Reply To: Questions regarding DPF.

[Brian H]

vansig wrote:

Retro-casting is useful for generating speculations and eventually hypotheses. Actual predictions require full disclosure of model variables and algorithms, plus input data set, which are then frozen (no touch, no fiddle) for the duration of the prediction. A reasonable fit fails to disprove the forecast model; a failure invalidates it completely (since the specific reason can only be guessed at — for which you need a brand new square one re-prediction and test.) Enough failures to disprove, despite best (honest) efforts, and you MAY begin to put some reliance on the model.

None of the Warmist scenario-games meet any of those criteria.

Stunt FOIA requests do not really expose a lack of full disclosure.

Let’s lock in Hansen’s predictions made in 1988. There were three scenarios, A, B, and C.
Observations are now out of agreement with A; but B and C are still good.
— http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html
Actually not. The most plausible match is C, which was predicated on halting all CO2 emission increase by 2000. In fact of course the emissions have continued to surge — yet the temperature graph has plateaued anyway. Once more demonstrating the irrelevance of CO2 to global climate.

As for the ignorant phrasing “stunt FOIA requests”, that’s just libelous. The requests were very few in number, actually, and were rejected out of hand, illegally. In fact Jones et al. were planning secretly to erase their data if anyone twigged to the change in the UK laws which required its release. Apparently they did so, though of course Jones claimed he lost the paperwork in his messy office. LOL! “The dog ate it!”

P.S. Don’t post some link to Jones’ et al’s “adjusted” data. That’s irrelevant. It’s only the raw data that has any value. Plus, of course, the details of the “adjustment” techniques, which have also been withheld, lost, and/or dog-eaten.