On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:11:48 -0600, TUKA
wrote:

On 2009-12-07, 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/...redictions-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?

I don't propose to prevent it at all. Nor does the public who is fully
behind the various freedom of information acts.

You pay for it? Keep it secret all you want. You use my money for it?
You don't get to say in who gets the information.

Those of you who have the arrogance to think you still do? Screw you,
and may you go into disgrace as Jones, Mann, Trenberth, and company
have done.

ISW must be joking, "honest peer review"
only if the Jones' like what the reviewer passes.

The meteorologists who spent a lifetime
documenting the local weather are the ones
who the likes of the cru crowd should apologize
to, mixing tree rings in with station data is
the biggest crock of BS anybody ever tried
to pass off as science.