On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:38:20 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:43:15 -0800, isw wrote:

In article ,
7 wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote:

Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the
science behind it is questionable. Note how the alarmists cannot
respond to this important issue, other than with insane rants and
conspiracies.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/...g-predictions-
be-
tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/
December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the
Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San
Francisco, in a special session devoted to feedbacks in the climate
system. If you don't already know, feedbacks are what will determine
whether anthropogenic global warming is strong or weak, with cloud
feedbacks being the most uncertain of all.

In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince as
many scientists as possible the futility of previous attempts to
estimate cloud feedbacks in the climate system. And unless we can
measure cloud feedbacks in nature, we can not test the feedbacks
operating in computerized climate models.

WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?

Systems with feedback have characteristic time constants,
oscillations and dampening characteristics all of which are self
evident and measurable. Except if you are an AGW holowarming nut and
fruitcake. You'll just have to make up some more numbers and bully
more publications to get it past peer review.

Climate science needs more transparency.

Thats easy:

1. Put all your emails on public ftp servers.

2. Put all the raw climate data in public ftp servers so that it can
be peer reviewed.
I don't have any problem at all with *honest* peer review. What I do
have a BIG problem with is making the data available to people who are
certainly NOT "peers" (in the sense of having little or no scientific
training in any field, let alone a specialization in anything relating
to climatology), who furthermore have a real anti-warming agenda, and
who will, either willfully or ignorantly, misinterpret the data to
suit their purposes, and spread the resulting disinformation far and
wide.

How do you propose to prevent that?

Excellent question.

Yup.

First, I'd write a clear, coherent, complete description and
explanation of the exact mechanism by which CO2 is thought to increase
surface temperatures. I'd aim it at the level of a person who's had
high school physics, but has forgotten much of it. I'd make the best,
most honest case I could, showing and explaining the evidence both
supporting and against the hypothesis.

Then I'd publish the first draft and invite review by anyone who feels
qualified to comment. The second draft would honestly answer the
issues and misunderstandings raised in those comments, again keeping
the language and concepts accessible and convincing to any interested
high school physics graduate.

The process would iterate until a sufficiently understandable,
unambiguous case could be made for AGW to convince most people, or the
hypothesis is clearly falsified.

IOW, cut the condescending, supercilious crap and have an honest, open
debate. Focus on learning how the climate system actually works rather
than trying to advance a political agenda by frightening gullible
people with scare tactics.

And the scientist is no longer doing his/her science. To make data
available requires a maintenance staff before it's written to the public
disk.

Don't you think it might be a good idea to do some data QC before it's
written to disks distributed to anyone? I'd think that's part of the
scientist's job. Why should the public see anything different from the
same disks the research is based on? The more eyes looking, the earlier
discrepancies can be resolved. Science is supposed to be an open
process, not a quasi-religious ceremony.

It seems a shame for Steve McIntyre to have to do the QC by reverse
engineering secret analytical processes after the fact.