Mann's "Hockey Stick", deja vue.

I'd do more than just ignore David Holland, but I'm not as polite as most of the scientists, apparently. There is no point doing anything to help the nutters on Climate Audit. They have a bee in their bonnet, and anytime spent doing what they want is time wasted doing something more productive, like research, training, or watching TV. No matter what evidence they are given, it will never be good enough, it will only be used to raise ever more personal attacks and aggravation.

As usual SJT you are in your own little world and miss the point - the IPCC has rules - but doesn't obey them. Why?

SJT - "here is no point doing anything to help the nutters on Climate Audit."

Agree - after all the sum total of them can only produce one dodgy peer reviewed paper in all that time. If the scientific community thought that CA was doing real research and was not the industry lies and deception factory that it has proven to be then they would possibly be more forthcoming.

Plus it is a bunch of bloggers!!!! Maybe somebody can do some FOI searches on CA - that would be illuminating.

Anyone who does not believe in the religion of Man-made Global Warming should be put in jail....So says "I believed in global cooling before I believed in global warming"-James Hansen

It's heresy I tell you, heresy!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange

Real science can withstand questioning...AGW can not, as proven by the constant cover ups of bogus and bad data by Hansen.

There you go again, Ender old mate, with your straw men and Sesame St sarcasm. You and El Luko dipstick the bratmouth are such tiny, tiny little boys, so you are, stamping your little footsies.

McIntyre's due diligence is world-class, which is why the IPCC have used him as a Reviewer on a number of occasions. You just don't like the results. Some IPCC contributors deliberately hide data and claim to have destroyed notes - very conducive to trust and confidence, those practices are.

To clear the air of straw men and silly little boys, McIntyre's position is nuanced, as he has said a number of times (paraphrased):"On balance, I would rather accept the AGW prescriptions than risk the alternative, however small that probability".

That is McIntyre's stated position (not necessarily mine). Yours is one of continual and deliberate misrepresentation of facts and views you don't like, which you invariably express with puerile and very silly sarcastic sneering.

Far more productive is to consider specifically how to adapt when the AGW C tax starts to close workplaces, collapse jobs, inflate food, heating and travel costs (BTW, about 1/3rd of the population here live outside the cities, so metros don't work too well there) and ignite potential wars about access to energy. Or perhaps you are naive enough to think that chucking heaps of someone else's money into "R&D" will produce the answers we may want.

C'mon Ender old mate, don't just blog away here - do something. Get specific.

Hold on, the IPCC is a formal international body conducting a formal policy development process and staffed by people who are nominated by elected governments and appointed in an official capacity, are they not?

Then would someone explain to us which country, other than perhaps Zimbabwe or North Korea, is it not a serious offence under their respective public sector management legislation to be destroying working papers that they are formally required to maintain?

If the destruction of records was in any way related to any issue at law in Australia then this would amount to "perverting the course of justice", an offense that is punishable by up to 20 years jail.

Which raises the very interesting question of exactly what legal head of power these clowns are employed under? If they are acting in an official capacity, and are making major demands on the actions, laws and policies of governments all over the world, then who, and how, do we sue for negligence?

Ian, surely the more interesting question is whether any material related to the IPCC is (or should be) available via FoI legislation in Australia. I am thinking particularly of any Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors or Review Editors who are either Australian or work in Australia.

The Australian government had to present the IPCC with the names of suitable people so arguably this material would come under the federal government when it comes to FoI. If it does fall under FoI then the information cannot be denied on the grounds that it was a cabinet paper or that it was related to security.

It is a real pity that in this country we dont have either the journalistic or legal balls to go after these people, as yet again there are very evident and very serious flaws in the IPCC processes,and supporting arrangements.

The so called scientists involved in this should be brought to account.

No matter, Krudd and his band of disfunctional 28 year old advisers and arrogant minions will no doubt see us being screwed over, with no comrehension of just how flakey the whole story is.

...all this to achieve a carbon target that they have set, that will produce a change in average temperatures globally of 0.000043C pa.

We are truly in the hands of f%$#^%wits.

Quite apart from the external merits of otherwise of pursuing information under Federal FOI legislation within Australia I can assure John that it is a total farce to attempt this as any good investigative journalist will advise. From personal experience I can attest Australian Federal Govt. departments have a whole panoply of corrupt arguments they employ to deny all but the most innocuous FOI applications and what is more the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) will back them up 99% of the time, taking your upfront fees and shoving then straight back into consolidated revenue.

In 2002/3, supported both by a top barrister and a legally trained ex-senior Federal public servant I attempted to obtain CASA, ATSB and Aviation Australia internal documents under FOI pertaining to the sub-standard maintenance-related death of my pilot son in an air crash. His employer was an Australia Post contract mail carrier and Federal air sea rescue contractor and a subsidiary of a company of which the head of CASA was a former senior executive.

We copped a whole range of sleazy refusal arguments right up to the absolute king hitter which was 'oh we can't release these documents on the grounds that it would violate the privacy of your (deceased) son!'. When my advisers tried to legally question just how (and under which statute) the utterly deceased somehow retained 'privacy' they couldn't reply - yet somehow the AAT still upheld that position!

The thing I find disturbing is that Briffa and Amman are referees in the UN's global warming process. Foxes guarding the henhouse.
Briffa and Amman should rightfully be put out of work by the Helliker & Richter paper proving trees regulate their internal temperature.
Briffa, Amman, and all of the dendroclimatologists, are nothing less then this era's version of Percival Lowell, pointing at imagined squiggles and yelling "Canals".

In SJT's world, the law and the rules are only applied to "bad people". Good people need not follow the law and the rules. Of course, SJT and friends get to decide which people are in each category.

"As usual SJT you are in your own little world and miss the point - the IPCC has rules - but doesn't obey them. Why?"

If you read the links, the IPCC has nothing to do with the issue. It is all about people hounding individuals and institutions that are not the IPCC.

"In SJT's world, the law and the rules are only applied to "bad people". Good people need not follow the law and the rules. Of course, SJT and friends get to decide which people are in each category."

Have you been reading climateaudit lately? Read any of the comments on it?

I tend to agree, John, but defer to Steve Short's experience which matches, in bucket loads, my own more limited experience.

It is quite obvious now, especially given Hansen's ranting about prosecuting oil execs, that these IPCC people are enemy combatants. And as Hansen has made clear his own desire to prosecute those with alternate views to his own, then the way is obviously open for us to respond in kind.

Lets face it, the scum we have been indulging to date will keep on doing their clearly unlawful acts until the day someone's head appears on a pike. As 'stormin Norman' said before what Saddam predicted to be the 'mother of all battles', "we need to find its head and cut it off".

The IPCC is full of public officials employed subject to specific legal obligations and is clearly 'that head'. It is time to "do the business", folks.

Ianl - "McIntyre's due diligence is world-class"

Sorry - the standard for world class science is peer review that McIntryre has consistently failed to do.

I guess in the denier blogger world he is first class however you people have very low standards.

Ender, "Sorry - the standard for world class science is peer review that McIntryre has consistently failed to do."

Wrong. You have clearly either failed to understand what it is that McIntyre is doing, i.e. conducting an audit, or you are eliberatly misrepresenting what it is that he is doing. I suspect a bt of both.

An audit process is not about peer review. Peer review does not have the rigour of a transparent audit trail. McIntyre has on many occasions stated his view on climate change and that he is of the opinion that humans do have in influence on climate . In his attempts to understand how the science works he has found a trail of sloppy science, poor archiving and massive ego's. I find his blog interesting because he does make an effort to replicate the science and he does ask difficult questions of researchers. What as always amased me is that most of the so called experts choose to make it difficult rather than provide the things that he has asked for. The oly times that I have ever witnessed researchers refusing to provide information is when they know that either their own work is lacking or that the data upon which thier work is based is of a lower standard than what is required but they have used it anyway and made claims based upon that data that may not stand up to scrutiny.

McIntyre has focused on data quality and the statistical methods used to analyse that data. He has stayed within the scope of his expertise and as a result has maintained his integrity.

McIntyres suggestions that Hanson et al bring in independent expertise in the form of statisticians and programmers (sytems analysts) was dismissed out of hand, yet to me having such expertise would enhance the work of Hanson et al rahter than detract from it. WRT hanson et al, clearly if their work was above reproach there would not be an issue and McIntyre would not have a widely read blog.

SJT and Ender,

the IPCC "rules" specifically make all the data and communications available to the public.

So, what do you not understand about ALL and PUBLIC??

Do you pray to Hansen and Gore regularly??

Pandanus67 - "Wrong. You have clearly either failed to understand what it is that McIntyre is doing, i.e. conducting an audit, or you are eliberatly misrepresenting what it is that he is doing. I suspect a bt of both."

Also wrong. McIntyre's sole purpose is to find areas of doubt that can be used by vested interests to delay action on global warming. His work is right out of the Lutz playbook that was successfully trialled in the pro tobacco campaign.

Don't know where you got the idea he is doing science. If he was doing science the audits would be peer reviewable and published in the scientific literature, which they are not.

KuhnKat - "the IPCC "rules" specifically make all the data and communications available to the public.'

No the rules say "All written expert, and government review comments will be made available to REVIEWERS" (my capitals)

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf

Perhaps you can find the reference that says that the data must be available to the public.

Ender, you're working out of a playbook yourself. Everything has to be peer reviewed. Even if a dissenting view is peer reviewed, you claim its not a respected journal. Even if it is respected, UnRealClimate try to jump on the statistical methods used. But if its peer reviewed in a respected journal it must be infallible, no?

