Global Warming backdown

Oleg Bach · March 6, 2010

YOU can ot tell a man who has accumulated great wealth, power and influence that his success is so great that it is now morphed into a profound failure- as far as the waste generated by these great tycoons..now the tycoon has to explain a way the typhoon..not going to work..time that our great and noble ones realized that habitualist materialism has run it's course and now it is time to stop - donatating a million dollars to the snowy owl fund might feel goood but will not have any effect.

jbg · March 6, 2010

To Al Gore the facts are an inconvenient untruth, to be ignored. Excerpts below:

We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change

(link)

February 28, 2010

Op-Ed Contributor

We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change

By AL GORE

It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.

Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy — the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century.

But what a burden would be lifted! We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands. We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake.

I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion.

Wrong , Al, on that highlighted point. What about tihs company (link) with your aptly named partner, Blood, for Blood and Gore? And what about tihs laughable material?

The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth, yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere — thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States. Just as it’s important not to miss the forest for the trees, neither should we miss the climate for the snowstorm.

At least Obama knew enough to come home from Copehagen to beat the first of this winter's three DC blizzards. Or this justification for wilful destruction of evidence?

In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law.

It's OK when your side conceals evident, but what's sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander, right?

This guy is becoming a parody of himself.

waldo · March 6, 2010

This is a great illustration of the total hypocrital behavior of the AGW true-believers. They continuously preach against the referencing of blogs, because they're quote "not scientifc."

poor Shady, apparently you don't make the distinction between blogs run by, and featuring, actual scientists... those actively discussing actual science by those engaged in the actual science of climate change... from your favoured blogs that are run by tv weathermen, retired farts with no scientific background, political hacks or fake/wannabe "blog scientists". Although it's rare you actually link beyond your favoured go-to British tabloid sources, invariably... when you do offer up a direct blog link... it's one typically linking to a British tabloid fabrication anyway. Shady, there's certainly no problem with bringing forward legitimate science based sources from blogs - you should try it sometime!

And what do we continuously get from them? Blogs as proof. That latest example from where's waldo. Apparently man-made global warming is real, and happening at this very minute because a graphic artist from a blog made a video saying so!!!

sorry to deflate your bubble Shady... Peter Sinclair, the creator of the ongoing 'Climate Crock' video series, doesn't have a blog. He's certainly become an attack target for deniers given the format he chooses to use - one that certainly lends itself to online forums, social networking, multi-media distributions, etc. There's a wealth of speculation on who his actual science consultants are. By the way, do you actually have anything to dispute about the content within his latest video that I linked to? :lol:

I can appreciate you have difficulty with technical jargon - ah hell, let's not quibble here... it's obvious you struggle with basic literacy. I even had you in mind when I posted that last video Shady - I was sure you'd relate more to the 'tube' than having to deal with all that wordy stuff and your migraine fallout. So... here's another one... it might appear to be 'dumbed down' just a bit for you, but that's certainly not the case - it's fairly short, so stick with it, as it has a special message - just for you (and Simple).

waldo · March 6, 2010

Al Gore is fat!

while... make that if... you're taking the time to say something specific about 'Generation Investment Management', you may also like to say something about Gore's involvement in creating the non-profit 'Alliance for Climate Protection'... or the non-profit 'Climate Protection Action Fund'.

or perhaps you'd like to offer a comment about the global collaboration between Generation Investment Management and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers... the alliance created to, "find, fund and accelerate green business, technology and policy solutions with the greatest potential to help solve the current climate crisis." You could also comment on Gore's funneling of his related salary/earnings from that back into the non-profit "Alliance for Climate Production".

not sure what you're referring to as 'laughable material' in regards Gore's reference to the frequency increase of heavy precipitation events over most land areas... vis-a-vis increased warming, increased ocean evaporation, and raised atmospheric water vapour amounts. Apparently, when cold temperature meets raised atmospheric water vapour amounts, there is a possibility of significant snowfall levels - who knew!!!

btw, any progress in your efforts to substantiate the 'crap assessment' you levelled against Jim Hansen's U.S. Congressional testimony, particularly as relates to his tabled projections... you know, the one's now decades old. Any progress there?

jbg · March 6, 2010

Al Gore is fat

I nadn't said that, and you know it.

while... make that if... you're taking the time to say something specific about 'Generation Investment Management', you may also like to say something about Gore's involvement in creating the non-profit 'Alliance for Climate Protection'... or the non-profit 'Climate Protection Action Fund'.

or perhaps you'd like to offer a comment about the global collaboration between Generation Investment Management and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers... the alliance created to, "find, fund and accelerate green business, technology and policy solutions with the greatest potential to help solve the current climate crisis." You could also comment on Gore's funneling of his related salary/earnings from that back into the non-profit "Alliance for Climate Production".

