Meh, I don't take the warmers seriously as scientists anymore. Heck, by their own admission, they don't even have the raw collected data anymore.
Let them come to
my world of modeling & simulation, with
my level of rigor where 10-15 thousand hourly weather reports from several weather stations over 50-100Km along one river valley (just for the months of June-August) is considered
a good start .
Much preferred is several years' worth of weather reports at 15 minute intervals. That's the point where one can model the atmo and use it as quality input for
other physics-based engineering-level models and expect the outcome of the models to match reality close enough to have some confidence.
The quantity and quality of data those jokers were using rendered their modeling worthless, even assuming their model closely matched reality.
Back when I just jockeyed heavy-duty stochastic models, I thought the warmer modelers were sloppy and unethical. Heck, I had to show my homework: inputs, assumptions, limitations...it was all there for the consumers of the data to throw rocks at. Not to mention that the models I used had to be V&A'd by a third party (Verification, Validation, & Accreditation) Here's a taste of that
https://nmso.navy.mil/VerificationValidationAccreditation/tabid/58/Default.aspx)*. Examining the source code is just one of the first in a series of steps in that process.
After having done some atmo modeling, I held them in utter contempt.
Now, seeing their homework in the leaked Climategate documents, I can not find the words to plumb the depth of my disdain for them. The "scientists" who were involved are lower than the dog *expletive deleted*it I scrape off the bottom of my shoe. Horsefly maggots have more value. Dime whores have more integrity.
* Quick & dirty definitions:
The formal definitions of VV&A are:
(1) Verification is the process of determining that a model or simulation implementation accurately represents the developer’s conceptual description and specifications.
(2) Validation is the process of determining the degree to which the model or simulation is an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses.
(3)Accreditation is an official determination that a model or simulation is acceptable to use for a specific purpose.
(from
http://www.uscg.mil/directives/ci/5000-5999/CI_5200_40.pdf)
After reading the leaked Climategate docs, does anyone think anything remotely like the above occurred?