NASA produces peer reviewed papers all the time, but the GISS temp record has never been audited. McIntyre is doing it now, and the easiest thing to see is that they don't even follow NASA software policies. So Hansen doesn't follow his own institutions policies, and the IPCC doesn't follow their own either. These policies are often upheld as the "foundation" for their objectiveness and robustness.

Ender, in most countries all government institutions (i.e. the IPCC) are subject to FOI requests. This most certainly applies to the UK. So the IPCC rules don't specifically state info is available to the public, but since they must keep their records for 5 years and they are government run, it amounts to the same thing. This is minutiae. Even from a warmist stance they should just hand over the info rather than have this picked up by the media.

Ender wrote this amusing set:

"No the rules say "All written expert, and government review comments will be made available to REVIEWERS" (my capitals)"

Do you realize that Steve McIntire is a reviewer?

LOL

"SJT and Ender,

the IPCC "rules" specifically make all the data and communications available to the public.

So, what do you not understand about ALL and PUBLIC??

Do you pray to Hansen and Gore regularly??
"

From what I can tell, the IPCC was not asked for anything in the above links.

From my understanding there is no excuse for destroying public records at any time, especially on an issue that is supposed to be as important as the 'very fate of the planet'.

And poor old Ender and SJT really have their heads stuck up each others backsides if they seriously believe that inspection and verification of data integrity, as McIntyre is doing, is not a fundamental part of the peer review process itself.

Since when has a peer reviewer been required to only do so in another published paper? McIntyre is reviewing the published work and making the results of his review known to those who are interested in data integrity.

Since when has the process of peer review been subject to time limit, specifically five years, after which no further examination may take place?

Since when has the concept of peer review been limited to those who are 'acceptable' to the mates of the person who wrote the paper under review?

You two, and the village idiots you so blatantly manufacture excuses for, wouldn't make a peer reviewers armpit. Now piss off you sad, silly poops, this is an intelligent blog.

So to sum up. You want any old tom dick or harry to have the right to harrass working scientists for data that they submitted to the IPCC. As far as I can see David Holland is not an expert reviewer. Nor is any of the requests going to be published or used in any science that might further the knowledge of climate science or global warming nor is it to be peer reviewed or indeed peer reviewable.

Also apparently the IPCC should not only submit to any 'audit' from any self appointed 'auditor' but follow rules that you people make up on the spot. If you requested the data from the IPCC they should provide it if they can. However as SJT has pointed out, Holland has made requests to individual scientists who are not subject to FOI requests as they are not, at least in the real Earth, themselves not government departments or elected bodies.

Also given McIntyre's track record with most climate scientists most of them would tell him to go away (or somthing not so polite) and learn how to be a real scientist - in the nicest possible way.

"Now piss off you sad, silly poops, this is an intelligent blog."

Yes and the people on it say this? Hmmmmmmmm

Ender

I thought that in pretty well all jurisdictions, if the documents were created by the application of public funds,( with some exceptions) then they are FOI able.

Its called living in a free and open demoncracy.

Whether or not Holland is an expert reviewer or not is irrelevant, he is entitled to see the documents. To imply that scientists using public funds are above all of this just shows how low grade it has all become.

ender; your comments are typical of the elitism which informs the pro-AGW crowd; this is typical left/green paternalism in that the attitude is, we know better than you, don't interfere. Of course the reality of the censorship and obfuscation is more pernicious than that because this attitude has tainted the MSM as well as the official repository of the orthodox view; thus the Fairfax press or 'our' ABC will not tolerate alternative views; there are countless examples of this; perhaps the most representitive is 'our' ABC's Planetslayer game.

The rot has also penetrated to the web; Lawrence Soloman does a good piece on how this quasi-religious oppression can work;

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23288

The whole 'consensus' issue is just a form of censorship based on conformity and ridicule of the contrary view; McLean does a good critique of it;

http://mclean.ch/climate/What_consensus_col.pdf

When the authors and perpetrators of social dislocation obscure and oppress one has a right to be sceptical; it astounds me that people can defend this and still expect to have their advocacy of the 'science' of AGW taken seriously.

Ender, "McIntyre's sole purpose is to find areas of doubt that can be used by vested interests to delay action on global warming." What utter nonsense you sprout.

I build biometric models for a living. If the data I used was of a similar quality, and required the level and type of adjustment that Hansen et al apply to their data sets, I would be compelled to divulge to my clients, in language that they are able to understand i.e. plain english as it happens, just what it is that I have done to the data . My professional indemnity insurer insists that I divulge such things and ensure that my client is aware that, in such circumstances, the model is limited by the data that it was derived from and as such its application is also limited. The professional oranisations that I belong to also insist on such full disclosure and rightly so.

I started to question the AGW hypothesis when I discovered just how difficult is is to obtain data or computer code or to establish clear lineage for temperature reconstructions, amongst other things. I did not understand why Hanson et al were so obstructionist untill I discovered how incredibly sloppy they are in their data handling/archiving/versioning.

The pig headedness of Hanson etc is why I have become more sceptical of their science rather than remaining accepting of it. What McIntyre has asked for is reasonable given the social and economic changes that Hanson is calling for. And given the changes that Hanson and others are calling for they are obligated to provide full disclosure of their meethods and data and not just point to a literature trail that does neither.

You just don't get it do you, Ender. Honest people would put the stuff on a web site for all to see. Honest people do not have to be asked to provide substantiation, they provide it as their basic obligation to all.

And spare us the crap about excess workload etc, if it was in good enough condition to be used in a policy process in the first place then it should be good enough to copy and paste.

Honest people when faced with a request from the public would simply return email with the relevant url. End of story, no need for protracted argy-bargy.

But what do the climate spivs do? They procede to demonstrate that they have a great deal to hide. They exhibit the body language of the cornered shonk, the spin of the apprehended criminal who will always eventually respond to the incriminating inquiry with anger and frustration, a la Hansen.

The extraordinary thing about all this is that the perpetrators continue to act as if none of us have ever dealt with their kind before.

Malcolm - "Whether or not Holland is an expert reviewer or not is irrelevant, he is entitled to see the documents."

Yes it is relevant as you are bleating about the IPCC not following the rules. Unless you have made some new ones up the rules state that the data from the IPCC be made available to reviewers. So is the IPCC to follow the rules as written or ones you have made up?

Pandanus67 - "If the data I used was of a similar quality, and required the level and type of adjustment that Hansen et al apply to their data sets"

I am sure Hansen would love data of that quality however he has what he has and no more. What do you expect him to do manufacture new data from 1870 onward???????

"I started to question the AGW hypothesis when I discovered just how difficult is is to obtain data or computer code or to establish clear lineage for temperature reconstructions, amongst other things."

Its not actually difficult. What is difficult is to get a qualified scientist to spoon feed you all the steps required to duplicate research which is what McIntyre required, for the sole purpose of providing large corporations the means to delay action on climate change. You wonder why they are a bit reluctant.

If you are a climate scientist engaged on research that will lead to more light being shed on this difficult problem of climate and are intending to cooperate and do proper research that will make its way into the peer reviewed literature then you would find the scientists far more cooperative. As it is they, quite rightly in my opinion, eventually, after getting totally sick of pathetic bleating, tell the blogger to go and do his own research if the data is so bad.

Ian Mott - "Honest people when faced with a request from the public would simply return email with the relevant url. End of story, no need for protracted argy-bargy."

And honest people have done this however that is never enough for McIntyre and his cohorts. In fact that is what was done right in the beginning which was enough for other teams to confirm the basic research.

Ender, I've no doubt that Hanson et al would prefer to use better quality data. That's just the point, when the data are poor quality just say so, don't hide behind endless adjustments and refuse to discuss the issue as Hanson does. He has never, to my understanding or reading, discussed the issues relating to the quality of the data he uses excepting in the most cursory fashion. It is unacceptable.

I do not require to be spoon fed the steps required, though I do expect that the published literature will allow me to follow what has been done. Hansons black box approach does not allow this. Indeed the peer review mechanism has failed because it did not require that he provide the information required. FFS anyone who has worked in academia or studied for a higher level degree understands the politics surrounding peer review.

McIntyre never requested a spoon feed, what he requested was the literature that would allow him to reproduce the work, the paper trail if you like. Why Hanson et al think that it is acceptible to make it difficult for anyone to follow their work is a mystery to me. He is essentially saying "trust me" without providing the proofs required. Essentially he requires an act of faith not of scientific rigour. I'm sure that anyone who has spent some time at university or in a research institute can relate a story or two about the senior academic/researcher who felt that their status/reputation made them above questioning. Hanson seems to fall into such a category and that is a pity as he is not a fool and has provided major insights into the climate system. It does not however allow him to abuse his position in the way he does.

As for Hanson and hos team providing an honest response, re the correct URl, they can't as their data archiving is of such an abysmal standard. Why then should I have any trust in anything else that they do?

"ender; your comments are typical of the elitism which informs the pro-AGW crowd; this is typical left/green paternalism in that the attitude is, we know better than you, don't interfere."

Elitist. I am not a scientist, and I'm quite happy to acknowledge that, and that I just don't know a lot about how AGW works, nor the advanced physics behind it all. I do, however, recognise a bunch of wankers when I see one. That's not elitism.

Ian Mott - "Honest people when faced with a request from the public would simply return email with the relevant url. End of story, no need for protracted argy-bargy."

