odo and Leo Lane - you spend most of your time attacking the person, not addressing the issue, don't you have any case to put? Leo's stuff is quite defamatory. Don't you have something better to do, and where's our illustrious 'MODERATOR'? Don't worry, I don't spend time being abused by this nest of mutually self-pleasuring vipers expecting sense, or courtesy, I do it for those who might be following with more open minds. And yes, sometimes my patience runs short, and I've had enough of this endless torrent of BS. Well, whadaya know, the computer woke up when I wrote a bit of abuse. Where has it been all this time?

qanda, rpg got mixed up. It was me who didn't know about Anthony Watts. And fortunately it's not the other Anthony Watts I know, marine geophysicist.

Definitely my last for this thread: I am now reading and writing about the latest QE by Waleed Aly.

Geoff: I am puzzled by your reaction that I am hostile to scientists. I have scores of friends in the natural sciences, all over the world. I am thought to be direct, to ask the right questions,and to be sympathetic to the enterprise, which is presumably why I keep being asked to do things (see today's news release from CFI in Canada). I am hostile to bad research wherever I encounter it, and I do think that some of what I have read in the AGW field is sloppy, in that it doesn't first seek to find alternatives to its own conclusions. We were all trained to do that when I was young. 'How else could you explain it?' If you don't ask that question, someone else will. You'd better have good answer. The reason 'the science isn't settled' is that those early searching questions have not been asked. You don't like 'return from the ice age' as an explanation of whatever warming we are experiencing. Fine. But you need to show that your explanation is better, and that it can account for earlier periods of warming too. You can't, or at least the IPCC can't. We've been through all this before.

qanda: Like you, apparently, I see the 'contemporary world' as beginning in the 18th century, but alas we can't assume that the data we have over that 260-year period are of equal validity or reliability. If we are talking about the world since AGW became an issue, then the best measures we have, and they are at least consistent, are from satellites. They don't show much warming in the last thirty years. And Wikipedia is not reliable on anything to do with AGW. Climate science is very new, and all those who talk about it have come from other disciplines. I'm getting repetitious too. Enough.

>>Without being able to say for sure, what is causing additional warming, if indeed there is any, (it may just be an artifact of all the "grooming" of data.)<<

This quote reminds me of something quite interesting I learned at university. I'm a geophysicist too, like Geoff. When I was doing a seismic interpretation and processing course, we were taught about the limits of accurately interpreting a seismic dataset that had been put through a standard processing sequence. (For those that don't know, seismic data are return echoes that are radiated into the ground and used to discover the layering of the earth and are mainly used to explore for oil, coal and gas reserves. When the data come back they are rendered as a time-series, normally at a 2 millisecond sample interval.)

Some guys in a lab thought it would be interesting to see what happened when you put totally random noise seismic shot records through a standard processing sequence. It turned out that there were a few small seismic events (horizontal line-ups of data that would normally signify subsurface bedding planes) that showed up when there was absolutely no basis for it. In other words, the line-ups were a total fluke/artefact.

I'm sure that such a phenomenon can contaminate any study where signal analysis is a part of it. However, I have no idea in climate science where this might be the case. It might be worth keeping in mind though.

Geoff, while not as bad as your peabrained mate, kwonder, you have been rather unrestrained in your own defamatory remarks on this thread:

19 March “Bob Carter with his disingenuous plot”

22 March “Bob Carter .. .. has quite misrepresented the recent temperature and CO2 records in an elementary way, a way that any sensible undergraduate or intelligent layperson can understand”

24 March “this nest of mutually self-pleasuring vipers,”

It is hardly appropriate for you to complain about descriptions, appropriately applied, to you.

You only had the window of opportunity to denigrate Carter, while the Journal of Geophysical Research which published the McLean et al study, stalled the publication of the refutation of the Foster et al study, upon which you relied as a dismissal of Carter’s study (Mclean et al).

There was a change of editor, at the Journal, which took place since Carter’s study was published (said to be nothing to do with the Hadley miscreants, as the editor is appointed on a system of rotation). However, he just happened to be an editor who expedited Foster et al, and blocked the response by McLean et al.

Amusingly, some of the Hadleygate emails disclose the concern of the miscreants.

“Mike is President of AGU. Basically this is an acceptance with a couple of suggestions for extras, and some suggestions for toning down the rhetoric. I had already tried that a bit. My reaction is that the main thing is to expedite this.”
Kevin Trenberth to Grant Foster, September 28

McLean et al study available here:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/McLeanetalSPPIpaper2Z-March24.pdf

It is Appendix B to the document, and disposes of the criticism of the original paper. The main document sets out the disgraceful behaviour of the opposition to Carter publishing the truth about AGW, or the lack of truth in its proponents.

I will get to kwonder, later.

qanda (quander, Ponder, Ponder Gibbons! Hey, that fits) Work it out, you'll enjoy the link.

Sorry old boy, I did get you mixed up with Geoff.

Thanks for your comments RobP, I'm an engineer and have seen so many many times when people who have a predisposed, often unconscious, disposition (like Geoff) they have a tendency to bias data without realizing.

Now that we know the peer review method is flawed (Let's face it, it has almost no credibility left outside the science) in climate science and the possible corruption of datasets exists - where do we go from here?

Just reviewing existing data is pointless.

We need to start again, and any area that depends on "groomed" data, has to be redone. Otherwise it will be open to accusations of corruption forever.

Not to worry, there is so much $ flowing into Climate Science, there is no funding issues, and it's not as if a few years spent redoing research will put us back very far.

Geoff

I knew rpg got confused - that's why I replied.

______

Don

Thanks. Can I encourage you to submit an OLO article on Aly's QE?