Ammonite;
The point I was making is that the whole subject should be put on hold
until the models are rerun.
How long does it take the model to run, a day ?
If they didn't like the result probably a month.
Either way we would at least know we were closer to the reallity.

Rich what would it take to get you to understand this flogging of the dead horse of "peer review" is anti productive.

Since climate gate we all know of the incestuous relationship, where half a dozen "in" people all reviewed each others work. We now know peer review is just a another con, & your mentioning it defaults your argument for most people today.

Hell we even have a new instance of a Greenpeace activists being employed by the IPCC to review his own propaganda as a lead author of a report. Now you can't get much more incestuous than that. I can't even think of a word to describe what he & they are doing there, at least not one that can be used in public.

Then today we hear a bunch of academics complaining that all science is now mistrusted, because of our distrust of climate science.

Well mate, the 50% of them who are too dumb to know they have been conned are obviously not worth employing, other than as street sweepers.

The other lot, who know it's a con, but are prepared to let it pass, because it favours the elites, where they see them selves, are just disgusting. That their institutions now depend on the flow of AGW grant money simply highlights how badly these places are managed.

I wonder where you might fit in the above?

Chris, all good stuff except that after 40 years of ice core studies, Prof Zbigniew Jaworowski concluded that "The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false." Jaworowski notes that shallow ice cores such as those at Shiple, Antarctica, typically show 1890 AD CO2 concentrations of about 330 ppmv - which was the level at Mauna Loa in 1973, 83 years later - while the AGW hypothesis requires them to have been about 290 ppmv. To get over this hypothesis-destroying problem, AGW scientists arbitrarily determined that the air trapped in ice was 83 years younger than the ice in which it was found!

Not out of context, rpg. There are 1000’s of scientists that study any number of the ‘climate sciences’ (not all CO2 related but certainly influenced by CO2) and the overwhelming vast majority of the findings support AGW.

You (and other so called “sceptics”) cherry-pick CRU while at the same time glibly and hypocritically use CRU to bolster “sceptic” claims that the globe is not warming. CRU’s data-set shows less warming (it doesn’t include the Arctic) knowing full well the Arctic is one region that is warming most. Ok, you don't like web links but the argument is shown in the graphs in my response to MickC.

“Sceptics” cherry-pick 1000 or so emails out of over a 100,000 to infer the CRU is involved in some kind of internal conspiracy.
You (and other “sceptics”) cherry-pick Briffa’s ‘hide the decline’ research on ‘divergence’ and deliberately and hypocritically take it out of context yourself. It was never ‘hidden’ but in fact published well before your cherry-picked ‘climate-gate’ kerfuffle. See Nature, 391, 678-682

“Sceptics” cherry-pick Mann’s original ‘hockey stick’ knowing (at least they should) there are far more hockey sticks showing the same temperature trends. “Sceptics” conveniently forget these numerous hockey sticks shown by corals, ocean sediments, stalagmites, ice cores, etc.

It seems to me rpg, you are just engaging in ‘transference’ – a typical defence mechanism. You accuse those who challenge your beliefs of exactly the things you indulge in yourself.

You say “Climate science is not all CO2 related .. so the actual research on that is actually quite small, but of course in alarmist's minds it exaggerates automatically.”

Yet the “sceptics” say there is a great big gravy train out there. I wish you “sceptics” will make up your minds on who is being alarmist.

By the by, what type of engineering did you study? Hope you’re not a “railroad” engineer :)

Faustino
Jaworowski is a retired professor of atomic radiation. No expert’s conclusions have been overturned.

Bonmot, if you are right the answer is as simple as ABC. All they have to do is release all their emails, & all the research, including the raw data, & it will become obvious.

Note I said the research, not their research. It was payed for by the public purse, so it is the public's research, it belongs to the public, & no one has any right to with hold it from the public. With holding that which the public have payed for should be a criminal offence.

If their analysis of the data holds up, there is no further question is there?

The only reason to withhold this public property is that it, & the analysis of it is very dodgy, as are all the "corrections".

Your climate "scientists" would be torn to shreds if any quality minds got hold of that data, & they know it. Every time a little of it has come to light that has been the result, & you know it.

The politicians will not be able to hold the fort much longer, then it all tumbles, & the polies with it. Those of you standing under it, trying to support it had better run, before you get crushed.

Rpg
The only hysterics you get from me are my hysterical laughter at the denialist antics and the sure knowledge that the pigeons will come home to roost one day.