Scientific Fraud

[killersheep]

Killer, do not the majority of climate studies state that our current warming trend is due to human behavior? Hence AGW?

You seem to critique Spencer's model pretty well thus showing why his hypothesis is incorrect. Why not take this same skepticism towards the utter failure of models suggesting that human behavior is the major driver of global warming?

Again if my predictive analysis for a problem set was off 98% of the time either my data set is wrong, my model is faulty or a combination of both and I should totally re-look my data, what I think my data says and the theories behind my model. The entire scientific community should be doing a total mea culpa instead of doubling down on wrong. The climate change community has been predicting doom and gloom for decades only to be utterly incorrect. Pardon me for taking an interest in studies that break from the status quo. The AGW community is reminiscent of human arrogance. We are a young species in the history of Earth but somehow are surprised that it is a fluid system that has warmed and cooled multiple times in our own history. We look at this most recent warming and are positive that despite being billions of years old it must be 200+/- years of fossil fuel use that caused it. What the scientific community should be telling policy makers is that we really have no idea how much human behavior affects climate change or if there is anything we can do about it anyway.

Its a good thing they changed the moniker to climate change. That way they can take credit regardless

And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year | Mail Online

Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph

www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/1/

I understand your position, but let me try yet another way to explain this. We need to apply accurate date and apply it to the models that exist to prove OR disprove existing AGW hypotheses. This is precisely because we KNOW the input data was corrupted. Now as I said their have been subsequent models that have been established and retested to make sure it works. From this testing phase we can then regressively study how accurately the model mimics what really happens, from there we adjust until the model mimics what reality is. From THERE, we reevaluate the hypotheses adjust and attempt to use the model to prove or disprove what we know.

My lack of skepticism is strictly a matter of timing. Once this process matures we can really evaluate what the data is telling us. At this point however and this gets all the way back to where I first jumped in on here. And yes I'm quoting myself "Climate science in particular is a very complicated model and I of course am not an expert in it. But to the best of our understanding now, based on the evidence at hand and correlated with the historical record, there is a robust view that man's impact on the earth is real". Once refine the model we can define how much or how little that impact is. Even Spencer himself agrees with this in his view, there has been no dissent from this view in the current scientific community to my knowledge.

What may surprise you is that I agree that policy makers should be nowhere near this topic right at this moment.

As an aside it was 73° here today. I'm ready for winter.