A Cool Question, Answered?

We see high a concentration of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

Folks, I am very aware that 10s of thousands of eyes read this blog from the farmer in the dell plowing the field, to the research chair bent over her bunsen burner. If we truly want transparency in research we should all be careful to do two things and remember one:
The to do llist:
1. Speak slowly and thoughtfully, especially if I have no substantial active employment in this science.
2. Challenge vetted proposals, yes, but especially challenge unvetted proposals.
The remember list:
1. Wiser readers than I have been snookered about celestial things.
To the good Lord, I have always had a bit of a glitch with your otherwise wisely communications. The glitch for me has been in your now and again briefly mentioned solar piece when running through the science of climate change. That is not to say that you have not also listed other aspects of this debate that will stand the test of time. In this thread I fear your previously hardly mentioned solar piece has raised its head beyond the well-vetted and decent solar science understanding, thus your communication and behavior here has been to your detriment.

HenryP says:
June 30, 2014 at 5:57 am
……The point is that we must at all times remain polite, just as if we were in college or at university
It hardly likely that discussing a controversial science subject, as often we do, that we will agree, but civility in the exchanges is desirable and far more productive. To expand on the Moliere’s quote above: a wise man has no necessity for resorting to insults, and if subjected to such will not respond in kind.

Let us summarize. Mr Svalgaard has accused Dr Evans, in increasingly malicious tones, of having acted “almost fraudulently” in that he used a dataset for total solar irradiance that Mr Svalgaard disapproved of. Now, having been informed that his gratuitous accusation of criminality, accompanied by a characteristically vicious allegation that Dr Evans has an “agenda”, has caused offense, he doubles down his nastiness, as he all too often does, by now accusing Dr Evans of seeking notoriety. This matter now passes to the authorities at the university with which Mr Svalgaard is associated, whose policy on good conduct Mr Svalgaard has grievously breached. I am asking the university to intervene with Mr Svalgaard in the hope that he can persuade him to apologize to Dr Evans and to moderate his language in future.
What is the scientific point at issue? There isn’t one. Dr Evans set a cut-off date for his data so that he could get on with other aspects of what is a formidably large project for one person to attempt. One of the reasons why he is not yet quite ready to release his code and data is that he is now updating more than 200 datasets that are or can be linked to the model. He has already made some adjustments to the total-solar-irradiance dataset in the light of comments made long before, and far more politely than, the rude, hate-filled comments of Mr Svalgaard. All of this is made quite plain in his various postings at Joanne Nova’s excellent website.
Mr Svalgaard says he does not think solar activity is in decline. He is entitled to his opinion. But if he will visit the splendid ClimateDepot website he will find an impressive and thorough list of the numerous scientists and groups issuing statements to the effect that they expect some cooling in quite short order, and that the main reason is that solar activity is in a steep decline, which, in Dr Evans’ opinion, became precipitous in 2003/4.
Now, Dr Evans may or may not be right about this, but when he releases his code and data anyone will be able to use any relevant TSI dataset, or perhaps adopt that of Mr Svalgaard on his research page, where his “guess” (that is what he calls it) is that total solar irradiance, as estimated from the sunspot count, will by 2020 reach a low not seen since the Dalton Minimum of 1820, when a fifth of the population of Ireland (to name just one country) died.
As I have said before, there is a general standard of courtesy in scientific debate which – particularly in the climate debate – tends to break down whenever a non-specialist in a given subject dares to say anything about that subject. Scientists do themselves no favors by trying to prevent the layman (in Dr Evans’ instance, a more than usually well informed layman) from taking an intelligent interest in their specialist field. Dr Evans’ model is designed not only to accept the input that he has been using, but to use any suitable input. To dismiss the model as worthless because one input dataset is uncongenial seems to be going rather too far.
Mr Eschenbach, meanwhile, continues to insist that Dr Evans should not have disclosed an outline of his research. He would have preferred him to disclose nothing at all until he was ready. Dr Evans, in the interest of the most rapid possible disclosure, has given a general account of his work ahead of time, for good and sensible reasons. Mr Eschenbach asks where it was that he said he did not believe Dr Evans is intending to release all his code and data when he is ready. Well, on several occasions in this thread, Mr Eschenbach says he is trying to get Dr Evans to release his code and data. Given that Dr Evans has repeatedly said from the get-go that he intends to release his code and data, the only reasonable inference is that Mr Eschenbach does not believe him. For otherwise Mr Eschenbach would find himself in the ludicrous position of arguing, in effect, that Dr Evans had disclosed the outline of his research too early: for that is equivalent to his suggesting that Dr Evans is disclosing the details of his research too late.
To those who say I have done myself no favors by standing up for Dr Evans against some unpleasant, unjustifiable and intemperate criticism, I say that it is better that some of the venom should be redirected at me, so that Dr Evans – and I declare an interest, in that I am proud to be a friend of the family – can concentrate on giving his mighty project a final polish, whereupon those who have adopted preconceived positions before seeing the full detail will have the chance to do their level best to tear down what he has created, crowing and cawing as they try to do so.
To those who assume I am defending Dr Evans’ conclusions before he has published them, I say that I have made it quite clear that much of what he has done is beyond my knowledge, but that the bits I can understand make sense and seem to be right. Dr Evans himself is a quiet and modest man. He has at no stage tried to claim that he and he alone has reached the definitive answer. He has at every stage, first privately and then publicly, said that if his theory is falsified by events or by those pointing out some fundamental flaw in the theory, then that will be that. But at least he has tried, which is more than can be said for some of his unreasoning detractors here.

richard verney says:
June 30, 2014 at 9:29 am
I am sure that most impartial observers would have picked up that there has been name calling by both sides, unbefitting to both.
As an impartial observer could you perhaps compile a list of my escapes into name-calling land. Thanks, it would be most helpful.
Leif