Models, Methods, Software

AOLBGCM validation is an ongoing process.
Can’t ever do too much of it.

I made this comment at Climate Audit. I’ll repeat it here:

The degree of inconsistency that RC exhibits becomes more astounding every day.

How many times have we been told that replication does not require that all the original material be readily available. Indeed, we have been repeatedly lectured that true replication is not obtained if only the original material is used. Yet, Tom P. could not have carried out his rapid-response function if Steve had not made all the material available.

By RC’s usual standards, Tom P.’s results could have been considered true replication only if he had started from a clean piece of paper, gone out in the field and gathered up some tree rings, properly selected the data to be used for analyses, developed the analysis methods, produced the coding for the solution of the methods, and then carried out the analysis. ( I’ll let Tom P. skip the Verification and Validation procedures as Climate Science does not do these. )

More and more, it seems to me that RC’s views are shaped by what is convenient in contrast to what they say is the correct approach.

By the usual RC standards, RC cannot accept Tom P.’s analyses and conclusions.

Thinking about this some more led me to the following:

A list of bona fides required by RC prior to Tom P.

1. Certified Climatologist

2. Peer-Reviewed Publications

3. In only the Properly-Certified Journals

4. In only those Journals having a High-Impact Factor

5. Known and verified Educational Pedigree

6. Comments limited to areas consistent with 5.

7. Comments of 6 also limited to the extent of 5 at the time of graduation

8. Replication from a clean slate

9. No reliance on any aspects of previous work

10. No funding by Big Oil, Big Gas, Big Coal, or any organizations associated with Big Fossil in any way

11. No previous work experience in any of 10

12. No funding by “conservative” think tanks.

13. No funding by any think tanks to which 10 gives support

14. Previous work results are known so that source can be used to dismiss or accept all results

15. Proper identification so that 14 can be invoked

So far as I know, Tom P.’s status for any of these 15 items has not been established.

I can reject Tom P.’s results without even looking at the analyses.

Someone at RC will now label Tom P. for convenience in future discussions.

This is astounding to me. Tom P. meets none of the previously required criteria, and yet NASA’s Gavin Schmidt has accepted the results of Tom P.’s black-box analysis. Unquestionably without any provisos whatsoever.

Climate Science . . . The Science of Personal Destruction

In the RealClimate post linked above appears this statement:

“So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever.”

These statements are false. And they are known to be a false by those you made the statements. The statements are lies and the persons who made the statements are liars. If Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann cannot point to where Steve McIntyre has made these statements, Gavin and Michael are liars.

By this action Schmidt, Mann, and RealClimate have taken the next step and moved to a higher level of promoting dis-information. That is, while always refusing to correct mis-information stated by commenters, and even RealClimate in-line responses, Schmidt and Mann purposefully lie. The purpose being to jump-start the peanut gallery’s, aided by RealClimate, usual attacks on persons while ignoring the technical issues. The Science of Personal Destruction; invented at RealClimate.

A post and 176 Responses ( and counting ) and not a single error on the part of Steve McIntyre has been identified. Not a single error !! This is reflective of the way RealClimate has of diverting attention from the real issues. In effect, the entire post hinges on becoming discussions of nothing that the subject of the post has said or done. Yet another naked strawman post. Additionally, the comments, with supporting responses from RealClimate, rapidly deteriorate to nothing more than de-meaning, unfounded attacks on people; shooting the messenger and ignoring the message.

To paraphrase, RealClimate continues to take absolutely no responsibility for the ridiculous fantasies and exaggerations that their supporters broadcast, apparently being happy to bask in their acclaim rather than correct any of the misrepresentations they have engendered.

RealClimate, having been unable to point to any technical errors, have continued the Climate Science policy of the Science of Personal Destruction.

They must continue to feed the small-minded, foul-mouthed labelers such as tamino and dhogaza. It’s interesting to me that those who chose to label with the most extreme and debasing labels chose also to remain anonymous. The, mostly non-scientists, peanut gallery at RealClimate seems to revel in this race to the bottom, cheering on tamino and dhogaza at every opportunity.

NASA’s Gavin Schmidt and Penn State’s Michael Mann are liars.

Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann lied in the subject post, therefore everything they have written is suspected of being lies.

Climate Science . . . The Science of Personal Destruction