Remember the 400+ anti-gw report ?

[jethro]

But you're not actually in a position to judge, exactly the same as me: you are not researching the matter, and that is my point. There are, however, many scientists that are researching all aspects of the argument, and they don't agree with you, and can tell you why they don't.

If I were in the habit of tearing research apart and saying I know better, then you would be correct; but I'm not. There are many scientists who are in a position to research and judge other scientists and some of them do not agree with the consensus opinion. They don't agree, they can tell you why they don't agree. It's not my opinions or my research, it is theirs.

[Devonian]

Not a red herring at all, there are two distinct groups of people; those who say nope, we're not getting warmer, it's all baloney. Then there is the other group such as myself, Captain Bob, Roger, High pressure to name but few, who say yes we've warmed, yes some of it is AGW but we're not sure how much is natural and how much is AGW.

And what divides us is just that I think more is AGW (which is CO2 plus other anthro effects) than you others :lol:

One of those approaches is IMO opinion denial, the other is looking and questioning, using various peer reviewed papers to form an informed opinion. However, when discussing things on here sceptics are all lumped together as an ad hom dismissal.

What, every time by everyone like me?

I cannot think of one single person in what I call the questioner camp, who thinks they know better than the scientists, who question the validity of the theory wholesale, what myself and the others do, is raise other science from people who are equally qualified to reach conclusions as the pro side, but who reach a different opinion.

I don't have a problem with that.

[jethro]

And what divides us is just that I think more is AGW (which is CO2 plus other anthro effects) than you others :lol:

What, every time by everyone like me?

I don't have a problem with that.

I've always said the only difference between questioners and the pro side is the percentages, that's why I find the antagonism so baffling.

I can only speak from personal experience, but I'd say the overwhelming majority lump all scepticism under one coverall title of "bordering on barking".

[Roo]

If I were in the habit of tearing research apart and saying I know better, then you would be correct; but I'm not. There are many scientists who are in a position to research and judge other scientists and some of them do not agree with the consensus opinion. They don't agree, they can tell you why they don't agree. It's not my opinions or my research, it is theirs.

But it's not: the majority of the posts are secondary referrals to work, they are NOT the original work (yes, I know there is sometimes a problem finding original papers, but that still doesn't make it any better) and if it's not the work itself, then it really should not be posted, because there is no way to validate what is genuine and what is hearsay.

Also it is the way that the same bits of stuff crop up again and again over multiple threads despite numerous posts saying why this is not to be trusted, why this piece of work has been discredited, disproved, etc, etc.

If there was a genuine wish to learn the threads would be moving forward as each point is addressed. The fact that the same-old-same-old keeps coming up suggests this is not happening and that rather, people have an agenda that they wish to be proved right at all costs: and that agenda is that the AGW scientists are wrong.

As I have said before, I have no means of validating the science for, or against, but I do know secondary and unsubstantiated material when I see it, and I know that academic rigour demands that such material be discounted: when writing my PhD I would have had it thrown out had I said anything that I could not back up with peer-reviewed material from multiple sources...I might have thought something unsubstantiated was interesting, but if it could not be supported by proof, and I could not find the primary source for the assertion, it would have been dismissed immediately by my examinors. That is how academia remains reliable.

The same level of proof should be required here, as we are talking at a level of argument that requires it. There is, to my knowledge, no-one in the regular enviro threads who knows enough about the science to be able to attack it in the way they attempt to.

A further point is that there is NOTHING to suggest that the scientists involved in the AGW arguments are untrustworthy, ignorant, unquestioning, etc, etc. These claims are constantly bandied about: that they are somehow in it for the money (hahahahaha!), biased in their approach, haven't looked at all aspects of the argument, etc, etc. How can any of us, especially those of us who have no knowledge of the academic science system, make such claims? They are just slander. That is the true ad hominem problem here...

[VillagePlank]

Roo, Why isn't the source-code to the primary models published?

Edited January 14, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Stratos Ferric]

...It's all in the mathematics and the implementation of the mathematics on a computer. It wouldn't be too much of an issue if, for instance, the Hadley Centre would publish their source-code for their modelling - but they won't. Nor will most of the others. So it cannot be verified to be qualified software that is well written, and accurately implements the good work published in the peer reviewed journals. What other area of science is there where the mechanics of how you derived your results is not published along with the results?

Because as far as I aware, the field is not transparent for the reasons given above.

[EDIT] Google: 'HadCM3 AOGCM source code' I did try emailing them to ask for a copy of the source, but they declined to answer. I notice, though, that there are, now, some agencies releasing source code: perhaps in response to this

I suspect the drivers for not releasing are commercial ones. I sympathise to a point with this VP, but I don't think climatilogy is quite so immature as you suggest. For sure, there are myriad potential natural drivers of warming touted on here, but I'm strongly of the view that these constitute more of a wish list on the part of those who would rather we weren't warming, than anything that stands up to robust assessment. Huge underwater volcanoes, and significant solar flux, would have been picked up by now; the magnitude of energy flux required to account for the warming we've been seeing would not idly slip by under the radar of all telemetry and sensing that we now have, both professional and amateur.

RE the modelling, if there were other reputable agencies producing a hugely divergent view of the future of our climate then one might reasonably suggest Hadley & co. are wide of the mark. I'm not seeing that; all I'm seeing is uncertainty around the degree of warming. I would also be very surprised if there were coding errors in the computation, not least because parallel but independent assessments would all have to be making the same sort of error in their calculations. Given the millions of computations involved the odds on that being the case are so long as to be not worth pondering.

