagram rich as yours Phil

@PC:

What is "feedback is an emergent property of the models" to mean?

emergent? Do models do what they are programmed to do or are they self aware now?

Steve Richards 2:14, if past performance is anything to go by, it is a speculative guess, that can be referred back to later with the gravitas of hindsight, as absolute positive proof, that only 97% of their guess work is wrong.

In other words, paying peanuts (and bananas) to a large troop of monkeys for their expertise, would offer about 50% accuracy, be 99.999997% cheaper, and the amount of crap flinging would be reduced.

Planet Earth/Mother Gaia would probably prefer decisions to be in more reliable hands.

ACK

Many thanks for your kind words over a week ago. As you surmised, Mrs H and I have been away on holiday, so I've not had time until now to look at how this thread has developed.

Phil C has said along the way: "And what was the impact on the science? All the examples I saw of people attempting 'gatekeeping' had the aim of preventing obvious crap (e.g. Soon & Baliunas) from polluting the literature."

"McIntyre wrong. Again."

"I see little point in engaging at CA, he's blown what little credibility he may have once had, and is clearly has no interest in making a positive contribution, preferring to snark from the sidelines to his diminishing, unsceptical and uncritical fanbase. [I got quite excited for a moment, thinking that Phil had joined "the dark side", as his description read just a like a description of ATTP and his website, but then I realised he was still talking about the CA site].

He didn't like Gergis's choice of proxies. Boo hoo. There are some other proxies he does like. Fine. He has the data and the skills to work up his own reconstruction. Now that might be useful, to deploy the man's own style, one can only assume he has done this and wonder why he hasn't shown it."

Followed, uncritically, by a link to RealClimate (of all things), and "Amateur night."

"Mc is so transparently acting in bad faith that it is impossible to take his criticisms seriously; so he doesn't like some of the choices made in screening and selection, boo hoo."

"I notice that in the period since Gergis and her team withdrew the paper for rework she has also authored or coauthored over 20 publications, most subject to the rigours of peer review and publication.

That contribution to our understanding is what will endure, long after Climate Audit has vanished into an historical footnote in grey 8-point type."

"Did you know that in the latest Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary they missed out the word 'gullible'. Go on, look it up. Situation Normal at Watts' place; Blog Science at its finest."

Not terribly edifying reading on my return, unfortunately. I fear things went downhill last week, but it's been interesting to catch up on a week's worth of comments without feeling the need to respond to every comment.

I mentioned earlier (not an original comment,I know, but I think it bears repetition) the similarities between climate alarmism and conventional religion, and Phil's comments above re-confirm me in my observation of the parallels. Once you're in you're in, and no thinking outside the box is allowed. Luther is to be attacked and brought down, even though he believes in God, for he dared to attack the Pope. Etc etc.

Funnily enough, our recent holiday was to Poland. I haven't previously spent a lot of time in Catholic countries, and my exposure to institutional religion was quite an eye-opener. The parallels are glaring. On a happier note, though, I didn't see a single wind turbine, neither from the plane on landing or take-off, nor from the train between Krakow and Warsaw. I suppose the new religion hasn't displaced the traditional religion there yet.

Phil, by the way, thanks for the link to the Petersen piece in AMS on UHI. I'm only a short way into it, but I've not yet seen anything to cast doubt on concerns that the UHI isn't adequately taken into account by those responsible for looking after the temperature datasets - despite the conclusion stated in the summary. It's an impressive piece of work, nevertheless, and I hope I can make the time to read it all - and I'm trying to keep an open mind (though not so empty as to allow my brain to fall out, as I was once charmingly accused by an alarmist over at ATTP's place).