Re: Mr. Parker,
"You wish for an explanation on why I think our computer models are wrong ? "
No - I asked you why you thought
"We base our computer models on what we think is representative, then derive conclusions from those models without double-checking the source data."
..with the emphasis on why you think that the source data is not double-checked. The articles you list don't address that
- the first is a paper about the effect of wind accelerating a known glacial melt condition
- the second is an observational paper
- the third is a press piece from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (forgive me if I don't give that much credence)
The quote from the fourth article (measurement) is accurate, as is your discussion of it (IMO) up until your assessment of how proxies effect the models and hence the spending (of which I agree on some points, but not all). However the quote does not really do the article justice, and perhaps lends a different tone than intended by the author. Here are some other quotes from there...
"The next step is to assemble the proxy data and use it to make estimates for the whole globe, or at least the northern or southern hemisphere. This step requires more assumptions and the liberal use of statistical methods. But even a fuzzy picture, which is what we get in the end, is better than no picture at all."
"There is no getting around it: the 20th century shows an outsized, unprecedented climb in global average temperature at the same time that greenhouse gases have exceeded any level known in the past half-million years (as far back as we can see as of today). "
"GCMs are useful for analyzing the climate system. Researchers tweak them, and the data they feed on, in many different ways to weigh the influence of forcing factors, and to estimate how the internal climatic variations would respond to different forcings. Many of the parameters, the numbers used to represent various factors in the complex real world, are poorly constrained by the data and are being studied in elaborate experiments."
..and at the end, and perhaps most interesting in view of your comments about modelling..
"Imperfect as they are, [General Circulation Model]s are our best tool for helping us assess the reliability of the climate record. And they are our only tool for modeling the possible climates of the future. The picture they draw is a hazy one, but it points firmly toward further warming for several centuries to come. And it points squarely at human input of greenhouse gases as the basic cause.
This knowledge does not automatically translate into a set of policy choices. Climate scientists can help in assessing the possible choices, but they cannot determine those choices. Only political systems can do that. There is a wide range of legitimate debate, but questioning the science is no longer legitimate.
I have gained a great deal of clarity on the science of this topic from the rigorous and thorough review by Jones and Mann in the June 2004 Reviews of Geophysics. I was once a typical skeptic, but am not one now."
You subsequently say
"So let's cut the hype, lock the zealots in their padded chambers and think rationally in a quiet atmosphere, hmm ? "
I agree totally with this, and this is what the vast majority of the science is trying to do (as far as I can see) - the zealotry and mis-information is largely coming from elsewhere, and from both sides, don't get me started on that..
"Then we will be more able to make the right decision, instead of deciding things based on what the most heavily-funded lobby wants to push for."
That would be nice, however given how things work for pretty much everything else - i'm not holding my breath.