How not to measure temperature, part 76

Tilo:
Has anyone from this forum made an attempt to have a real dialog with the Real Climate people about the issues that they bring up in their threads.
Yep, I just tried today, in the GCM FAQ thread. here is what I posted:
—-
Physics-based models on the other hand, try to capture the real physical cause of any relationship, which hopefully are understood at a deeper level. Since those fundamentals are not likely to change in the future, the anticipation of a successful prediction is higher.
There seems to an awful lot of faith in models here, simply because they are physics based.
It is worth noting that until not too long ago, physics based models had determined bumble bees absolutely cannot fly. And that was for something so simple a bug could do it.
—-
Regarding “hindcasting”. Is there any model that given the starting conditions of, say, 1700, and altering the forcings (e.g. changing CO2, sun intensity, aerosols) produces the climate of today?
—-
Regarding models and their predictions. I got curious about Alaska’s climate, since it is where I live, and where nearly every minute of 2008 has broken coldest-ever records.
This fifty year study, performed by meteorologists who could in no way be described as “denialists”, amounts to a coin toss on GCM predictions: the data confirm as many as it refutes.
Additionally, given the magnitude of the temperature changes, excluding the area immediately around Fairbanks (see Fig 4 – UHI, anyone?), the average increase over 50 years can be no more than 1.6 C.
And maybe not even that much. The University of Alaska, Fairbanks, put together Alaskan Arctic temperature data for all of recorded history. In other words, 133 out of the last 141 years (the study was finished in 2000).
From that I learned Arctic temperatures have risen 1.2 deg C, or about 0.094 degrees per decade. Looking only at the 20th century, though, and that increase amounts to all of 0.05 degrees per decade. The warmest interval over the period was in the 1930s and 1940s.
How can any model, except through post-hoc reasoning, conclude that small amount of change is CO2 driven, instead of the natural variation of a climate that is never static?
—–
Which went right into the bit bucket.
BTW, and I don’t want to be guilty of threadjacking, but while Googling around, I came upon this Upper Ocean Temperature Variability in the Northeast Pacific Ocean: Is It an Indicator of Global Warming?
In a nutshell: No.

I don’t know much about legalities and the technical niceties of the law, but with all Anthony’s work so far plus that yet to come, there has to be some means of prosecuting the agency/agencies responsible for this. Politicians will just brush it under the rug. It must go to court. Think of all the pronouncements and policies that have been made down through the years based on what more and more appears to be a completely unreliable and undecipherable temperature history. This station is just one case study of that apparent fact. Seriously, with all that is being contemplated by the ‘Green’ movement, things like this have to border on criminal negligence or something similar. It is absolutely outrageous. If a DA had a case with the evidence mounting like this, he’d be licking his chops. Once all the data gets in and the conclusions are drawn, and air tight the key ones at least must be, then this ought to be brought before a judge if it is possible. It deserves no lesser stage and no lesser hearing.