Global Warming? are humans to blame?

I'm totally opposed to scientists quoting the results of models without supplying the source code for the model and the input data so it can be checked. That's utter ******** and anyone (like Boston) who accepts the results of such a model's output is a fool.

As a software designer I can assure you all that I can write code to produce any output I want and unless you have the source code with input data, you can never ever prove my model is incorrect - except by its failure to predict real-world events.

Hence my conviction that the current warming model is crap. Its ability to predict real-world events is very poor.

Now I'll get back to processing the dissolved oxygen data.... found a bug in my code (situation normal there).

PDW

 

As both a former scientist (who programmed in IDL to process my data at NASA after using MatLab to develop the models) and then a computer programmer (who programmed a whole lot of crap in C++ and JAVA), I agree.

However, it should be known that the source code is indeed available for any scientific programming upon request.

All aspects of research are available to the folks doing peer reviews, including any source code. It's an open community, not a political one. Scientific progress takes place in a way that is very similar to open source software development.

Other scientists (and groups of scientists) can "check out" your work (like from a code repository), review it for errors and build upon it, then "check it back in" by publishing their results in Phys Rev or something like that. It's an open community, not something driven by politics or secrecy. There is no secrecy at all in science, except when a security clearance is required by the government.

 

Benjamin Franklin was a scientist and a statesman, which is way better than being a politician. He is(or was) a hero whom I hold in high esteem, God rest his soul.

 

Peer review is supposed to maintain integrity, but if it's been co-opted, then it's reputation as "fair" becomes a very prestigious disinformation tool.

So, is the system broken? Has peer review been co-opted to ignore "heretical" science that refutes man made global warming? Here are a couple well written articles, with quotes from reputable scientists, that claim it has fallen into corruption.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html

HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY [8.8.07]
By Freeman Dyson

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is...cientists-believe-global-warming-is-man-made/

Mostly retired scientists refute GW, because they aren't subject to pressure about keeping their job.

 

There is no way, if you introduced a body of evidence that disproved the global warming theory, that your evidence would be rejected from the scientific community. It just doesn't work like that. If you can disprove global warming, using the scientific method, you will be heard and you will change the science.

If nobody has disproved it, it is considered settled for the moment, until such a time as it's deemed incorrect.

My guess, not being involved in climatology, is nobody has put forth data and theory that disproves it. Simple as that.

Also (and here is where it gets a little ugly), it would seem nobody has funded research into disproving it. You'd think, with all the politics involved, someone would fund a group to work on disproving it. Heck, I'd be happy to take donations, put together a team and work on disproving it.

However, it hasn't been sufficiently disproved yet, so it is in the "not disproved" bin, just like General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, despite the fact that they disagree with each other and cannot both be correct theories.

Plus, there are several layers to this onion.

1) The Earth may or may not be warming (it probably is, from what I can tell)
2) If it is warming... humans may or may not be the cause of the warming
3) If humans are causing the warming... it may or may not be "carbon"

So, there is a lot more to the topic, in general, than there appears to be.

Personally, I'm undecided because I have not reviewed the data or taken part in an analysis of it - and that's just to prove #1 above. Looking to prove #2 and #3 would take more time than any of us has free, unless some of you guys are retired and well versed in IDL.

 

I think theres a bit more "ugliness" going on.

"The believers basically took over western climate science in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and since then have:

•Fired anyone who expresses disagreement with their theory, or hindered their career (publishing, promotions, funding). Al Gore sacked a few skeptics in his time as Vice-President of the USA.
•Hired into climate science positions only people who agreed with their theory.
Government-funded institutions are the only employers of “climate scientists”, so once the believers were in control of the few bodies that determine funding of government science, it was game over. Believers got all the funding and positions; skeptics were forced out. There are no checks and balances in government funded science, no competition from privately-funded science in the climate area, no auditing as there is in financial matters, no regulation as with food and drugs, and no organized and funded opposition to test the theories and champion alternatives.
Within organizations that receive money for working on global warming, anyone who speaks out against the theory of man-made global warming gets peer pressure to shut up, because it threatens the funding and career prospects of colleagues. Scientists have mortgages and children too, and who else would employ a sacked or shunned climate scientist?

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is...cientists-believe-global-warming-is-man-made/

So the takeover is complete, and it’s never going to change. The good ‘ol boys are in charge for the foreseeable future."