You haven't got a clue, have you?

I think Ian Mott has, SJT. It is you, the self confessed non scientist, who prefers to vilify scientists who question AGW.

Your mob expect 100% compliance for ASX listed companies to make full disclosure back any public statement but then change the rules when it comes to government science.

Steve McIntyre has enough problems working out the computer code behind the GISS temperature statements, but try to get the computer code for a climate model.

That Hansen is had Left is probably the problem, the political left have always inclined to totalitarian behaviour, especially when suggesting oil company executives be criminally charge for doubting an hypothesis.

Scientists questioning AGW? Hard to see the wood for the blockheads, you mean. The number of scientists who are actually questioning the science who are actively researching the topic who question AGW is very small.

Most of the noise is coming from people who have no idea about the actual science, and think that every one of them has the right to demand scientists time, which is wasted, because none of them understand the science in depth, nor will accept the evidence anyway.

Come on, here's a challenge to anyone.

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/%7Ertp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html

Read a free online textbook first, qualify yourself so you are actually a *PEER*, then get back to them.

I don't believe anyone of the so called sceptics here would understand anything in that book.

SJT

"I don't believe anyone of the so called sceptics here would understand anything in that book".

By your own admission you could not possibly know that, and some of us do know what the science is, and hence the scepticism.

Arrhennius actually never proved his CO2 theory, he challenged others to prove him wrong - pure pseudoscience.

But then SJT, you dont't know the difference either, from self admission.

Oh how interesting the Pierrehumbert book which many commenting on.

Scientists questioning AGW? Hard to see the wood for the blockheads, you mean. The number of scientists who are actually questioning the science who are actively researching the topic who question AGW is very small.

Most of the noise is coming from people who have no idea about the actual science, and think that every one of them has the right to demand scientists time, which is wasted, because none of them understand the science in depth, nor will accept the evidence anyway.

Come on, here's a challenge to anyone.

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/%7Ertp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html

Read a free online textbook first, qualify yourself so you are actually a *PEER*, then get back to them.

I don't believe anyone of the so called sceptics here would understand anything in that book.

Now this has gone far enough - Mottsa said "Now piss off you sad, silly poops, this is an intelligent blog." - well that does it !!

Have you considered that Louis and Malcolm might be doing their best ! Give them a go.

But instead of doing all this checking what a far dinkum scientist would do would be to do another analysis. An alternative analysis.

And what do we learn from other analyses - nothing much

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.146/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1979/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.238/mean:12

So tell us boys - don't all analyses broadly tell you the same story . zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Luke,

All the climate predictions are from computer models, and so far they have been not good at predicting physical reality.

Take the idea of adiabatic cooling or heating - means a gas can change temperature by varying the pressure under the proviso that there is no addition or removal of heat - essentially a thermodynamically closed system.

A mass of air in the air, therefore, is thought to cool adiabatically if it rises - but that cooling is not adiabatic because the parcel of air is part of a thermodynamically open system.

So there cannot be adiabatic cooling or heating in the earth's atmosphere because there is a continuous exchange of heat between one mass of air and the air contiguous to it.

This is climate physic?

luke; I've said it before, and it bears repeating: that 1998 was a doozy; remove it as an outlier and what do you get?

Pandanus67 - "Ender, I've no doubt that Hanson et al would prefer to use better quality data. That's just the point, when the data are poor quality just say so, don't hide behind endless adjustments and refuse to discuss the issue as Hanson does."

They actually do:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

If you read this there is open discussion of the data quality issues and no attempt is made to cover it up. The endless adjustments are there to provide better analysis of the data. I don't know why you think Hansen is hiding anything.

Also if you request the following papers I am sure that one of them will touch on data quality - or have you already read them all?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/references.html

"I do not require to be spoon fed the steps required, though I do expect that the published literature will allow me to follow what has been done. Hansons black box approach does not allow this. Indeed the peer review mechanism has failed because it did not require that he provide the information required. FFS anyone who has worked in academia or studied for a higher level degree understands the politics surrounding peer review."

All the analysis that the GISS team do are set down exactly in the peer reviewed papers in their references - what more can you need?

"As for Hanson and hos team providing an honest response, re the correct URl, they can't as their data archiving is of such an abysmal standard. Why then should I have any trust in anything else that they do?"

And you have neatly disclosed the real purpose of the 'audit' - injecting doubt. Don't get me wrong I think McIntyre has done a brilliant job. The idea that the hockey stick is broken therefore global warming is wrong is deeply and well embedded in the public mindset.

Now that is getting a bit old so we now have to find some doubt in the temperature record to achieve the target of "the temperature record is unreliable and the scientists cannot be trusted to analyse the data therefore global warming is wrong". And you have articulated the exact reasoning behind the 'audit' - thank you.

Ender: We can get another perspective entirely after Googling “abrupt climate change 2008” as I did in respect to the now closed CCSP thread. That US report will create it’s own waves without the gaggle of geese that home in here.

What all these blogs fail to find out is why climate science does not have to be exact in it’s self assessment.

Trying to find another example earlier today I suddenly recalled the lot of surveyors working in rough terrain. We have both old pegs and new pegs all over the place but it hardly ever stops development as most new abodes have margins on all sides.

A good test of plans and expectations would be a particular endeavour such as grounding a mansion on some sandstone cliff above Sydney Harbour.

BTW: What's the difference between IPCC and CCSP reports on global warming?

A new topic Paul?

Luke, Ender, SJT...
A few of us, Steve McIntyre included, actually do have a clue about these things. Some of us have gone to the extent of collecting field data, simply to prove that the obfuscations about data availability and replication are just that: obfuscations.

Real scientists are happy to engage in honest give and take about their hypotheses, happy to share data (that's why archives exist and are required to be used.)

Unfortunately, too many of the scientists in this particular field are going along with "progressive PR" practices rather than normal scientific practice. They are going along with a push to treat everything as if there is no debate at all. That's not science, that's PR.

And no, it is not random, it is a very specific, carefully crafted strategy being followed by many people in many arenas. The documents are out there. Here's just one.

SJT,

"Chapter 1 is now complete! 4 billion years of Earth history, and climates extending out to 200 parsecs from Earth!"

Sorry, I do not have the time for a raving lunatic.

Try something that claims to be applicable to OUR REAL CLIMATE and I will read it.

Gavin,

"What all these blogs fail to find out is why climate science does not have to be exact in it’s self assessment."

We would settle for somewhere in the local solar system. When are the AGW types returning from their 200 parsec investigations??

I ask again - after Macca's tedious "auditing" of the GISS temperature series do we learn anything much overall. Nope - the trends are very much just like the other data series - CRU, RSS and UAH. Has anything been inverted on its head.

So wipe the rabies froth away - the thrill of the "big conspiracy exposure" - and tell me how all of this has changed your understanding in a significant manner.

"Real scientists are happy to engage in honest give and take about their hypotheses, happy to share data " - yes with real scientists - not disingenuous time-wasting creeps.

"Sorry, I do not have the time for a raving lunatic.

Try something that claims to be applicable to OUR REAL CLIMATE and I will read it."

Just like I said, you wouldn't have a clue.

Ender - "All the analysis that the GISS team do are set down exactly in the peer reviewed papers in their references - what more can you need?"

No, they're not. You're completely 100% wrong here. Its obvious you haven't read Climate Audit in a long time.

One example: for homogeneity adjustments, the papers specify that a two-legged fit is always done for a station record. In the actual source code, there are many cases where this does not occur and a single leg fit is used. This is why the peer review papers aren't enough, and its why NO ONE has replicated their work, because it would be immpossible without the source code (which hasn't always been publicly available).

Lastly, a new trend hasn't been derived from the GISS data as of yet, so I have no idea what you're rabbiting on about Luke.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/james_hansen_abusing_the_publi.html

..and we are expected to believe anything and everything that this absolute shonk proclaims...

and from a leader of a tax payer funded research institution as well.

Compliance with FOI however defined, is just a side show to the real fraud.

"I build biometric models for a living. If the data I used was of a similar quality, and required the level and type of adjustment that Hansen et al apply to their data sets, I would be compelled to divulge to my clients, in language that they are able to understand i.e. plain english as it happens, just what it is that I have done to the data "

Have you even read the IPCC report? They state quite clearly what they think the limitations on their findings are. This is not just a matter of what we definitely know, it's also risk management.

"So there cannot be adiabatic cooling or heating in the earth's atmosphere because there is a continuous exchange of heat between one mass of air and the air contiguous to it."

Radiation, Louis. Look it up. Absorption and emission of energy.

Strange that no "risk management" for a possible global cooling is coming from the IPCC.

Shouldn't taxpayer funded research be used to cover all bases?

No, not when such funds are being used to promote a pre-determined agenda. An agenda based on politics and ideology, rather than on hard science.

Hence Hansen and Gore et al.

"Strange that no "risk management" for a possible global cooling is coming from the IPCC."

No evidence for global cooling.

SJT,

"Have you even read the IPCC report? They state quite clearly what they think the limitations on their findings are."

It depends which part of the report you mean. In the body of the report there is considerable discussion of uncertainties, but that doesn't get reflected in the summary for policy makers. It looks like it was written by quite different people, which of course it was.

Joel - wakey wakey

Pls tell me how all this GISS business affects your overall understanding...

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.146/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1979/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.238/mean:12

"An agenda based on politics and ideology, rather than on hard science." - so Reynolds you would like them to not use science and go for your indulgent flights of fancy.