Non-profits are a whole different can of worms. Often not good. I honestly haven't looked into those, but you can be sure I will.

How much of your reactionary agenda does anyone any good? I call it reactionary because it is anti-progress and ultimately the burden of your good intentions falls heaviest on the poor and lower-middle class.

not sure what you're referring to as 'laughable material' in regards Gore's reference to the frequency increase of heavy precipitation events over most land areas... vis-a-vis increased warming, increased ocean evaporation, and raised atmospheric water vapour amounts. Apparently, when cold temperature meets raised atmospheric water vapour amounts, there is a possibility of significant snowfall levels - who knew!!!

What's sauce for the goosee.... In other words the same people who use weather-related events such as heat waves as evidence of climate change must suffer the laughter when things are quite the opposite. You didn't bit on an earlier post I made where I ointed out that during the DC blizzard it was +2C in Iqaliut, as a result of the "return flow" from the same cold air source that fed the blizzard. If the global-warming alarmists avoid citation to weather so will I.

btw, any progress in your efforts to substantiate the 'crap assessment' you levelled against Jim Hansen's U.S. Congressional testimony, particularly as relates to his tabled projections... you know, the one's now decades old. Any progress there?

I have still asked you which projections he made have verified.

Crickets.

waldo · March 6, 2010

Non-profits are a whole different can of worms. Often not good. I honestly haven't looked into those, but you can be sure I will.

excellent - it's too bad you weren't aware of the non-profits before you presumed to chastise Gore over his involvements with Generation Investment Management (GIM)... don't forget about the intent of that collaboration between GIM & Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. I'm not clear what your difficulty with Gore's involvement with GIM is - apparently you seem to think it contradicts a statement he made... but why don't we hear from you on that.

How much of your reactionary agenda does anyone any good? I call it reactionary because it is anti-progress and ultimately the burden of your good intentions falls heaviest on the poor and lower-middle class.

you'll need to elaborate here... just what's the agenda? What's it reacting to? How is "it" anti-progress... in the name of "what" progress? Thanks for acknowledging my, as you say, "good intentions", but... what are they, those intentions you state are good? And, whatever those good intentions are... that are anti-progress... that are reactionary... that are a part of my agenda - just how is that "that" (whatever that is???) is a burden, as you say, on "the poor and lower-middle class?

What's sauce for the goosee.... In other words the same people who use weather-related events such as heat waves as evidence of climate change must suffer the laughter when things are quite the opposite. You didn't bit on an earlier post I made where I ointed out that during the DC blizzard it was +2C in Iqaliut, as a result of the "return flow" from the same cold air source that fed the blizzard. If the global-warming alarmists avoid citation to weather so will I.

interesting that you would presume to play the weather card. Apparently, you're not aware that AGW climate change theory has long predicted an increase in heavy precipitation events - should we state what the IPCC AR4 report has to say concerning direct observations of increased warming, increased ocean evaporation, and raised atmospheric water vapour amounts with a reference to the frequency increase of heavy precipitation events over most land areas... you know, the point Gore made - the point to which you would presume to denigrate him over: - from the IPCC AR4 Summary for Policymakers report:

The frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most land areas, consistent with warming and observed increases of atmospheric water vapour. {reference citation provided here:

WG1:The Physical Science Basis - 3.8 Changes in Extreme Events
, and here:

WG1:The Physical Science Basis - 3.9 Synthesis: Consistency Across Observations
}

I have still asked you which projections he made have verified.
Crickets.

no, that's not the sequence of events: the cricket silence we hear/read is most certainly attributed to you. Let's recap, shall we:

=> you spouted off with a most cursory, off-hand rebuke to Hansen - labeling his now decades old U.S. Congressional testimony as, as you stated, "crap".

