jo4hn wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
Swingman wrote:
jo4hn wrote:

To all readers: look at that website anyway. Lots of information
that is quite understandable without a lot of science background.
Agreed ... damned trouble is it seems everyone has an agenda of
some sort, making any data, and any modeling using same, subject to
suspicion.

All temperature data is massaged, supposedly to reduce error
inherent in historical readings, but I'm personally, and simply, at
the point of not trusting those doing the "massaging", and there is
ample evidence to back up that skepticism.

What should have been an age of enlightenment has demonstrably
turned into and age of skepticism and suspicion.

IOW, I've been right all along ... g

Massaging in science is removing wild points (or spikes), conversion
from data numbers to engineering/science values, applying instrument
calibration values, and the like. Fraud is very rare (Fox rants
notwithstanding), since it will be found out by ones peers.

Massaging data is not the issue. Taking a short term item of noise
in a long term cycle and claiming that your model projects the long
term trend is the problem. The climate cycle is at least 120,000
years, the models that purport to project that cycle are working on
40 years of data. See the problem?

Indeed. There are no long term (paleo)climatological models that
operate on 40 years worth of data. Tree rings, earth cores, sea
cores, and even the written descriptions of various weather phenomena
go back hundreds, if not thousands of years. New Vostok data have
extended the historical record of temperature variations and
atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and other greenhouse trace
gases (GTG) back to 420,000 years before present.

I am well aware of the _data_. You understand, do you not, that _data_ is
not a _model_?

Show me a _model_--something that allows computation--that accurately
describes a full glaciation cycle and that is accepted by IPCC, and then
tell us why NASA Goddard is not using _that_ model instead of the one that
they _are_ using which according to their own reports has only been
validated for the period subsequent to 1951.

This is all science that won't go away just because you will it so.

I have been asking you people to present me with a model that accurately
describes the full glaciation cycle for years and you are the first who has
not simply told me that I was crazy for wanting such a thing. If the model
exists please present it and then explain to us why _that_ model is not
being used by IPCC instead of the Hansen model.

A model will not spring into existence simply because you wish it so.

Perhaps nothing will come of it or even the massive amounts of fresh
water that are entering the oceans will alter the thermohaline
circulation patterns resulting in colder temperatures. Research in
these areas should not be curtailed despite the anti-science
popularity in certain political arenas.

Who has advocated "curtailing research". Research anything you want to.
But don't tell me that something is proven because somebody got some numbers
out of a computer.

You seem to have only the most nebulous familiarity with the scientific
method and even less with the actual basis for the assertions of global
warming.