That is the problem with climatology. If something is not statistically significant, then there is no sense in discussing it. If the errors of the temperature measurement are bigger than the “warming”, then there is no reason to speak of a “warming” at all. That’s not science, that’s ideology.

Regarding climate chance. As a chemist I wonder about all the little bits of information I can read about climate phenomena, that are poorly understood. Two days ago there was a news story about glaciers in south america, that contrary to expectation of all the climate catastrophe proponents, do not melt but grow instead. I remember that I can read this type of article every two weeks, either something about chemical composition of aerosols, poorly understood and “misbehaving” in conventional climate models, or about this and that, always “unexpected” stuff and poorly understood by the climate change community.

In my opinion these plethora of tiny bits are the best example that you guys do not understand anything at all of your business! Don’t you think that some caution would be indicated, before you send out your research results in the style of a roman catholic dogma?

RC trumpets that there is no longer any debate on AGW. To be more accurate, there is no tolerance by the moderators for discenting views and therefore the appearance of no debate. It beggs the question why is is so necessary to protect the AGW hypothesis from reasonable inquiry? For intellectual honesty, I give RC an “F”.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8079767.stm

Who gives a hoot if the “peers” finally allow publication of a paper, when the political buzzer will have long since sounded at that point.

Steig appears to be running out the clock, along with the “team” at RC. Time is the key factor now as regards the policies of AGW being implemented.

Check out Jeff Id’s repeated ignored pleas with RC for the Steig et al code/data on the comment thread of ‘Politeness Part Deux’ thread at the Air Vent:

‘Jeff Id said
June 2, 2009 at 2:22 pm

Here’s a copy of my initial correspondence with RC.

I wonder if you know when the data and code for this will be released. If it has, where can I find it?

It doesn’t matter to me if the antarctic is warming or not, but I would like to know the details of this study. I’ve read the paper and SI and it isn’t exactly chock full of detail.

(Cut from moderation. I tried again.)

If you wouldn’t mind encouraging your colleagues to publish the data and code used, the review process may gain you considerable support.

I for one wouldn’t be surprised to find the Antarctic was warming, but I need to see the calculations used in order to trust the result. If it looks reasonable, there’s nothing wrong with that. That’s exactly what my blog will say.

(Cut again.

Undeterred I tried again.)

gavin,

After having so many reasonable comments cut I need to add something.

You may find working with me instead of actively suppressing my questions to be less troublesome, my blog is more popular every day.

All I really want to do is understand, Mann08 deserved every criticism I leveled at it (and more), you couldn’t force me to put my name on it. It’s rather unfortunate that it was the first climate paper from which I looked at the data, I understand now that despite the high profile of Mann, most papers are better quality but how am I supposed to react to a high profile climate paper like that?

This is a different paper and a different problem. As I have attempted to say, it has every potential for being accurate. Let it out in the light and let’s see.

I realize this will also be cut, but consider my words I do honor them.

Eventually part of a comment was let through in edited form on RC – requesting code and DATA.

[Response: What is there about the sentence, “The code, all of it, exactly as we used it, is right here,” that you don’t understand? Or are you asking for a step-by-step guide to Matlab? If so, you’re certainly welcome to enroll in one of my classes at the University of Washington.–eric] ‘

They don’t WANT their papers replicated because they know there’s 10 minutes to go in the fourth quarter (sorry, another tortured sports metaphor), they have the ball and all they need to do is run out the clock. They have no interest in the arcane concept of objective, replicated science at this point.

Steig shut down the thread after 42 comments. The previous fisherman etc etc thread ran for over 1000 comments, still open.

As long as there’s no sunshine on their claims, they can afford to be polite and dabble in “substance” while demanding review by “peers” — at the same time taking potshots on the web.

RC has been billowing smoke for how long and still they claim there’s no fire?

IMHO, RCs duplicity is well worthy of being the target of rotten fruit — and much worse.

The latest BBC story on the Antarctic is at: (Sorry – I posted this URL on a recent WUWT article but was snipped (OT). In the interim my internet has cratered and I can’t get back on the BBC news site so you’ll have to look for yourselves. It was a ludicrous article and I’m sure that others will post it.)

In a nutshell, they say that the Antarctic has been covered in ice for 14 million years but unless we cut CO2 emmisions the sea level will rise and that:

“in around 1,000 years they [sea levels] will approach the same levels that existed “before there was persistent ice sheet in Antarctica”.

In addition the BBC states that:

“The worrying thing is that we seem to be going back to carbon dioxide concentrations consistent with there being a lot less ice around.”

Not any more, comment is closed at RC, even the gloves are gone.

Suddenly, Steig backs away, begins to untie his boxing gloves, then pulls them off. The gloves drop to the floor of the ring. Just as suddenly, you can hear a pin drop in the cavernous arena.

Steig says, “I’m not at all interested in debating you — I’ve got much better things to do. Let me be very clear, though, that I’m by no means claiming our results are the last word, and can’t be improved upon. If you have something coherent and useful to say, say it in a peer reviewed paper. If your results improve upon ours, great, that will be a useful contribution.”

A cascade of boos descends upon the ring, along with some rotten fruit, which Steig ducks to avoid. He slips through the ropes at ringside, hops down and trots quickly out of the arena.

His gloves remain in the ring, a target for the crowd’s growing fury.

http://tech-know.eu/uploads/SUN_heats_EARTH.pdf