=> you were repeatedly asked to substantiate your assessment... a suggestion was offered for you to, perhaps, look at his projections as a means to validate, or not, your assessment (those projections, after all, were a formative part of the questioning within that U.S. Congressional testimony and most certainly reflect on his early science work, the state of science then/now and, of course, Jim Hansen himself - notwithstanding, of course, we are talking about a multi-decades old event here).

=> you began a pull back, a back-peddling, and asked for a do-over, presuming to ask someone else for the absent substantiation of your assessment, the substantiation you're not willing, or capable of providing.

=> where we stand is a pointed response to your request for a do-over... again, that response was one asking you if your request for a do-over also comes with your acknowledgment that you're unwilling, or unable, to provide the substantiation to back your initial assessment of Hansen's (now decades old) U.S. Congressional testimony.

most certainly, you are responsible for the

bush_cheney2004 · March 6, 2010

....most certainly, you are responsible for the

OK...I think this explains everything....that is not a cricket....it's a grasshopper!

Moonlight Graham · March 6, 2010

and you'd like to say what about it?

I'd like to say that the IPCC isn't exactly the most spotless organization in regards to the accuracy/reliability of their info, given glacier-gate, the Mann hockey stick etc.

There certainly needs to be a review in how they operate and how they formulate their reports/info.

waldo · March 6, 2010

OK...I think this explains everything....that is not a cricket....it's a grasshopper!

yes... it certainly explains a lot about your posting history! Considering it's name, I'm most surprised you didn't recognize it :lol:

Bush Cricket

you're welcome... carry on!

bush_cheney2004 · March 6, 2010

...There certainly needs to be a review in how they operate and how they formulate their reports/info.

Correct....their entire technical and political framework needs to be decomposed and exposed to good 'ol, global warming sunshine. In God We Trust...all others bring data.

waldo · March 7, 2010

I'd like to say that the IPCC isn't exactly the most spotless organization in regards to the accuracy/reliability of their info, given glacier-gate, the Mann hockey stick etc.

There certainly needs to be a review in how they operate and how they formulate their reports/info.

interesting... for someone who self-professed to being very new to the debate (just a week or so back), for someone who asked for information sources to, uhhhh... acquaint yourself, you appear to have quickly latched onto a position. Most interesting, indeed.

- you really should review whatever formed your opinion on the, as you call it, "the Mann hockey stick"... we've beat on that fairly well in past MLW threads, but feel free to resurrect "whatever" you think challenges the veracity of the 'hockey stick' reconstructions, be they Mann's or other confirmations of same.

- your glacier-gate reference is a legitimate mention... so long as you truly appreciate it's trivial and inconsequential nature/impact. Just so you're completely aware:

- the much trumped up so-called 'glaciergate' refers to a 2 sentence reference in a sub-group report - WG2 (as associated with what's more generally referred to as the 'social sciences' element... that is to say, this has nothing to do with the physical science basis of the IPCC reports).

- this trivial and inconsequential 2 sentence statement within the WG2 report never made it past the sub-group stage report... that is to say, it was not brought forward within the IPCC summary report that acts as a summary of all sub-group reports (i.e. it never made it into the IPCC Synthesis Report).

- this trivial and inconsequential 2 sentence statement within the WG2 report never made it into the IPCC policy report... the Summary for Policymakers Report.

- this trivial and inconsequential 2 sentence statement within the WG2 report never became a major position/claim of the IPCC.

- in response to the trumped up nonsense over this trivial and inconsequential 2 sentence statement within the WG2 report, the IPCC issued a response that most emphatically stated it's position/claims concerning glacier melt, Himalayan or other. That response position/claim reflected exactly what was stated within the summary Synthesis Report.

- the usual suspect MLW deniers were asked to challenge the IPCC response; i.e. to challenge the state of glacier melt as represented by the IPCC within it's AR4 Synthesis Report. As expected, none of the usual suspect MLW deniers took up that challenge.

- a recent December AGU presentation specifically concerning the state of Himalayan glaciers was linked to within a MLW post... these same usual suspect MLW deniers were asked to take up the challenge and refute what was stated in that presentation. Again, no surprise, none of the usual suspect MLW deniers took up that challenge.