Luke, the GISS record goes way back before 1979. HadCRUT and GISS are VERY important for this very reason. No one's arguing that the late 70's early 80's weren't cool. That's obvious.

But we do need to know if this warming is anything unusual within the context of the 20th century. The FACTS are that for the USA, (which have the best records), no its not unusual. The ramp up to the 30's record temperatures is very similiar to what occured at the turn of the 21st century.

A LOT OF CLIMATE MODELS ARE "VERIFIED" (if you can call it that) BASED ON THE GISS TEMP. RECORD. Are you starting to understand?

Its not uncommon for a GISS adjustment to increase the warming trend for an urban station based on a rural station. From a UHI perspective, does this make any sense to you? In China, one of Hansen’s “rural” comparanda for Changsha was Yueyang. According to Wikipedia, it has a population of 5.1 million.

Very little coming from RealClimate lately. I suspect they're as interested in this work as many others are.

Ender just keeps on demonstrating his intellectual shortcommings. He tells us how the review papers "touch" on data integrity, and seriously believes this is an adequate substitute for detailed testing of the data.

All the noises comming out of the IPCC and Hansen et al are like flashing red lights to anyone from an investigative/audit background. They recognise "form" the moment these clowns open their mouths.

Tell you what, Ender, try on excuses like "too busy to attend to such detail" and "touched on data integrity" to a tax auditor and watch him switch to terrier mode in a flash.

The facts are that we no longer need any other justification to examine every last AGW statement and claim in detail. The behaviour of the climatazzi, and your own, have already demonstrated exactly what sort of people we are dealing with.

The window has now closed. The fact that you/they might subsequently modify your spin to a more reasonable approach under scrutiny will never erase the more informative messages you/they sent when caught unawares. And no amount of sophistry on your part will deter these inquiries.

"The FACTS are that for the USA, (which have the best records), no its not unusual"

I thought anthony watts was telling us all the time how bad the US records are.

"The FACTS are that for the USA, (which have the best records), no its not unusual"

I thought anthony watts was telling us all the time how bad the US records are.

Joel - "In the actual source code, there are many cases where this does not occur and a single leg fit is used. This is why the peer review papers aren't enough, and its why NO ONE has replicated their work, because it would be immpossible without the source code (which hasn't always been publicly available)."

How do you know this if you do not have the source code?

Also the idea of replication is to take the data and do your own analysis with the same data and hopefully get the same result.

Ender - "How do you know this if you do not have the source code?"

Its now available on the GISS website.

Ender - "Also the idea of replication is to take the data and do your own analysis with the same data and hopefully get the same result."

This only works if the procedure has spelled out in painstaking detail. Didn't you ever take a year 10 science class?

Well put Ian Mott.

Precisely the point. The articles now surfacing about the antics of Hansen and crew should be making the most ardent of warmanistas at least feel embarrassed/ashamed by what he has been up to.

But no, they press on regardless.

I wonder why that would be..?

Ian Mott - "The window has now closed. The fact that you/they might subsequently modify your spin to a more reasonable approach under scrutiny will never erase the more informative messages you/they sent when caught unawares. And no amount of sophistry on your part will deter these inquiries."

One of yours let out the real reason for the 'audit'. That is the injection of doubt into a scientific debate using the same tactics as in a court of law. However this is not a law debate it is a scientific one where reasonable doubt does not invalidate the entire scientific hypothesis. What does happen is doubts pile up until such time a better theory comes along that explains the observed facts better or the doubt are settled by more observations.

So far what your 'side' has failed to do is supply a better theory of climate. Your pathetic attempts at injecting doubt only deceive the ignorant as this is exactly what they are designed to do. You do not have a better theory however the campaign for the hearts and minds of the public does not rest with the science. Most people do not understand the science and are therefore ripe for this sort of argument ie:reasonable doubt invalidates the theory that they see played out in a thousand courtroom dramas everyday.

Science does not work like a court of law. Quite often theories that work are used far beyond their lifetimes even though they have problems. Newton's Laws of Motion are a perfect example. Even though they have been extended by Relativity they still work at low speeds and are therefore retained. All aircraft design is done in the subsonic realm assuming that air is incompressible even though inflating a tyre with a pump invalidates this assumption. The reason that this is done is because the subsonic equations used work fine and predict aircraft performance perfectly well. Here an auditor would declare the entire field of subsonic aerodynamics to be wrong if we applied your law court reasoning to science.

Science is always a work in progress. At anytime it is possibe to take a snapshot of current thinking and this is what the IPCC report is. If McIntyre wants to further the science then he needs to start producing science not law briefs. However as his task is to deceive the ignorant he will continue, like you are doing, to inject courtroom like doubt into the debate that he knows run of the mill people understand. By faling for this crap, Mott, you are demonstrating the true depth of your own ignorance as anyone that understands at least a smattering of the science can see the warming trend and the mechanics behind it.

So let fly with a few more insults as everyone knows this is what you excel at.

SJT

You display a complete ignorance of science - Adiabatic cooling or heating is not radiation - it is a change in temperature without addition or removal of heat by changing the pressure.

No go and study a reasonable text and not the rubbbish on Wikipedia

Further to my previous post it may be that in 20 years time AGW is found to be wrong and McIntyre is hailed as the great hero that slew that green dragon as things is science change as it is a work in progress. In which case you can laugh all you want or line us up to be shot or whatever.

However the problem is that lacking real working scientists the deniers do not have a coherent theory to explain recent warming. Lacking this of course the data must be wrong or it is cosmic rays. Without a coherent agreed on working hypothosis you cannot test or model your theory to try and make predictions about what may happen in the future.

So if a polititian asks a denier for policy advice about what to do about the future deniers have nothing. If a polititian asks an AGW climate scientist for policy advice he/she can produce the current snapshot, AR4, replete with possible scenerios that they can plan for.

So you and McIntyre can snipe at the sidelines all you want however you are not doing science. If at some time McIntyre's work leads to a better theory of recent warming then all kudos to him.

You have nothing other than the other guy is wrong, done the stats wrong, or I think that it may be cosmic rays or green people from Mars with death rays.

In short you have nothing.

Ender - "So far what your 'side' has failed to do is supply a better theory of climate."

Natural variability. Easy.

Question: Of the suppposed 1 deg. C increase of temp. in the 20th century, how much can you definitively attribute to human activities? I think you'll be surprised at the answer.

There has not yet been a single peer-reviewed scientific study which has entirely ruled out natural climate variability as the cause of most of our recent warmth. So we can say that the natural variability hypothesis is just as valid as the CO2 version.

Joel - "Its now available on the GISS website."

So it is available? What are you whinging about them.

"This only works if the procedure has spelled out in painstaking detail. Didn't you ever take a year 10 science class?"

I do realise that McIntyre's climate science is about Year 10 level therefore he would need a detailed procedures.

Other scientists, that have progressed beyond Year 10 and even got a PhD find that they know how to do the analysis and therefore only need the data.

The idea of replication is to use different methods with the same data to get the same result. Very often this does not happen and problems are found. However such problems are ususally thrashed out in the peer reviwed literature not on blogs at least until now when the climate debate got political.

What a pathetic load of nonsense Ender.

It is up to the AGW proponents to provide the credible evidence to support their hypothesis and propositions, and one would have thought that with something that may have such extensive changes to our society, they could do better than they have done.

The fact that others can punch holes in the hypothesis and the unsubstantiated and wrong headed claims made is not the fault of those doing so.

Just hiding behind the uncertainty of the scientific process is absurd.Either they know with a level of confidence commensurate with the consequences or they dont, and from what one reads they are no way near that state.

One would have also thought that with something this important the professionals involved in the promotion of AGW cause would have paid more attention to the ethical processes involved.

But when articles like that above regarding the behaviour of the leading the AGW proponent ( Hansen) appears in the press and other journals, the public has a right to be concerned as to just the what hell is going here.

I agree with Ian Mott's view, and add that what is also most noticeable is that the alarmistas seem to come from a sector of the population that has very limited and sheltered life experiences .. and the AGW scientific community is riddled with incompetence and second ratedness.

So Joel I'll ask a 3rd time - you have the comparison with GISS, CRU, UAH and RSS - the trends are similar. So how does all this forensic time wasting inform us? I have 4 separate analyses which tell me the same story. So do you now get it ?

"and the AGW scientific community is riddled with incompetence and second ratedness" - so yes when I peruse the latest GRL issues - so much "incompetence" - ROTFL. Anyway Malcolm you won't be a getting a drink soon after Motty turns your tap off.

Ender,

You say "Science is always a work in progress." I think you ought to look at the script. It says that the science is done, there is no doubt, no more discussion, we must act immediately (to dismantle industrial civilisation) or the atmoshere will explode.

Ender:

"If at some time McIntyre's work leads to a better theory of recent warming then all kudos to him."

You miss the point. What McIntyre is trying to do is explicit in the name Climateaudit; he is mainly interested in the climate data of various types and the question of its reliabilty. Not theories and models (except those that relate to data "transformations").

When an auditor find flaws in a company's accounts you don't reject those findings because the auditor doesn't actually run a company, and run it without those flaws.

Luke - "So Joel I'll ask a 3rd time - you have the comparison with GISS, CRU, UAH and RSS - the trends are similar. So how does all this forensic time wasting inform us? I have 4 separate analyses which tell me the same story. So do you now get it ?"

