(yawns)

I enjoyed this contrary view on climate modelling and also your earlier article on forecasting, which encouraged me to read through the IPCC physics panel's report. I hope you keep writing on this topic.

Eclipse, are you still sleeping?

No, I was just bored by Witmus not having any substance in his posts, which lately are largely just unfounded character attacks and anti-science rants.

I'm also not going to be worrying about the algae. ;-)

It's just not a major planetary threat. According to the movie Crude massive algae blooms is a RESULT of warming, not a cause, and indeed helps cool the planet.

Also, human grown algae on land might become a small market-niche fuel supply. (I happen to think that most transport will have to become electric over the next few decades, but there will be 8some* small niche for liquid fuels.)

Algae is a global warming *solution*, not a problem.

(Note: I maintain concern for the health of ocean ecosystems, but that is an entirely different topic).

whitmus

<<I for one remain unmoved by Briffa's defence at least insofar as the data diddling has me any more convinced of the certainty with which such research has achieved its predetermined agenda of eliminating the troublesome MWP.>>

Difficult sentence to digest, but what “data diddling” are you accusing Keith Briffa of doing?

<<predetermined agenda of eliminating the troublesome MWP”>> I’m interested. While I have seen statements like this on various blog sites, I have yet to see one in any scientific forum. Could you perhaps provide a link to only one (or cite a journal paper) that includes such a defamatory statement?

<<Oh, and there's no distortion and misrepresentation in the alarmosphere, eh?>>

I realise you are new to OLO, whitmus - and were replying to my post. However, before you go insinuating that I think there is no distortion or misrepresentation in the “alarmosphere”, maybe you should link to a post where I have said it doesn’t go on. Let me make it easier for you (I have a long history) ... it does!

It annoys me that ‘arm-chair’ experts continually spruik their own pseudo-science without understanding what the real experts are saying, Mark Lawson and Graham Young two cases in point. When they are confronted with science that disputes or rebuts their guff, they bail out or change the ‘issue’.

This tactic of distortion, misrepresentation and obfuscation is very effective. It ‘presents’ a state of confusion for the lay observer when in fact there is little in the scientific community. This is unfortunate because in the eyes of joe average, the science is being overshadowed by political, economic, socio-cultural and religious dogma.

Oh, I commented on temperature records a few posts back:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9484#154208

my time series trend analysis was based on the data for Australia. It is not too dissimilar for temperature records in other regions.