- and, of course, when challenged to step up and explain exactly what impact - social, policy, or "whatever", this 2 sentence statement within the subgroup WG2 report actually had, these same usual suspect MLW deniers remain silent. Clearly, the mud-slinging, tabloid singing, usual suspect MLW deniers know what they do best!

bush_cheney2004 · March 7, 2010

yes... it certainly explains a lot about your posting history! Considering it's name, I'm most surprised you didn't recognize it

I'm sure if you crank out still many dozens more of nested quotes you can convince somebody that a grasshopper is a cricket. Armed with such prescient expertise, winning the global warming climate change circle jerk should be a cinch.

waldo · March 7, 2010

Correct....their entire technical and political framework needs to be decomposed and exposed to good 'ol, global warming sunshine. In God We Trust...all others bring data.

what do you know - you can't even tell a cricket from a grasshopper! What's the matter... when you look at that linked to pic labeled "Bush Cricket", what do you see? :lol: Here: try it again... Bush Cricket

yup, there most certainly will be a tightening up of the coordination between the various subgroups... either that or a complete separation will occur to more isolate the WG1 Physical Science basis from the other subgroups. Either way, the denier camp will have greater difficulty in taking their illegitimate shots at the actual physical science basis.

interesting your assessment doesn't quite align with the degree of actual inaccuracies brought forward to-date... all in all, 2 actual inaccuracies have shown up to-date - both within the WG2 sub-group report. Imagine... 2 actual inaccuracies over the thousands of report pages... and yet, none within the WG1 Physical Sciences side - just imagine!

bush_cheney2004 · March 7, 2010

....interesting your assessment doesn't quite align with the degree of actual inaccuracies brought forward to-date... all in all, 2 actual inaccuracies have shown up to-date - both within the WG2 sub-group report. Imagine... 2 actual inaccuracies over the thousands of report pages... and yet, none within the WG1 Physical Sciences side - just imagine!

Doesn't matter....your arrogance fails to realize the lost battle on a much more important front. We all know that the Mac OS was better than Windows too.

Moonlight Graham · March 7, 2010

interesting... for someone who self-professed to being very new to the debate (just a week or so back), for someone who asked for information sources to, uhhhh... acquaint yourself, you appear to have quickly latched onto a position. Most interesting, indeed.

I never said i was "very new to the debate". Here is exactly what i posted:

"Currently i'm undecided on the whole debate as i'm currently educating myself on the issue."

Being undecided on the debate and educating myself doesn't mean i'm entirely new to the issues. I've read a bunch of material, watched a slathering of videos, and have even recently taken a University course on climate change.

I suppose i can see how people assumed i am "brand new" to the debate, which made some people post some basics about how the greenhouse effect works etc. While i sincerely appreciate the effort to help, i am already aware of how the greenhouse effect works. I also know how the physics of things like carbon-14 dating and oxygen-16/oxygen-18 isotopes work, how glaciers form/retreat/advance, and know my Oligocene from my Pleistocene etc. etc.

I'm certainly no scientist, but i am no dummy either. On an issue as complex and divisive as "global warming" and with so much bullcrap on all sides of the debate, it takes a long time to figure out the facts and the truth. So far the only conclusion i have come up with is that there is indeed a lot of bullcrap mixed with the facts on all sides of the debate (even among the scientists), and until i discover otherwise my stance is that because climate change is such a complex, fast-changing, and disputed/debated issue where there is so much that scientists still do not know about climate change and so many variables i simply think nobody has a clue yet with what the heck is going to happen to climate 5, 50, or 100 years from now.

I'm sleepy i'll try to comment on your other stuff later.

waldo · March 7, 2010

interesting your assessment doesn't quite align with the degree of actual inaccuracies brought forward to-date... all in all, 2 actual inaccuracies have shown up to-date - both within the WG2 sub-group report. Imagine... 2 actual inaccuracies over the thousands of report pages... and yet, none within the WG1 Physical Sciences side - just imagine!
Doesn't matter....your arrogance fails to realize the lost battle on a much more important front. We all know that the Mac OS was better than Windows too.

the rate at which you devolve into your vacuous one-line responses has markedly accelerated...