You must have missed my previous post. The GISS and HadCRUT records PRIOR to 1979 matter because climate from a 30 year perspective is pretty meaningless.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/global-temps-1850-2007.jpg

Of the approximate 0.5 deg. C rise since the 70's, AT LEAST half, if not all of that could easily be chalked up to another warming trend seen earlier in the century when man produced negligible CO2. I'll repeat again, NO studies have proven what that warming was from.

The graph for the US is unique in that the late 30's spike is of similar magnitude to the late 90's spike. I'm not saying it will happen 100% but it wouldn't surprise me if the rest of the world falls more in line with this.

Ender - "So it is available? What are you whinging about them."

First we whinged because we didn't have it. Now we're whingeing because of the hideously grotesque Fortran code. These things don't get decoded overnight.

Ender wrote this amusing set:

"No the rules say "All written expert, and government review comments will be made available to REVIEWERS" (my capitals)"

Do you realize that Steve McIntire is a reviewer?

LOL

Well if you are worried about heat islands they are more likely to be in the last 30 years. So after all the moralising here - different analyses and the satellite seem to give the same trends.

As for "it wouldn't surprise me if the rest of the world falls more in line with this." - typical US global projective think. Actually I would not as this high quality analysis shows.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=tmean®ion=aus&season=0112 So I couldn't disagree more.

And of course how can you prove anything would a favourite lurk of denialists here on blog. Nobody has ever said all warming MUST be due to CO2 and there are good reasons to suggest we have a fair idea about early 20th century warming.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution_png

As for hideously grotesque code - it's not like these data analysis systems would have been designed from scratch with a full specification. They would evolved over many years for different purposes. Given the complexity of issues it's unlikely that there would be a nice guide book to all this.

Frankly you'd be better using your time to undertake an alternative global analysis. All this auditing mania is a waste of time that leaves you utterly uninformed. It's what an engineer bereft of any science ideas would do.

" and the AGW scientific community is riddled with incompetence and second ratedness" - so yes when I peruse the latest GRL issues so much "incompetence".

Hmmm.. isnt the GRL in the same class of publications that first gave MBH a hearing which then lead to the IPCC using a fraudulently derived graph as the back drop to a IPCC talk fest.

So precisly, so much incompetence and misrepresentation.. and whats more MBH are not alone. WAWYA.

SJT, "ave you even read the IPCC report? They state quite clearly what they think the limitations on their findings are. This is not just a matter of what we definitely know, it's also risk management."

Of course I have read the IPCC report and yes the limitations are stated, Once, buried within the report in a very minor way and NOT highlighted in the summary (which is what most people read) nor given the prominance that the high value model outputs are given. So yet again there is a level of bias in the reporting. I guess that a statement such as "warming of the climate system is unequivical.........(IPCC SFPM AR4)" from the summary for policy makers doesn't require information about the poor quality of the data that has been used in the temperature reconstructions and to as inputs into the models. I guess that a statement such as "the quality of the data used to model global SST's is highly likely to be of inferior quality and is highly unlikely to produce reliable model outcomes......" should be given similar prominance to the observed changes in climate and thier effects. However nowhere do the IPCC authors truly represent their findings with at least a modicum of honestly.

"You say "Science is always a work in progress." I think you ought to look at the script. It says that the science is done, there is no doubt, no more discussion, we must act immediately (to dismantle industrial civilisation) or the atmoshere will explode."

You have completely misunderstood what they said, in that case.

Yes Malcolm - the entire world's climate literature is all suspect. Every single journal except E&E. Really now ...

(And I'll bet you don't ever read GRL or any of the science journals actually and so how would you know! - someone on a blog told you so?)

"fraudulently derived graph as the backdrop to a IPCC talk fest".

It certainly was that...the famed 'Hockey Stick'; the fraudulent graph of Michael Mann and cohorts. Did the IPCC disown it when it was exposed as a dud? No, they did not..In fact they re-invented it and brought it back again in their AR4.

Of course the IPCC were involved up to their eyeballs in promoting this bogus graph, and the "research" behind it. They even appointed Dr. Michael Mann as a Lead Author,on that Chapter, to review his own work on 'The Hockey Stick'!! Now that is an open, transparent peer review process for you!

As a CSIRO scientist quipped, (yes there are some doubters in the CSIRO), "the 'hockey stick' is really just a long thin stick that had a little erection, when it thought it detected a little heat".

Maybe the "Hockey Stick" should be re-named the "Lukey Stick".

Well creepy lukey I judge by the typically evasive nature of your answer that the GRL IS in the same class of journal that published the MBH paper in the first place.

Incompetence indeed.

Luke - "Well if you are worried about heat islands they are more likely to be in the last 30 years. So after all the moralising here - different analyses and the satellite seem to give the same trends."

Please tell this to NASA. They homgenise the entire record.

Luke - "As for "it wouldn't surprise me if the rest of the world falls more in line with this." - typical US global projective think. Actually I would not as this high quality analysis shows."

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1487

Dodgy practices abound. You do realise the southern hemispere has warmed 0.07 deg. C in the past 30 years? Australia is clearly the outlier.

Luke - "And of course how can you prove anything would a favourite lurk of denialists here on blog. Nobody has ever said all warming MUST be due to CO2 and there are good reasons to suggest we have a fair idea about early 20th century warming."

Wow, so much cannon fodder, so little time. I specifically like this quote from your link:

"The time history and radiative forcing effectiveness for each of these factors was specified in advance and was not adjusted to specifically match the temperature record."

So, so, so, so, wrong. The only way that this "magical formula" could have worked the first time (they never do) is if it was based on previous models. What a staggering amount of BS. By the way, how is this particular model predicting 21st century temps? I can tell you without looking - BADLY. There's only 1 or 2 models in the IPCC spaghetti graph of 15-20 that are anywhere near the current trend. Its very convenient to use 1 model to match the 20th century trend and then a different one for the 21st.

Luke - "Frankly you'd be better using your time to undertake an alternative global analysis. All this auditing mania is a waste of time that leaves you utterly uninformed. It's what an engineer bereft of any science ideas would do."

Don't worry, its happening. Surfacestations isn't all for show. The idea is to collect truly rural and well sited stations in the US and globally so that no adjustments need to be done. This takes time.

Breathtaking - utter tosh.

BoM do their high quality analysis with this system - Macca's article is irrelevant. Try to get informed eh?

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml

You've dismissed the UAH and RSS satellite data - wow !! You'll be getting hate mail from your denialist mates soon.

And what nonsense on modelling - if you think GCMs are a magic formula you're a nong - there is clearly some other factors operating in the 21st century - possibly cloud feedback changing or a decadal influence - but whatever it is - denialists are equally clueless. But why focus on temperature when worldwide drought has increased over time. Arctic melt. Glacier melt. Species behaviour changing. All these diverse lines of evidence point one way?

Next !

The Ending times! Oh Woe is us!

Joel: Luke forgot rising sea level and Cape Grim.

Luke, the 0.07 deg. increase for the southern hemisphere for the past 30 years IS FROM UAH!!!! Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

When the temperature arguement fails, the warmists always go running to the ice. Artic decreases, antarctic increases. We could go in circles on that one. I will say the theories of soot causing increased smowmelt are intriguing.

Is the sea level rise reference a joke? Sea level rise has been constant for over a century. Let's not go there.

Luke - "You've dismissed the UAH and RSS satellite data - wow !! You'll be getting hate mail from your denialist mates soon."

It's not often someone can be so completely and utterly wrong and have it proven to them on this site. And then I'm called uninformed, a denialist, and a nong all in the same post, I feel privelliged!

You've admitted we can't explain the 21st century non-warming, right after saying that we have high confidence in the 20th century models. That's rich.

The inclusion of PDO effects in the models is sorely needed and will undoubtedly re-weight the various forcings. I wonder if they get it right first time?

Considering the above discussion from the gaggle and noting David Holland’s search regarding Mitchell & Briffa features on Carter, Hughes, Icecap etc, but the not the main media, I must ask so what? We have another stunt in a vigorous campaign of diversion from the continuing flow of adverse climate reports.

He is also on the list 70 + of Inhofe's global warming deniers that have no climate background. What do you expect; the major climate institutions to roll over and show their belly to a mere mob of bloggers?

With climate change science this controversial I would not expect to go knocking on doors without some introduction from their peers.

Joel; you're link to the 1850-2007 temp anomaly chart is interesting in that it shows a step-up around about 1910 to match the step-up in the late 70's. It is beyond doubt that the 70's step-up is due to the Great Pacific Climate Shift detailed by McLean and Quirk and D'Aleo. The issue is, was the GPCS a recurring part/cause of PDO/ENSO variability or a one-off which coincided with a PDO switch; if it is not a one-off in a Hurst sense, then it would be interesting to speculate whether there was a similar GPCS around 1910.

In any event, when you take into account GISS fiddling with the pre-satellite data so as to better achieve those upward trends, and the climate variation within the 2 different PDO types, as Lucia's musings show, it is possible that there has been no temp increase over the 20thC.

Joel: Although I have no idea where you live I suspect you, like one or two others here are living remote from natural indicators, rivers, forests, fields etc. The emphasis on temperature data gives you away IMO. At 600 m above SL, I too am remote from sea and tides but I make it my duty to check coastlines somewhere year by year.

Living inland allows for many other observations like a major river with it’s artificial water storages and yields. Thing is the snows are late again this winter and everybody downstream is panicking big time. I met a lady this week who says her curry plant left outside is flourishing. Guess we haven’t had a decent frost yet either.

