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.


The warmist religion is attempting to predict disaster with average
temperature increases on the order of 0.6 deg C (~1.2 deg F). In order for
the models to be believable to that degree of precision, then the records
going back in time must be accurate on the order of 0.1 deg C. Do you
seriously believe that tree rings, driven by multiple confounding factors,
average temperature being much smaller in contribution than rainfall, or ice
core samples, again driven by multiple confounding factors can be relied
upon to that degree of precision? That isn't science, that's reading goat
entrails.


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

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham