Hi Spindoc

I like your send up of the young scientists.

While ever young people are indoctrinated at school and university by those who have ulterior motives we will be continually subjected to more and more rubbish from these dumbed down brainless robots.

If only these people could step back and take another look at how they have been programmed not to think for themselves.

The way to conquer the world is to get as many dumb followers as you can.

Bonmot,
You must be right here. I am sure the experts including statistician have considered in detail the points that I have raised. However, consideration does not imply that problems are solved. I write as a layman in these matters. However, recent publications, for example, the Royal Society make great use of the word “uncertainty.”

Surely, one can interpret the word “uncertainty” as meaning that there are errors in estimates. Some but not all errors are known and can at least in theory be corrected. Others are due to variations and fluctuations that are inherent to noisy data. It may be possible for experts to estimate the magnitude of errors and include confidence limits. Then there has to be the “unknown unknowns.”

What is the reason why climate organisations do not include a brief note on errors in conjunction with their public pronouncements? Is it because they do not think the public will understand error bars? Or is it because they fear it will reduce the impact of their statements? Or do they fear it would be politically unwise?

Following your posting I checked the WMO site and found this estimate:
“The globally averaged surface air temperature is estimated to increase from 1990 to 2100 by between 1.4°C and 5.8°C.”

It was not clear to me that this represented a confidence interval and at what level? However, it is a wide range and thus suggests that the estimate has low precision.

Given that it is in the nature of experts to indulge in academic debates with each other. I stand by my remark that statements such as “the hottest year” and so on, are too simplistic to be meaningful. It may also be doubted that calculating a weighted average of temperature measurements from a number disparate sources is a true index of global temperature

*our Eastern coast who wasted billions on desalination plants because the gurus said it wasn't going to rain again.*

ah runner, arn't you lucky that they built desalination plants on
the West Coast, in case it didn't rain one day. Otherwise there
would not be much coming out of your tap.

To rely on the Almighty for it to rain in time, rather then have
a backup for a major city, would be rather foolish.

One day those plants will be required. Better to have them there,
ready to go, then try praying, for it has been shown to be a dismal
failure as a solution.

Ken, do the words "hide the decline" sound like "deliberate intent" to you? Surely they sound like something more than a little "sinister"?

Do you think that making arbitrary "corrections" to a temperature record showing constant temperature for years, to produce a two degree increase, could be considered sinister? Try the Darwin raw, & corrected figures.

If not there is no hope for you.

After what we have seen from your climatologists, it's going to be quite some time before I'd except there is such a thing as a government funded "honest scientist" in the field.

Perhaps opening their workings to full inspection by interested parties would be a start. Without that as a minimum they will remain con men to any thinking adult.

For those who still insist on repeating
the ill-informed and erroneous scuttlebutt
about "hiding the decline", it was well and
truly explained to the UK’s Parliamentary Select
Committee on Science and Technology back in
February.

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2010/02/26/cru-explains-trick-and-hide-the-decline/

Unfortunately, there are still many people
around who refuse to acknowledge that AGW
is considered to be real according to the vast
majority of reputable climate scientists,
preferring instead to repeat the dishonest
spin of the denialist lobby.

As this and every other discussion about AGW
at this website show, there is little point in
arguing with these people, as they seem to be
trenchantly impervious to real evidence and reason.

Thanks to bonmot for the heads-up about one of
them in particular. That search string returned
hundreds of examples of the kind of bloody-minded
denialism to which I refer, and that's just one of them!

Leo Lane wants to get his information from where?
Under the bed from the tooth fairy

At least the web sites listed are supported by scientists.

And the web sites do allow anyone to put up a comment so do not believe the misinformation from Leo Lane.

As anyone can see if they visit the sites.