These long term trends leave nobody in doubt about the end result. A new issue is about planting trees at the rates we were. Growing lots of trees here could easily suck up someone else’s water according to the latest science.

And it's big bushfire country now.

BTW cohenite writes like Jan IMO

"What do you expect; the major climate institutions to roll over and show their belly to a mere mob of bloggers."

Poor Gavin, I can hardly express my contempt for his utter ignorance of scientific method. Surely, he needs far more remedial Ed than I can provide in 200 words or less...

If BHP claimed they had a trillion dollar mining bonanza and then refused full transparency of the evidence, their corporate officers would be in for extended court appearances ending in prison terms.

Yet Hansen, Mann, Briffa et al, can claim they have the evidence necessary to instigate a multi-trillion dollar shift in our global socio-economic system while steadfastly denying transparency in their research, destroy documentation, manipulate data bases, hiding code and behaving in nefarious ways that in the business world would have long ago been exposed as nothing less than fraudulent.

The hypocrisy is stunning and educational. SJT and Ender are so utterly out of touch with reality that debate with them is worse than futile, it only enables their Orwellian singsong to hit new syllogistic lows.

All we are asking for is full and reproducible transparency of the science involved. It’s that simple. It does not matter who we are or what our motives are. The data base evidence should be open to all eyes, not just the good old boys club.

Anyone who impedes open scientific method and debate is one of two things. A fraud or a fool. End of story.

Hansen has called for AGW trials. Let’s hope he gets his wish.

"All we are asking for is full and reproducible transparency of the science involved. It’s that simple. It does not matter who we are or what our motives are. The data base evidence should be open to all eyes, not just the good old boys club."

The standard practice in science is to go out and do your own work, not beat up on people. If you doubt their conclusions, why would you believe anything they give you anyway. That could just as easily have been faked as anything else. Take various cold fusion claims. Other people go out and try to reproduce the claims. So far, no-one has, so cold fusion is not accepted.

And it's not an old boys club. Scientists are very competitive. They just have nothing but contempt for the idiots out there who have no idea what they are talking about but seem to be eager to take them on.

I see Joel has done a runner on Aussie temperature record - bait and switch noted matey.

And yes - soot explains all the changes in vegetation growth on boreal regions (not!) - wakey wakey.

Wes - if you are "so in touch" with the debate - how many journal articles have you read recently - might it be 0.0 - but a stead diet of blog fodder, talk back radio, and Current Affair I'll bet.

And I wouldn't be used to using the corporate sector as a universal evidence of fair, timely and appropriate information. Or we might have to give a few examples of history.

So Wessy as a whiney AGW bashing toady - why do you think that 2 different temperature analyses and two different satellite analyses tell us the same story about global temperatures. All you are doing mate is going for all you are worth with the bike pump - trying to inflate the conspiracy theory.

Although I did like "enables their Orwellian singsong to hit new syllogistic lows" - do you walk around the house talking like that - your poor suffering wife - I guess better than Mottsa who would have added "turd" in there somehow.

Yes AGW trials would be really excellent. Be careful you might get what you wish for. Then we'll find who knows what about science.

Gavin - "These long term trends leave nobody in doubt about the end result."

Hi Gavin, its refreshing to listen to someone with half a brain in here. I'm not going to deny that Australia has had a hot 21st century. I've never contended to (despite some loud bleating in the background). But it has been unusually hot compared to the rest of the world, and the southern hemisphere has been stable overall. Which means it must be cooling somewhere else. No anecdotal evidence please, otherwise we'll start talking about the NH winter of 2007/2008.

“it must be cooling somewhere else”

Really Joel; was that your best guess? And what’s wrong with anecdotal evidence?

This year I gave my spare lawnmower to a couple living in Sydney and I can’t recall when I last used the other mower but there were times when I used both regularly.

As I collected the daily news from the driveway this morning I noticed a pile of dry leaves in the gutter. Even with this cold wind a morning or two after our shortest day, any rain we had is long gone. Growth is about more than CO2 and temperature, so is climate change.

Sure; it must be cooling and raining somewhere else.

Sure; as one pole gains ice the other looses ice. IMHO the balance over time is simply SL change.

Joel; let’s focus on the tide readings for a diversion from the usual blog rants over temperature series and projections. Any one can leave a peg on the beach in the highest line of seaweed.

Regardless of the obscurantist hand waving from the usual AGW acolytes, one profound fact remain unchallengeable: Science which hides its methods and databases from free and open analysis is not science at all but a recipe for fraud.

The central principle of transparency in scientific method has been the foundation of rational inquiry since The Enlightenment.

In the case of climatology, which has evolved away from the sphere of idle academic speculation to become a driving force behind global socio-economic policy, the need for transparency in method and databases is augmented by the public’s right to know and debate freely and without intimidation in our democratic system.

I am at a loss to explain why or how anyone could argue that climatologists have a right to conduct their “science” sheltered from the usual rules of scrutiny and reproducibility of results. Yet, here we have a mob of true believers, pretending to be defenders of science, who are doing just that.

The hypocrisy is stunning and instructive. Luke, don’t pretend that you are for a science trial for AGW. You might get what you don’t wish for.

“I am at a loss to explain why or how anyone could argue that climatologists have a right to conduct their “science” sheltered from the usual rules of scrutiny and reproducibility of results.”

Perhaps Arthur Kantrowitz has some insight into the magical thinking of our resident true believers.

“When our values demand action before general agreement on facts has been achieved, we must base action on an interim statement of the facts. However, it is important to remember the uncertainties and not to consider the issue closed. When a political decision has been made, those who favored that decision will maintain a vested interest in its preservation. That interest could be challenged by advancing knowledge. Burying ignorance in political compromise conceals important avenues for advancing the knowledge needed to live in our world.”

from The Separation of Facts and Values...

http://www.fplc.edu/risk/vol6/spring/kantro2.htm

Bemused. Gavin I'm glad you've raised your local impressions about local climate; when I relate how things haven't changed where I live in Newcastle over the last 130 years luke castigates me. So I went a bit further afield to the Murray Darling and was castigated again because arcane factors like wind speed, runoff and pan evaporation were not included in the figures I gave for various locales within the MD and its catchement. So, this time I had a look on the BoM site at where I was born, the HELLHOLE of Jerrys Plains, which has temp records going back to 1891, almost when I was born. In the 1891-1920 period with the base period of 61-90, there were higher summer temps and cooler winter temps; in the period of 1971-2000, there were warmer, but less warm than the 1891 period, summer temps and cooler winter temps. Also in the 1971-2000 period, there was higher rainfall in summer and lower in August; I certainly haven't been a Hurst factor at my birth-place.

Luke has resorted to BoM Australian graphs even though he has berated me before for noting the effect of the Great Pacific Climate Event on the BoM base period; he is also annoyed that I referred to an analysis by Hughes about the erroneous, as indicated by GISS methodology (!), use of UHI adjustments by BoM; never mind, see for yourself;

http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/gissbom.htm

Apart from disliking Warwick I don't see how you can quibble about the findings; especially when our good friend, McIntyre, has taken the issue of BoM 'irregularities' in respect of adjusting individual data sites and expanded it by looking at Jones' work compared with GHCN and Torak & Nicholls' methodology;

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1492

Given all this I don't know how anyone can make pronouncements about definite 'climate change' and base on this change the need for massive dislocation and upheaval as Hansen, and as indicated by his hysterical, doom-ridden speech yesterday. Rudd advocates. Disgraceful.

So Wes - nicely ducked - you haven't got a clue have you. Literature read = 0.0 - talking through your ever increasing waffly rhetorical hat. Utterly clueless. A drongo even.

Cohenite - you've cost me another keyboard - I just sprayed coffee all over it - W Hughes (yea gads - an old BoM basher from way back banging on about capital cities - who cares). Show something relevant.

Jerrys Plains - a hellhole? - luxury - we used to live in hole in road and eat mouthfuls of steaming hot gravel for breakfast? We used to dream of holidaying in J Plains. Jerrys Plains !! How many cherries can a cherry-plucker pluck. Probably the epicentre of bucking the trend. Trust Cohenite to be born there. Has obviously affected your entire metabolism. Wouldn't want to do a national spatial view - too much to ask?

Anyway Neville's a conservative guy - http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/200603/nicholls.pdf

Get this into ya.

Not a bad yarn actually.

Of course he didn't have the swag of recent papers I sent you which would have made his case stronger.

Wes; great link; Gore is scary; and it raises the question: what are the dominating motivations of the pro-AGW crew; I don't think altruism is high amongst the list, if it is there at all.

The motivations are simply to install a world socialist state centred in the UN. They construct a strawman, CO2 pollution, define the rules, scare the heck out of us, and then implement their agenda. Penny Wong apparently is inflexible - so if we think Gough Whitlam stuffed the economy, that was nothing compared to what these clowns are engaged in today.

Yes, Jerrys Plains; right next door to Tom's Hill. I see you've chosen to ignore McIntyre's rather more substantial assault on Aussie temps? Meanwhile, I'll read your link and then, like Diogenes, continue my quest for an Australian data site that manages to reflect BoM's national figures. I must say I find it strange that so far I haven't found ONE site which shows temp increases or even a trend upwards. And if JP doesn't, where will? (luke; say where will quickly 10 times.)

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi?variable=tmean®ion=aus&season=0112&period=1910

Cohenite move to Queensland - try Gayndah

and frost risk

Stone, R., Nicholls, N. and Hammer, G. (1996). Frost in NE Australia: trends and influence of phases of the Southern Oscillation. Journal of Climate 9, 1896-909.

A comprehensive study of New South Wales and Queensland frost frequency is also presented (Stone et al., 1996 revised 2000). For these studies regression analyses were performed on minimum temperature data from a number of stations. The analyses suggest a downward trend in numbers of frosts over the period of record (at the 95% confidence level) at six of the nine stations: Emerald, Biloela, Roma, Dalby, Goondiwindi and Tamworth. Regression lines calculated for dates of last frost over the period of record suggest a trend towards earlier date of last frost at five of the stations: Emerald, Biloela, Roma, Goondiwindi and Tamworth. Trends at the locations analysed may reflect the influence of their proximity to a warming Coral Sea (Stone et al. 1996). The warming in May and earlier date of the last frost suggest a contraction in the frost period.

http://www.mssanz.org.au/MODSIM03/Volume_01/A01/02_Howden&Power.pdf

http://piweek.com.au/presentations/climatechange-Roger-Stone.pdf

"“I am at a loss to explain why or how anyone could argue that climatologists have a right to conduct their “science” sheltered from the usual rules of scrutiny and reproducibility of results.”"

They can stop people trying to reproduce their results. Those scientists are amazing. How do they do that, with super powers?

The central principle of transparency in scientific method has been the foundation of science since The Enlightenment. Take transparency away, as our true believers here would do, and science becomes little more effective than alchemy—our researchers, wizards.

Read STJ’s posts again. He’s immersed in magical hierarchical thinking. In STJ’s world the heroic climatologists have “nothing but contempt” for common laymen “idiots” who “waste” their time with stupid questions, the answers to which we couldn’t possibly understand anyway. The wisdom of these elites should receive our respectful submission. They should answer to no one but their “peers” and virtual reality (GCMs).

Read Ender: To him transparency of method is a thin excuse for heretics “to harass working scientists for data.” The FOI requests are malicious because they seek to force “qualified scientist(s) to spoon feed you all the steps required to duplicate research.”

Ender inhabits a unicorn rainbow land where only friendly, vetted wizards are allowed a peak inside each other’s black box. How quaint. The evil purpose of those who seek to examine your methodology and data is to “inject doubt,” chants Ender. It hasn’t occurred to young Ender that the evil spell of doubt could be fairy dusted away by transparency if the science is sound.

Read Gavin, a true scientologist “a lady this week who says her curry plant left outside is flourishing.” An irrational and magical belief in anecdotes as signs from the heavens? “Growing trees could suck up someone else’s water.” Gavin should watch out for strangers that would steal his fat as well.

Read St. Luke, chapter and verse. Ad hominem, strawman, non sequitur, repeat in various orders sans grammar. Orwellian, indeed. Luke’s goal is to simply create so much off topic noise that the thread is lost in an antagonistic purple haze. Luke has no use for transparency in science, it’s a “waste of time that leaves you utterly uninformed.” Scientific method is a ploy of “disingenuous time-wasting creeps.”

Luke exudes a dark hatred for rational thought. Self-loathing is a recurring theme in his comments. He dehumanised himself as “the creep” so that he could behave like a comic book super villian and dehumanise all of us.

All the above AGW acolytes employ science-styled techno-chit-chat to shroud their very anti-science philosophical kernel.

They are intellectually dishonest, not only with us, but with themselves. Their debating style attempts to create a veneer of credibility over deep dark springs of loathing and chronic pessimism. They pretend to share our civilization’s commitment to the scientific agenda, but nothing could be further from the truth. Cognitive dissonance rings shrilly in almost every post they make.

The FOI topic has clearly exposed them as vigorous defenders of opacity and elitist obscurantism in climatological research. They are proud to be opposed to free and open inquiry and the public’s right to know. This should inform us forever more of their true motives when these ideologically retrogrades post their opinions on less philosophically revealing topics.

wes; I know a man who steals other people's fat and makes a very good living from it too; aren't people strange? I haven't interacted with luke long enough to be as astingently witty about him as you, but I must say I wonder whether he reads any of these bloody papers he's throwing at me. I've just read the Neville Nicholls one, and some quotes are instructive;

Abstract; "No study has attributed a cause to the rainfall decrease along the east coast."

Nor will they because they would be obsolete; since june 2007 rainfall from the central coast to the QLD border has exceeded normal amounts.

p 202 BoM "data sets typically include 50 to 200 stations distributed as evenly as possible over the Australian continent, and have been subject to detailed QUALITY CONTROL AND HOMOGENISATION." (my emphasis)

This is the point; and why I linked McIntyre's review of BoM's data fiddling; and it's also the reason why I can't find one specific site which conforms to the overall BoM scenario; although I'm yet to look at luke's suggestion of Gayndah; but it really is an issue if the specific sites, with few exceptions, do not conform to the total picture. P 207 provides the answer; and I don't intend quoting from what is a page of pro-model gobble-de-gook, with no certainty as to causes of a model predicted decline in rainfall with landcover changes discounted as a cause; thus leaving GHG's as the culprit. Again a model generated solution to a non-existent problem.

Now, I suppose I better keep trawling through the BoM data-base; so first port of call Gayndah; then I'm off to Scone, where I had my first romance, which no doubt made its own small contribution to the greenhouse.

Gayndah; records begin in 1871, but are only rainfall; mean rainfall higher than normal in Feb, slightly lower than normal in April; 1881-1910; higher max temps in Dec, lower in July; 1971-2000: higher max temps in Jan, lower in July; rainfall in same period: higher mean in Jan, lower in June.

Nothing exceptional.

"Read STJ’s posts again. He’s immersed in magical hierarchical thinking. In STJ’s world the heroic climatologists have “nothing but contempt” for common laymen “idiots” who “waste” their time with stupid questions, the answers to which we couldn’t possibly understand anyway. The wisdom of these elites should receive our respectful submission. They should answer to no one but their “peers” and virtual reality (GCMs)."

You can easily fix that Wes, do a uni course learn what the science actually is. Then when you ask them a question, you might actually understand the answer.

Read Pierre humbert's free book, available online. Tell me where he's made a mistake.

BTW, I include myself in those who don't understand the book. But I don't claim to be able to say where is wrong, either.

Wes: IMO, your only contribution to any debate is a lot of words. Seems you have no track with the practical. Rhetoric like some policy floats on stale air.

"Abstract; "No study has attributed a cause to the rainfall decrease along the east coast.""

I also said but you did not notice - "Of course he didn't have the swag of recent papers I sent you which would have made his case stronger." i.e. Cai, Power & Smith etc

"since june 2007 rainfall from the central coast to the QLD border has exceeded normal amounts" - so ?? about what a La Nina would do ?? so what?

useful frost info ignored

These guys didn't seem to have your data issues Cohenite?

http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/ClimateChanges/pub/Rangelands_99GM.pdf

cohenite: I have great hope, your attention leaves some other fellows behind. After years of coaxing doubters to believe in measurements of various kinds I know when extra company on the task is worthwhile.

You can appreciate my humble retreat from a set of temperatures recorded over decades adjacent to town back home. Odd trends and discontinuities all over! These days I can’t find them on the web however when I first saw them it would have been entirely possible to shift a few mid points in line with nearby weather stations and of course they too had anomalies scattered throughout.

Given I drove around these places often enough to know temperatures by the sea were pretty much the same where ever you went the big task now is having a best guess about which station was spot on in any given period. But we know from practical experience the more thermometers in the kit the better the guess. I carried about five when checking any industry. That was usually enough to convince site managers when they had a problem.

Trends can only be appreciated when there is general agreement about the starting point.
Looking backwards at old records also requires some skill. Refining your program for evaluating old data becomes a matter of expectations.

Lets say it again; when looking back most linear thermometers are only accurate to about 2% of range.

Wes - you've become a bit of an old ranter haven't you - "He dehumanised himself as “the creep” so that he could behave like a comic book super villian and dehumanise all of us. " - errr - no actually - was just wearing an insult as a badge of honour like "Denialist Scum" did - didn't hear you complaining about him. But you're so dour it would have passed you by. You know - a joke mate.

So Wessy - we have great prosaic outpouring from your inner being. But mate - essentially you're a boofhead - you have no science about you, you don't read any of the literature - you're simply on a ranting rhetorical rampage. All philosophy - but no form and no substance. A veritable walking thesaurus. A blog amanuensis. But no R squared. No science.

You have a fantasy how all this works - a great clockwork conspiracy you imagine but you haven't a clue.

Don't like Hansen and GISS - well get your own data sets and brew your own analysis. At least Warwick Hughes does. An alternative analysis is what most would do. And I'm saying you have 3 alternative analyses and for the period of overlap - the story looks about the same to me.

Now excuse me - I have to get back to educating young Cohenite.

God, non-stop spamming of Australian papers. Again, its just Australia, although I think we may have learned a bit about what Luke does for a living.

OT, people might want to know why David Holland wants this information in the first place:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2960

Basically, the exalted all important impartial review editors appeared to have done jacksh*t from the documents received thus far. They've rubber stamped the relevant chapter and often ignored any review comments.

IMO, Mitchell has probably done the same, but is just being a twat about it.

Luke - "So Wessy - we have great prosaic outpouring from your inner being. But mate - essentially you're a boofhead - you have no science about you, you don't read any of the literature - you're simply on a ranting rhetorical rampage. All philosophy - but no form and no substance. A veritable walking thesaurus. A blog amanuensis. But no R squared. No science."