Edited March 7, 2010 by waldo

waldo · March 7, 2010

yes... as you originally stated:

Currently I'm undecided on the whole debate as I'm currently educating myself on the issue

followed up by:

I'd like to say that the IPCC isn't exactly the most spotless organization in regards to the accuracy/reliability of their info, given glacier-gate, the Mann hockey stick etc.

over a very short time frame, it reads like your indecision ain't so undecided, with particular challenge to reconstructions (the accuracy/reliability of)

Keepitsimple · March 7, 2010

yes... as you originally stated:

followed up by:

over a very short time frame, it reads like your indecision ain't so undecided, with particular challenge to reconstructions (the accuracy/reliability of)

You're too funny Waldo. Moonlight is just another example of an ordinary Canadian observing that all is not right with the IPCC......regardless of all your religious bluster.

waldo · March 7, 2010

hey Simple... have you nothing to say on your own behalf? Have you made any progress in an attempt to substantiate one of your most recent series of denier talking points? You know - these:

- put up the scientific basis for your repeated claims of a 30 year cycle... really, c'mon Simple... you can do better than Easterbrook

It seems you would prefer to stand out there in the denier wastelands rather than accept any of the assorted temperature warming trends that have been presented to you... be they surface or satellite based - go figure!

- which "scientists" do you refer to in your claim, "some scientists agree that we are already into another cycle of cooling" - which scientists, Simple?

- another of your favoured no-support provided repeated claims, speaks to what you presume IPCC models projected. Let's also end this piece of Simple nonsense... which IPCC models are you referring to and what contradictions do you state exist? Simple - which models and what contradictions?

there's also a series of points/questions waiting for you here... somehow you've gone silent on anything related to yourself... choosing, instead, to snipe away on the behalf of someone else. You're too funny, Simple

Keepitsimple · March 7, 2010

hey Simple... have you nothing to say on your own behalf? Have you made any progress in an attempt to substantiate one of your most recent series of denier talking points? You know - these:

there's also a series of points/questions waiting for you here... somehow you've gone silent on anything related to yourself... choosing, instead, to snipe away on the behalf of someone else. You're too funny, Simple

Poor Waldo. You're still not getting it and it seems doubtful you ever will. The IPCC and AGW crowd is under significant pressure to genuinely open up their data, models, and minds to a sceptical scientific community.......and yes, there are many scientists who have a healthy degree of scepticism - if not, then they're not scientists. I am not a scientist and obviously, neither are you. I have explained my position many times. Your position is what exactly? Is it exactly what the IPCC says? Is it that humans are creating Armegeddon? Is it that we have already reached a tipping point and we are doomed? Are you a Suzuki nut and everything horrifies you? What is your position on AGW Waldo - in a sentence or two?

Edited March 8, 2010 by Keepitsimple

Keepitsimple · March 8, 2010

More criticism of the gang at East Anglia/CRU:

Row over leaked climate emails may undermine reputation of science
........snip

The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) and the Royal Statistical Society (RSS) have both issued statements declaring that it is essential that scientific data and evidence compiled by researchers be made publicly available for scrutiny.

Their comments come after the Institute of Physics said that emails sent by Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU, had broken "honourable scientific traditions" about disclosing raw data and methods.

In a written submission to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into the disclosure of data from the CRU, the RSC said a lack of willingness to disclose research data had "far-reaching consequences".

It also called for an "independent auditing system" to ensure scientists stick to best practice during the peer review process that is usually used to assess the quality of science before it is published in scientific journals.

.........snip

The RSC said: "The apparent resistance of researchers from the CRU at the University of East Anglia to disclose research data has been widely portrayed as an indication of a lack of integrity in scientific research.

"The true nature of science dictates that research is transparent and robust enough to survive scrutiny.

"A lack of willingness to disseminate scientific information may infer that the scientific results or methods used are not robust enough to face scrutiny, even if this conjecture is not well-founded.

"This has far-reaching consequences for the reputation of science as a whole, with the ability to undermine the public's confidence in science.

"The RSC firmly believes that the benefits of scientific data being made available and thus open to scrutiny outweigh the perceived risks.

"It may also be necessary to incorporate an independent auditing system into peer review with the ability to demand access to raw data sets to ensure best practices are being adhered to."

The RSS also said it was crucial that data on global warming, the analysis methods and the models used to make predictions about climate change should be placed in the public domain to allow experiments and calculations to be repeated and verified.

In its submission to the MPs' inquiry it said: "The position of the RSS regarding public dissemination of scientific data is that where the results of scientific analyses have been published or are otherwise in the public domain, the raw data, and associated metadata, used for these analyses should, within reason, also be made available."

