[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

But the models ARE pretty much spot on. As for instance Hansen's "Scenario B", which comes fairly close to what actually happened - and comes closer still if you go back and plug in actual CO2 increases instead of the guesses made back in the '80s. And yes, I know you can find some denialist sites that claim Hansen was wrong. If you examine their claims, you'll see that they are lying.

The real world result seems to be between Scenario B and C. Scenario B is based on a "reduced growth in trace gasses" and scenario C assumes "a rapid curtailment". Meanwhile real world measured CO2 is more or less a straight line rise which suggests neither scenario is what happened.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Not true. Sure, the above denialist sites have tried desperately to use a few out-of-context quotes and such to create an impression of a lack of credibility, but the only people who believe them are the confirmed denialists.

Agree the context of the conversations is not available, big bag of salt required when dipping into them. At the same time the UK ICO (who police FOI compliance) didn't see it as out of context - last paragraph of page 1 here :

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/...esponse+to+UEA*

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Why did it need to be mentioned? You had one party running a pair of (excuse my language) effing creationist idiots, backed up by Senate candidates mouthing off about things like "legitimate rape". And notice that they lost :-)

It is (allegedly) the major peacetime crisis we are facing but not a peep about it, apart from some stuff about renewables investments. It was commented on widely, not not just by skeptics but on "progressive" type websites and blogs.

BTW I'm glad the effin... lost too, and probably for the same reasons as you

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Of course anything can be improved, but if you've just fallen off a cliff, do you really care that a detailed model that takes account of the variability of air resistance with temperature predicts you will impact the ground in exactly 5.328 seconds?

Firstly we need to know if its a cliff or a short fall, or even if there is anything as Mr Enemy states. Secondly we could invent a parachute or an air bag or something to cushion the fall, find a way to abseil our way down - or at worse adopt a position which minimises the injuries. Who knows until the research is done.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

So why should Mann have to release his work to gratify denialists?

Not just them, his supporters and friends would be pleased too, that was in the leaked emails too. But a few reasons off the top of my head :

- The maths is questionable (Ian Jollife's comments on Mann's "different" PCA method for example)
- Taxpayers paid for it
- It isn't a big secret like DoD stuff
- It would prove him right all along, maybe
- He says he likes "robust" - can't get more robust that this
- And he wouldn't have to "waste time" on it any more.
- And the biggie - it would blow away the people who criticise him in one go - those pesky big oil funded etc etc.

Seems like a win - win from his point of view, assuming he is confident of his results and methods of course.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Especially when their primary motive seems to be to keep him and other climate scientists so busy responding to their harassment that they won't be able to do actual work?

He seems to have plenty of time for Twitter, book writing, flying (all that CO2...) to various places for conferences, spending time with his lawyers (although rarely in court) etc etc.

Anyway - damn all those people interrupting him all the time, damn them. Damn them all these evil science hating, er, scientists who keep questionning the work...
Advance online publication : Nature Geoscience

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Plenty of similar data is available, and when analyzed shows similar results, which is a far more robust confirmation than picking apart one study that you disagree with.

The publicity statements about this study explain why it was seen as so significantly different from the others - the data included was more extensive than anything else, the methods used more thorough and accurate. The study baldy went where no study had been before.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Plenty of open source climate code out there. Look up EdGCM, for instance.

Agreed, loads. It would be cleaner if the process itself was open sourced.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Sure, he thought that. Then he actually looked at the data, discovered that he was wrong, and was honest enough to admit it.

The interview I link to was made after his recent "conversion" to non-skeptic status, it (the Al Gore "denier" / scientific fraud thing) is what he believes now and states openly - this is seperate from his belief in the attribution element of the results of the BEST project.

The BEST project (AFAIK) has not yet passed peer review, but I like that they have released results, code etc. for scrutiny.


*(The full exchange is here - Correspondence between University of East Anglia and the Information Commissioner's Office - University of East Anglia (UEA)

The ICO issued a statement that there was evidence of a crime (i.e. scientists breaking FOI law) but that UEA couldn't be prosecuted due to a legal time limit. UEA didn't like this and wanted the ICO to change it, the letter I directly link to is the ICO telling UEA to (in legal language) "get lost". For a fascinating insight into how poor the UEA handled it the third letter is amusing - the ICO state that the only reason for lack of investigation is due to the time limit, the UEA attempt to turn this into them being cleared of any wrongdoing. When a blogger stated this in a newspaper the UEA complained to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) - who also told them (in legal language) to "get lost".

Sunlight is the best disinfectant when it comes to this lot).