Luke, you haven't displayed a single post that shows any enlightened scientific thinking. You've thrown around some links, some papers, but nothing that can't be accomplished in 10 minutes of internet surfing. There's no denying you have a superiority complex. You claim others watch A Current Affair and then use terms like "wakey wakey". You are truly an intellectual giant.

No one's hashed out anything new here or scored any points (really, you haven't). The question is, do you actually think you know more about climate science than Macca? Now that's an interesting question.

"Luke, you haven't displayed a single post that shows any enlightened scientific thinking. You've thrown around some links, some papers, but nothing that can't be accomplished in 10 minutes of internet surfing. There's no denying you have a superiority complex. You claim others watch A Current Affair and then use terms like "wakey wakey". You are truly an intellectual giant."

Did you actually read any of the links? Lukes opinion may be interesting, but he's referring you to science.

No, what Luke "thinks" is science.

Well Louis - I seem to be debating with Cohenite - you seem to be quipping - like a little annoying Chihuahua. Shoo. Go and have a few too many Emus at the Tavern.

Joel - well it actually took 3 minutes but only as I knew what I was after - practical illustrations of the research of climate change attribution and trends in frost frequency in Australia. Hard to find stuff actually. Not stuff you'll find just lying around. If find the links random well it's because you don't understand. Do try to keep up doofus.

Joel,

Luke has a classic inferiority complex.

The reflexive abusive superiority he projects anonymously is a textbook example of psychological compensation. Luke probably has many more personal problems than we can hope to understand. One cannot expect respect from someone who doesn’t first respect his or her self.

Luke says the El Creepo routine was a joke and I believe him. Humour is the most sincere of emotions and the most revealing as well. Luke wears his self-loathing as “a badge of honor”--his heart is upon the sleeve of his every comment.

Comic book super villains (like El Creepo) are simply caricatures in which certain striking characteristics are exaggerated to create a grotesque effect. The El Creepo nom de guerre is gone, but the grotesque remains.

The pen is the mind’s tongue warned Cervantes.

We should all remember that the next time we press the post icon. Let Luke’s sad example be a plea for us all to treat each other with compassion and respect even while vigorously debating.

Luke

I quipped SJT, but I guess that is too subtle for you., but you do have a complex of some sorts and I'll Wes deal with thaaat.

Lets say it again; when looking back most linear thermometers are only accurate to about 2% of range.

Strikes me Joel; you have truly missed the boat when fishing around for who knows what about “climate science”. The big question IMO is Joel contributing from first hand experience in any relative discipline. Why hang off Holland’s request?

Reinforcing McIntyre may be your ambition but I for one don’t depend on it and it seems neither does the media. Let the real scientists do their own thing.

BTW Luke is probably one of them working in our backyard since he keeps coming up with links to relevant reports I usually can’t find on my own.

Wes: Ten minutes on Google never gets the whole picture

Yes anyway Wes - any science comments or are you just into the pop psychology? I know it's lonely out there among the rocks.

BTW El Creepo came simply from El Nino and Mottsa himself invented the Lord routine. Then Wes you "assumed" I was sock puppetting. But that's because your heart is black. You see Wes I'm your worst nightmare - I'm just how you want me to be.

Want me to morph back? - what was that Star Trek episode about chameleons?

Thanks Gavin & SJT for forbearance.

And sorry you're not getting enough attention Joel but I was addressing Cohenite and it is an Aussie blog. I apologise for my parochialism (mate!)

However Australia does have a high quality reference station network with no major cities. So you might learn how it's done.

gavin - "Strikes me Joel; you have truly missed the boat when fishing around for who knows what about “climate science”. The big question IMO is Joel contributing from first hand experience in any relative discipline. Why hang off Holland’s request?"

Holland's request is the topic du jour. Any climate science article on this blog totally goes off the rails with similar arguements. So sorry if I'd like to get OT.

I have been involved with Australian standards review boards, and one of the most painful processes is dealing with the public review comments. Every single one must be addressed and the resolution documented. The IPCC process works in a similar fashion with the review comments (though not open to the public, that would be interesting). Many of the comments have been dismissed, with sometimes little or no explanation. Now if we have to deal with review comments from every Tom, Dick & Harry, then climate scientists can bloody well deal with the odd request.

SJT - "Did you actually read any of the links? Lukes opinion may be interesting, but he's referring you to science."

Examining frost patterns for Australia is indeed science, but it tells us jack about the ROW. Maybe having lived in Canada leaves me bewildered as to why we'd want it, but I digress.

Luke - "If find the links random well it's because you don't understand. Do try to keep up doofus."

They weren't exactly rocket science. Wow, input climate change attribution in to google. Really tough. You really DO think you're hot stuff.

And try to form proper sentences when insulting someone.

gavin - "Reinforcing McIntyre may be your ambition but I for one don’t depend on it and it seems neither does the media. Let the real scientists do their own thing."

Luke didn't answer whether he thought he knew more than McIntyre, and I don't think you would either. Luke's inability to respect anyone who has a different opinion then himself is a massive character flaw.

gavin; I guess the issue is whether the lack of accuracy of historical measuring is 'cured' by retrospective algorithms; which brings me to luke's latest link, the McKeon paper on QLD; this is a paper which nominates ENSO as a dominating factor in rainfall variability, except, oddly in the period between 1930-40, and concedes that "general changes in climate averages may disguise important variation at yearly and decadal time scales." Also, oddly, it only appears to look at increases in minimum temps.

Which brings me back to the McIntyre critique I linked to earlier; McIntyre looks favourably at the Torak and Nicholls (1996) methodology for dealing with prior collection blemishes and notes T&N list a few causes for these blemishes as including;

"thermometers being seized by dingoes, taken by crows and being smashed by angry wifes."

Under those circumstances we owe a debt of gratitude to those hardy souls who collected the data in times gone by!

Luke - "However Australia does have a high quality reference station network with no major cities. So you might learn how it's done."

For god's sake, are you running a PR campaign? I credit the BOM with creating the network and doing good work with documenting the stations with photos and histories. Gee, sounds a bit like the Surfacestations project doesn't it? Amid screams at RealClimate that "photos aren't data!!!!!"

Despite this, GISS still has adjusments for Aussie stations. Fancy that, huh? Are the adjustments based on the hard work of BOM? No.

Well gee Joel dat's a hard un' - perhaps BoM had been doing this long before surfacecrap.dorks got going. And after your worrying about GISS - why does it look like the satellite series. hmmmm - what a great investment in time for you.

Cohenite - you're a trooper. These guys have looked at climate data for most of their lives so might know a few things. Yes big effects in minima more than maxima across wide areas. Surely you're checked BoM's spatial time series by now. And don't find it strange that frost frequency has declined over 100 years even causing changes in wheat varieties. And yes ENSO explains about 50% of the rainfall variation in Eastern Australia but has been less influential in some periods. Ain't nature grande.

Of course they didn't have the benefit of Cai's latest tour de force series of papers did they. But they do now.

I'll just spin the dial and come up with a few more random googles. You might groove on them Cohenite.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/104530048/abstract Maybe it is just cycles ?

Jeez if old Joel was quick on the Google McDraw he'd come up with some global frost frequency data for us. You know - it's so easy - ya just hammer it into Google and up comes all manner of relevant material, like a whirlwind building a 747 from a junk-yard. But Joel's too busy getting dragged around in the wake of the argument. Swim out on an angle Joel - don't fight the current.

luke; these papers you're giving me seem to work against AGW, or at least reduce its prominence; this latest from White, McKeon and Syktus seems to be endorsing PDO/IPO and El Nino/La Nina variation within the larger, well-documentated cycle. So, you are a closet sceptic just peaking his head around the closet door, but still stirring the boys.

"seems to be endorsing PDO/IPO and El Nino/La Nina variation" - well don't we all? Cannot life be complex and have some AGW over the top?

Although Scott Power teases about IPO - just because we "think" we see cycles in our records don't mean they actually exist in reality. God's little trick to keep us alert, modellers and statisticians employed. Beware of the cycles and Ides of March !

Here's another one to contemplate. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/99018498/abstract You know - just one of those random links that pops up when you hammer climate change attribution into Google - just like Joel said :-)

“one of the most painful processes is dealing with the public review comments” reminds me of daily routines and dealing with diehards. Any self respecting team in a department dealing with the public won’t put words on paper that indicate their bemusement and frustration of staff involved in negotiations.

I used to pick up the phone and tell some interested party what was on my mind before applying the regulations. Negotiations over the mechanics of licensing weren’t in the computer or the file. Any compromise ended with the users. The appropriate question for Joel is do you expect someone else to go over your work and come up with a different answer every time?

Referring again to standards and review boards you must have come across NATA and the appropriate peer review process developed for all manner of testing laboratories. In many ways that organization was my backstop however I carried few NATA certified instruments personally.

The way it worked for me was the grapevine between testing and quality control personnel. Their independence from site management was paramount and each industry particularly export oriented processes depended on that principle. The search for rot at the core of a product was constantly supported by the network of technicians. Unfortunately weather station routines weren’t in the NATA loop.

The battle with opposing hierarchies is not new. An old instrument man tipped me off many years ago while building makeshift standards in his garage that the value of G for Melbourne was different to the textbooks. G at Greenwich was used in most imported instrument calibrations.

This brings me to ask cohenit