The society added that such scientific information could be stored in special data centres set up for that purpose.

.......snip

Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7385584/Row-over-leaked-climate-emails-may-undermine-reputation-of-science.html

wyly · March 8, 2010

Poor Waldo. You're still not getting it and it seems doubtful you ever will. The IPCC and AGW crowd is under significant pressure to genuinely open up their data, models, and minds to a sceptical scientific uneducated denier community.......and yes, there are many scientists who have a healthy degree of scepticism- if not, then they're not scientists. I am not a scientist and obviously, neither are you. I have explained my position many times. Your position is what exactly? Is it exactly what the IPCC says? Is it that humans are creating Armegeddon? Is it that we have already reached a tipping point and we are doomed? Are you a Suzuki nut and everything horrifies you? What is your position on AGW Waldo - in a sentence or two?

your denials are based on conspiracy theories, tabloid blogs, denier websites, quote mining, and general lack of scientific knowledge...actual hard evidence? zero...

Edited March 8, 2010 by wyly

Alta4ever · March 8, 2010

your denials are based on conspiracy theories, tabloid blogs, denier websites, quote mining, and general lack of scientific knowledge...actual hard evidence? zero...

So why not open up the data to scrutiny? why delete it, and refuse FOI requests?

Keepitsimple · March 8, 2010

your denials are based on conspiracy theories, tabloid blogs, denier websites, quote mining, and general lack of scientific knowledge...actual hard evidence? zero...

I might as well ask you the same question that Waldo refuses to answer: I have explained my position many times. Your position is what exactly? Is it exactly what the IPCC says? Is it that humans are creating Armegeddon? Is it that we have already reached a tipping point and we are doomed? Are you a Suzuki nut and everything horrifies you? What is your position on AGW Wyly - in a sentence or two?

waldo · March 8, 2010

You're still not getting it and it seems doubtful you ever will. The IPCC and AGW crowd is under significant pressure to genuinely open up their data, models, and minds to a sceptical scientific community.......

you're a babbling idiot - if you actually took your head out of Anthony Watts' ass, you'd find out what model and supporting data is available... what temperature related data/processes is available. But no... you'd sooner rely upon the "knowledge and insights" of a TV weatherman over the world's scientific consensus.

one could throw you a thousand source links and you'd ignore them anyway; however, since you pointedly referenced models - are you so ignorant as not to realize IPCC models have always been in the public domain? Would you like a link to find them and do your own research, hey Simple? :lol: Better yet, why don't you chew on the following link, a collective account of climate model output contributed by leading modeling centers around the world - termed the "WCRP CMIP3 multi-model dataset."

With the consent of participating climate modelling groups, the WGCM has declared the CMIP3 multi-model dataset open and free for non-commercial purposes. After registering and agreeing to the "terms of use," anyone can now obtain model output via the ESG data portal, ftp, or the OPeNDAP server.

As of January 2007, over 35 terabytes of data were in the archive and over 337 terabytes of data had been downloaded among the more than 1200 registered users. Over 250 journal articles, based at least in part on the dataset, have been published or have been accepted for peer-reviewed publication. Latest statistics can be found at: 1) usage, 2) download rate, 3) CMIP3 subprojects, and 4) publications

if you bother to look, that same web-site link I've just provided also includes reference to CMIP5 - the next generation of models that will be utilized within the next IPCC AR5 report... in public domain, the IPCC has made available the collective grouping of all these new model outputs to the scientific community - IPCC AR5 timetable... but don't let any of this get in your dishonest way and stop you from spouting off about "opening up the models". Have you actually ever bothered to read any of the IPCC reports, even portions of? How about this WG1 chapter on models - have you ever bothered to have a look at this WG1 Chapter 8 document, Simple? - Climate Models and Their Evaluation... have a look at the dozen citation reference pages at the end of the document... damn, Simple - if only they would open things up for the nutter denier crowd, hey Simple?

but what about all the data that's being hidden? Right... everything's hidden - in plain sight? Your favourite site, RC put this page up in response to the recent Hackergate flap... it's nothing but a dynamic account of all the world's data sources that have always been available. So... tell us Simple... which data is not being made available to you and your denier crowd? What's being held back Simple? C'mon, you can so easily beak off... when you speak about "opening up minds" Simple... what exactly do you mean :lol: