rpg: "point 2, Consensus is not science"

No one said it was. However, when a lay onlooker is evaluating various theories that can only be understood by experts in the field it is normal to choose "the consensus", ie the most common view held by the experts.

rpg: "point 3, basic physics does not apply to large chaotic systems,"

The CO2 part of the system isn't chaotic. It is well mixed in the atmosphere, and thus easily analysed by formal systems. Water is not as well mixed, and it is constantly changing phase. It is chaotic.

rpg: "their models ... discard factors they do not understand or make them linear, like clouds."
rstuart: "Your are also wrong when you say the models don't include cloud cover."
rpg: "that's not what I said,"

Sorry, but I didn't see the "make them linear" bit. They don't discard them or "make them linear". Currently they use thermodynamic flow equations to model water vapour in the atmosphere. Fluid flow equations are a long way from linear.

rpg: "And finally you are wrong in saying the models don't emulate the climate.", that's not what I said, I said "The bottom line is mankind does not understand climate well enough to forecast anything better than a random coin throw would"

You said the same thing using different words. The whole point of modeling something accurately is to make accurate forecasts or predictions. Thus you test if the aircraft flies in a computer model in the hope of predicting whether the real thing will fly. And indeed, that is the point of the climate models.

rpg: "most AGW believers feel the need to tweak things to suit their own narrative, don't they?"

Everybody does. In the CRU's case all tweaks used in their papers were fully disclosed in those papers.

Joe, Loudmouth - one presumes that if you picked a CO2 level from current data, at around 1,000 years from a previous point used in the ice core data, the graph might look flat, it might not too.

Depends who picks the point - certainly if Al Gore or CRU picked the point (with modern day "fudges"), we'd be on the edge of a precipice, or if someone objective picked it, there may be no distress at all.

If we have yearly data from the ice cores, I wonder how that would look - the once per 1,000 years data points are conceivably hiding a lot of data, you could have had huge rises and falls in the intervening years.

So comparing the ice core records to today's records may not be valid.

Interesting though, I wonder if it's similar to the way one measures tree rings.

Spindoc,

Our disagreement around expectations and what I call the “law of modern day Complexity” or the “'Window's' principal.”
As follows.
- Occam's razor is relative

- absolute simplicity = null therefore can't exist in reality.

- the more complex/big an issue is the less likely one is to derive an absolute answer.

e.g. Windows has 2-3 million lines of code.
This includes a n assumed number of bugs, conflicts, incompatibilities, transposition errors, poor coding methods, poor documentation, compile(ing) errors, transposition errors. Simply because of cost, time constraints human error, and because things happen.

If this wasn't true then there would be no need for bug fixes, revisions, maintenance etc. However, given the constraints it is in most areas a functionally/marketable product.
After the release the critics (deniers) find errors or could have done betters.

Question does this mean the product fails to reasonably meet the purpose? No, further releases will sort them out.

AGW is orders of magnitude more complex that that.
Pre-1860 measurement quality is Scientifically, speaking not the best, add to that the proxies and the accuracy becomes more variable.

(my reasoning) Hence *I* limit my thinking to the basic physics, the jointly used most reliable data sets and how well the hypotheses explain the 'symptoms'.
AGW probable match 70-80%

The geological hypothesis is based on even more imprecise analysis.
Possible match 20-30%

Law of complexity, dictates that a 100% match is highly impossible.

The IPCC report is mindful of the scientific caveats and makes a hypothesis based on range and probability not absolutes. It is written for politicians not scientists.

No complex scientific conclusion/prediction can reasonably be binary.

Next, 'only now coming on line". There are a few new satellites that are only recently have come on line, they're able to trace water flows, depth of ice , water underneath ice multiple point sea and land temperatures simultaneous.

This are new, addition to other earth bound measurements. These details are virtually unimpeachable, your demanded "absolute" measurements Their data is confirming if not hardening up the probable outcomes

Examinator, I presented you with admissions by the IPCC of what they got wrong and how they got it wrong. On both counts they admit to being “out” by a factor of TEN!

It reflects badly on you to even attempt mitigate errors of this magnitude by the IPCC. How can you make so many excuses for this level of incompetence?

Quite what MS Windows has to do with things is beyond me. You appear to be drawing a parallel relating to complexity and accuracy between MS Windows and IPCC predictions; you are directly comparing IPCC performance of margin of error at a factor of TEN, with Microsoft’s production coding standard of 1 error per 10,000 lines of code, an error factor of 0.0001. Utter nonsense.

You persist in trying to justify your AGW faith in spite of the fact that several IPCC scientists have told you you’re wrong. What don’t you get?

Dec.16, 2009, R.J. Courtney, IPCC reviewer: “Global warming has stopped. There is no statistically significant rise in MGT since 1995 and MGT has fallen since 1998. Nobody can know if the recent halt to global warming is temporary, permanent or the start of a new warming or cooling phase. But it is certain that anyone who proclaims that “global warming is accelerating” is a liar, a fool or both.”

spindoc: "Dec.16, 2009, R.J. Courtney, IPCC reviewer"

In the interests of balance the IPCC allows just about any interested party to submit comments to its reports. R.J. Courtney is an excellent example of this. He has no tertiary qualifications. Currently, he is Technical Editor of the CoalTrans International, the journal of the international coal trading industry and the Science and Technology spokesman of the British Association of Colliery Management.

It is hardly surprising that Courtney believes there has been no warming since 1998, since he has also said, the "Climate Is not Warming - Has not Warmed in 60 Years". He has also said he couldn't find any negative sides of the announced global warming.

He is also prone to gilding the lilly. He signed the "Leipzig Declaration" which started with the words "As independent scientists concerned with atmospheric and climate problems, we...". In the end he was scrubbed from the list of signatories.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Courtney

spindoc: "So what’s wrong with that? Well provenance for a start, no checking of sources, no checking of facts and no peer review. Ooops!"

The New Scientist, the India Environment Portal (IEP) and for that matter as the inclusion of R.J. Courtney shows the IPCC reports aren't peer reviewed journals. Nor do they claim to be part of the scientific process. They just report on it, explaining the current consensus in lay terms.

All the same, I agree using a WWF study as a source if wasn't cited and verified in peer reviewed journals isn't a good look. You would think replying on sources like the WWF is just the sort of thing someone like Courtney would pick up on. Maybe he didn't put much effort into his reviewing of the IPCC report as he makes out.