 

The first link you put up in your post was trustworthy. The second like that you re-posted is an ad driven site from Australia, where, sadly, I've been seeing a lot of conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo coming from.

 

The Russian, Chinese and Indian climate establishments, which are financially independent of the western climate establishment, are all skeptical. As are many scientists from other branches of science, and many retired climate scientists (who no longer have anything to lose by speaking their minds).

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/is...shment-corrupt-how-many-excuses-does-it-take/

 

Okay, quoting from the site you accept has a valid viewpoint.

"The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, “Sorry, but we don’t know”. The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities. So it happens that the experts who talk publicly about politically contentious questions tend to speak more clearly than they think. They make confident predictions about the future, and end up believing their own predictions. Their predictions become dogmas which they do not question. The public is led to believe that the fashionable scientific dogmas are true, and it may sometimes happen that they are wrong. That is why heretics who question the dogmas are needed. "


http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html


Now. As to my posting from "in-valid" sites?

If the scientists can exaggerate their predictions, and have them accepted as true untill proven wrong?

I claim the same priveledge. If you don't like the views I post or the sites I quote, they should be accepted untill proven wrong!



Would you agree my statements are "settled" for the moment, as true? Untill someone proves them wrong?

 

TRIED TO GIVE YOU REP, BUT HAVE TO SPREAD IT AROUND FIRST.
woops, caps lock on.

 

My position to a T. With the caveat that I don't need to view or run the model to know it's crap, because its ability to predict events over the last 10 years is very poor. A model that can't be used for predictions may be modelling something, but it's not modelling observed reality. GIGO.

I don't really have the time to run other peoples' models but it's an interesting thought.... must do a search for their source code, a retired computer science friend of mine might be bored.

There's a lot of evidence of glacial retreat being observed 100 years ago in the Southern Hemisphere. It isn't anything new due to the rise in atmospheric CO2. Antarctic sea ice is about the same as observed records show. Greenland seems to be shedding its ice but IIRC I read recently that Viking era objects are being discovered in places now ice free, which if true indicated that there was less ice during the Medieval warm period than now, so one can't draw too many conclusions from ice retreat in Greenland.

a 2-3C temperature rise isn't going to be catastrophic IMO. We can handle that and that's just as well because if the rise *isn't* due to our contribution of CO2, there's nothing we can do to stop it anyway (let's ignore nuclear winter scenarios. Another ice age is a really scary thought).

Having said that I still think that burning fossil fuels the way we currently do is stupid and wasteful.

I completely agree with you WRT peer review provided the data is made available. A lot of researchers have been publishing papers and refusing to make their raw data available. Fortunately the big journals are taking a lot stronger line on this now to cut down on the controversies WRT where the numbers came from. It's one of the reasons I'm loading the source data files AND instrument calibration files AND Java source code inside the database I'm putting together, so people if interested have all the information they need to check on my calculations. They have the raw numbers from the instruments, they have the calibration coefficients and they have the algorithms.

Problem is I thought I retired to build my boat and seem to have gotten sucked back in...... I need a 1m sea level rise so I can launch at the bottom of my yard so I have to say I'm pretty pissed at the warmist-types' alarmist predictions being wrong.

PDW

 

You're Upset? I Own Some Mountain Property I Was Planning To Develope As An Island Resort!

 

I am tired of the viewpoint that "We don't know if its happening or not, but we better behave as if it is, just in case."

No truth, no peace.

 

Ahahaahahahhaahhahahahhahahah

Again no competent response to the simplest of questions concerning climate shift.

Instead we get more attempts to politicize the issue in some sad attempt to avoid discussing scientific findings in scientific terms. My hats off to Cat who at least tried to point out the error.

The worlds business community, shipping particularly has been preparing for the changes ahead as I've pointed out numerous times. But the worlds military's are also preparing

from the article
As ice cap melts, militaries vie for Arctic edge
found at
http://news.yahoo.com/ice-cap-melts-militaries-vie-arctic-edge-072343565.html

The simple fact is that regardless of how politics reacts to the changing chemistry of our atmosphere, the atmosphere is still changing. Unless we make deliberate efforts to prevent CO2 pollution, the world can only warm as we increase the levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

Its a no brainer

four independent studies
all showing the same thing


cheers
B

 

Yes Boston
Many of us see and agree that the theory, man made CO2 causes "catastrophic" global warming, is a "no brainer". We were expecting more intelligence from our scientists, government, and citizens.