Kim has suggested elsewhere that he has been "involved in collaborative open source software development projects many times".
I did not "suggest" I stated clearly that I had. The innuendo is unwarranted.
re the uncertainty problem:
Years ago I worked on a model to estimate the cross-channel interference between two microwave communications beams between ground stations and satellites when there was precipitation in the common volume of the two beams.
Done on a limited scale, this is very similar to what is involved in climate modelling.
When we did a check against real data I was amazed to find that we were within 10%. I'd estimated that the uncertainty in the end result would be about +/-100%.
That does not mean that I was wrong. That was
The fact that the result was much closer than that is not contradictory. There could have been two or more inaccuracies that fortuitously cancelled. That one test does not mean the model was accurate to within 10%.
This is the point I also made about GCM estimates of global temps.
Two parameters that are given values that are too strong, but act in opposing directions, can produce hind-casts that are reasonably close over the calibration period without that making the model correct.
Giving too much weight to both CO2 and volcanoes works for periods where there is mix of both.
It fails when there is a period without one or other forcing, as is now becoming apparent in the post Pinatubo period.