Its the main reason no one cares, because its undemonstrable and unprovable
Exactly, which is why someone spouting whatever and providing no source is most usually ignored. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all pretty much stink.
You are no better than the evidence that you supply. However on the other hand unless someone *is* being an asshole and calling people idiots for no apparent reason (Dr. Guy for example) then when someone disagrees with you they aren't really disagreeing with *you* they're disagreeing with your *sources*.
So regardless of what people may currently think of Mann, Schmidt, Hansen and Jones they still are *in fact* the foremost climate scientists on the planet and I feel no shame nor do I feel the need to offer any apology for using them as a source. If you disagree with me then you'll have to disprove them, not me.
Same thing with NASA GISS, NOAA, Hadley CRU, UAH or any other respected source of climate data. When I quote such sources your argument is not with me but with them. Same with the peer reviewed literature.
There's an old saying that no one was ever fired for buying IBM and to me that's the same thing deferring to an accepted and established authority. Because until proven otherwise no *reasonable* person can consider someone an idiot for accepting even if it may only be the *opinion* of a proven authority in the field.
All these skeptics would essentially have you believe that *they* are certified experts in the field and frankly that is where my response is "that's nice, then prove it" whereas I'm making no claim to any particular extrordinary knowledge. Based on what you said above about "undemonstrable and unprovable" who are you going to believe someone that makes no claim to all knowing knowledge or someone that claims that they are smarter than the foremost scientists on the planet.
But that's what you're doing. You believe nameless/faceless bloggers over the acknowledged experts in the field. So why is that?
Mumbles, climate science has been corrupted by politics and greed.
Again, this is your statement of opinion offered with no evidence whatsoever. Why should I believe you?
Climate Model Fudge Factor
I'm totally familiar with "fudge". However the existence of fudge does not imply error but in my experience the existence of fudge implies to me that something has been exhustively verified against real world outcomes and has been "adjusted" to more closely match reality. The lack of such fudge often implies not greater precision but less.
I just redesigned a board the primary component of which is a 1GSPS ADC which itself needed to be replaced. With identical input amplification and attenuation stages the input power requirement of the old versus the new ADC's were different by a factor of 3 db. While ADC's are specified in terms of input voltage levels there is no real getting around the fact that they are in reality dependent on RF power level *not* just voltage. And so while 3 db is a pretty respectable difference that's a not too unreasonable power level input variation between two dissimilar ADC's. So we added 3 db of fudge to the DSP code that drove the system level feedback. That's an *improvement* not a *deprovement*.
So just as psycho is arguing that the USHCN has changed their data to me it's almost so what? Models, data, whatever ger "refined" over time all the time and that doesn't invalidate the "experts in the field" when they do so. Nor does it necessarily elavate a blogger to some assumed level of sainthood.