A couple of remarks to show how hypocritical are the anti-science climate science denying bloggers. And how they whine.
Anthony Watts has posted another "Weekly Climate and Energy New Round Up" which he copies and pastes every week from some other anti-science crowd (archived here). The "roundup" in the title is a misnomer. It doesn't destroy the weeds, quite the opposite. What it does is collate miscellaneous rubbish from all the disinformation plants - plants that are unwanted, undesirable and could do with a decent spray.
USA isn't spending enough on climate monitoring
This time one of the whines is about the fact that the USA isn't spending enough money on satellites and Argo buoys to support monitoring of the climate.
Yes, you read that correctly. After devoting years of blogging complaining about how the USA spends "billions and trillions" on climate research (by far the bulk of the "billions and trillions" over the past few decades went on satellites), now they are moaning that not enough money is being spent. They are wanting the dreaded guvmint to spend more on Argo buoys and satellites, writing:
The budget for maintaining the buoys fell from about $10-$12 million to $2-3 million. Somehow Washington can spend $22.6 billion in 2013 on climate change but not maintain critical instruments on understanding weather and climate change. The amount for buoys is tiny compared to DOE spending on renewables....
...TWTW Reader Timothy Wise reminded us of a GAO report last February, which stated that there is a significant timing gap between the end of scheduled life existing satellites, and replacement with new satellites. The US has two complementary sets of satellites, polar-orbiting ones, and geostationary ones. They are used by weather forecasters, climatologists, the military, etc. According to the GAO report, the timing gap between end of scheduled life and replacement with new satellites could span from 17 to 53 months or more, depending on how long the current satellite lasts and any delays in launching or operating the new one. As reported in past TWTWs, based on three separate, but somewhat overlapping government reports, the US has spent some $165 billion on climate change since 1993, but the US cannot spend the money needed to maintain critical instrumentation.
What hypocrites! What an about face! These are the same people who elected the drongoes because they wanted them to slash the budget. They almost brought the USA to its knees more than once and nearly sent the world economies into a tailspin. Now they have the cheek to complain. Are they finally realising that climate monitoring is critically important?
Anti-science bloggers know zilch about climate models
Although they have now done an about face on climate spending, these same bloggers know zilch about climate models. Some anti-science blogger in the UK called Andrew Montford (who has achieved some notoriety in the UK apparently) is reported as having written about CMIP5 models, alleging in a very mixed up manner:
Writing in Bishop Hill, Andrew Montford observes that once climatologists get a new generation of climate models into the open, as may occur with the Assessment Reports of UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the climatologists spend the next few years writing papers on their analyses of the outputs of the models. They do not attempt to validate the models against actual observations, which those engaged in empirical research and model testing would do.
So they spend the "next few years" analysing the outputs of models but "they do not attempt to validate the models against actual observations". What a mixed up notion. What does he think they "analyse?" All this just goes to show that either Andrew Montford is knowingly telling lies or he hasn't the first clue about climate modeling.
Either way he can be ignored.
I normally do. I only mention him in passing because his name popped up at WUWT. (Everyone who's anyone in the climate science rejection brigade pops up at WUWT sooner or later. That's why I mostly only bother with monitoring that one anti-science blog.)
There is an entire chapter in the IPCC report which evaluates the climate models. I refer you to Chapter 9 of the IPCC AR5 WG1 report, called, incidentally "Evaluation of Climate Models" (my bold italics):
The direct approach to model evaluation is to compare model output with observations and analyze the resulting difference. This requires knowledge of the errors and uncertainties in the observations, which have been discussed in Chapters 2 through 6. Where possible, averages over the same time period in both models and observations will be compared, although for many quantities the observational record is rather short, or only observationally-based estimates of the climatological mean are available. In cases where observations are lacking, we will resort to intercomparison of model results to provide at least some quantification of model uncertainty via inter-model spread.
Here's a sample of more of the idiocy that passes for science denial:
As the major funder of the PCMDI-CMIP effort, the DOE has the responsibility to the US taxpayer of insisting that the CMIP models be rigorously tested and validated (only one model can be valid).
"Only one model can be valid"? What complete nonsense! If you want to learn more about climate models, you can't go past this excellent article by Scott K. Johnson at ArsTechnica.
The "round-up" also refers to a new "all the models are wrong" article by Roy Spencer. That deserves a separate article, which I've done here!