Replies

A couple more things...

The process itself has been shown flawed and should be fixed.

Perhaps true. That does not, however, in any fashion, invalidate the current scientific understanding of anthropogenic global warming.

It cannot be fully self-checking if data and data adjustment methodology is not made transparent. Yes, they publish papers, but they don’t publish the underlying data that enable true reproducibility. This was part of the ‘hockey stick’ controversy as well. The climate science community has been overly lax in not making sure results are truly reproducible.

Perhaps true. That does not, however, in any fashion, invalidate the current scientific understanding of anthropogenic global warming.

Meteorological stations sometimes move, and this can affect the temperature measurements of the stations. For example, one of the stations relied upon by the above two papers was originally located on the upwind side of a city and later moved, 25 km, to be on the downwind side of the city. Such a move would be expected to increase the measured temperatures, because a city generates heat. Another station relied upon by the papers was originally located in the center of a city and then moved, 15 km, to be by the shore of a sea. Such a move would be expected to decrease the measured temperatures.

Apparently he didn't read Peterson et al. either.

And finally:

“Models indicate ...” models are not data.

The output from models IS data. If it wasn't, you couldn't check the validity of models against observations.

“The process itself has been shown flawed and should be fixed.”

“Perhaps true. That does not, however, in any fashion, invalidate the current scientific understanding of anthropogenic global warming.”

I’m not one to argue the basic mechanisms. But clearly the science on actual magnitudes and matching of data to models is still under development, and these issues relate directly to the levels of certainty and confidence in those.

IMHO, the IPCC treatment of AGW has numerous sources of over-estimation, and the popular media and alarmists like AlGore have unscientifically extrapolated further into claims of certainty and presenting near-impossible scenarios as bound-to-happen.

The K*ln(C/C0) factor that CO2 increase plays in AGW both support AGW concept and the skeptics claim (hey, 290->390ppm is same as 390ppm->550ppm), but the actual impacts depends on that constant K factor, and you have to extrapolate both larger estimates of warming than we’ve actually observed, you’d have to magnify water vapor feedback effects, you’d have to pull other tricks to get to the feared magnitudes (K=5.35)the IPCC claims. most of this knowledge is based on models that are neither verified nor supported by the actual records of temperatures, which themselves are subject to error.

Thus, the side of a real scientist would be to be cautious and skeptical of a conclusion and to reject outright the lie that ‘the science is settled’. It is not, and it is unscientific gibberish to say it is. Especially from a divinity school dropout like Al Gore.

PS. “Models indicate ...” me:”models are not data.”
you: “The output from models IS data. “ - I’d call that model outputs/estimates. output from models could be GIGO unless it correlates to reality. The only data worthy of that name are the actual measurements (ie temperature) of physical reality. Everything else is AGM - anthropromophic gaseous modeling.