But it's not: the majority of the posts are secondary referrals to work, they are NOT the original work (yes, I know there is sometimes a problem finding original papers, but that still doesn't make it any better) and if it's not the work itself, then it really should not be posted, because there is no way to validate what is genuine and what is hearsay.

Also it is the way that the same bits of stuff crop up again and again over multiple threads despite numerous posts saying why this is not to be trusted, why this piece of work has been discredited, disproved, etc, etc.

...

All good points in my opinion Roo. The track record of a few on here re interpreting even secondary sources is not exactly unblemished, and I can recall several occasions when I've gone back to primary sources to debunk some very selective editing of source material to present an inaccurate view, e.g. the papers during autumn suggesting that Greenland's ice was advancing and that temperatures had been warmer in the past. The source data in the source paper showed no such thing.

[Roo]

Roo, Why isn't the source-code to the primary models published?

Because it is standard practice in academia. You publish how you do something and what the results are, but you don't give someone your precise records or it would potentially get stolen and published by someone else, i.e. standard intellectual property stuff. Also, it may be as when my other half was working in anti-matter physics: he didn't have to publish exactly how he built the experiment to do what he did: that was a given because all those in his field knew each other and exactly what they each were doing.

If there are questions regarding the model, the standard academic response would be to try to replicate the result: someone, somewhere will be doing that.

Also, do you have categoric proof that they will not release their source code, or is it just because you cannot find it, and they haven't answered your email? Because if so, that would hardly be grounds for the level of dishonesty that you are insinuating.

Stop looking for conspiracy behind every result, there really isn't any there.

[VillagePlank]

For sure it's for commerical reasons.

There are always bugs in software. Always. That, in and of itself, is axiomatic. Whatever the software is doing, somewhere, it will be doing something wrong.

Roo correctly identified that climatology is derived from a vast set of disciplines, and included in that, particularly with the advent of the widespread use of computing, is the field of software engineering. Software Engineering hasn't really established itself, formally, yet, but one presumes that those creating these models are using some form of engineering paradigm to write the software - perhaps even using formal specifications that validate the software mathematically (highly unlikely if they are using Fortran 77, and Fortran 90 - which they are)

I am, clearly, no expert in the vast majority of the physical sciences, but, to use a cliche, I know my stuff when it comes to computing. That they do not supply the source code seems, to me, to violate the scientific method. It is not enough, in my opinion, to point people to output from a model and say 'this is what we've got' and then when asked how they got it say 'we used known principles but we're not going to show you exactly how'

Of course this is all opinion, and wild conjecture; we don't have the source code to examine, so it can only be thus.

[Devonian]

For sure it's for commerical reasons.

There are always bugs in software. Always. That, in and of itself, is axiomatic. Whatever the software is doing, somewhere, it will be doing something wrong.

Roo correctly identified that climatology is derived from a vast set of disciplines, and included in that, particularly with the advent of the widespread use of computing, is the field of software engineering. Software Engineering hasn't really established itself, formally, yet, but one presumes that those creating these models are using some form of engineering paradigm to write the software - perhaps even using formal specifications that validate the software mathematically (highly unlikely if they are using Fortran 77, and Fortran 90 - which they are)

I am, clearly, no expert in the vast majority of the physical sciences, but, to use a cliche, I know my stuff when it comes to computing. That they do not supply the source code seems, to me, to violate the scientific method. It is not enough, in my opinion, to point people to output from a model and say 'this is what we've got' and then when asked how they got it say 'we used known principles but we're not going to show you exactly how'

Of course this is all opinion, and wild conjecture; we don't have the source code to examine, so it can only be thus.

VP, lets see your evidence the code isn't public domain please. Is it just one un replied to email?

Anyway, wouldn't you need a room full of humming mainframes of the likes of Exeter's lot to get it to run? :lol:

EDit: OK, you've answered that.

Edited January 14, 2008 by Devonian

[VillagePlank]

Also, do you have categoric proof that they will not release their source code, or is it just because you cannot find it, and they haven't answered your email? Because if so, that would hardly be grounds for the level of dishonesty that you are insinuating.

Stop looking for conspiracy behind every result, there really isn't any there.

And off you go again!

• No I do not have categoric proof.
  
• I have looked long and hard.
  
• They did not answer my email.
  
• I am not making any grounds for dishonesty and am insinuating nothing.
  
• I am not looking for a conspiracy.
  

If you can get hold of the HadGCM3 source code, I'd be glad of a copy, but as SF says, it's unlikely because it is used for commerical purposes.

VP, lets see your evidence the code isn't public domain please. Is it just one un replied to email?

How do I provide for the evidence you are asking? Are you asking me to trail the trillions of websites available and then provide a report to you showing that I cannot find the public domain link. Perhaps you want me to spam email them, until they eventually get annoyed and reply? What exactly are you asking for me to do?

Anyway, wouldn't you need a room full of humming mainframes of the likes of Exeter's lot to get it to run?

No, you wouldn't. Edited January 14, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

And off you go again!

• No I do not have categoric proof.
  
• I have looked long and hard.
  
• They did not answer my email.
  
• I am not making any grounds for dishonesty and am insinuating nothing.
  
• I am not looking for a conspiracy.
  

If you can get hold of the HadGCM3 source code, I'd be glad of a copy, but as SF says, it's unlikely because it is used for commerical purposes.

But you are saying "That they do not supply the source code seems, to me, to violate the scientific method."?

[Roo]

And off you go again!

• No I do not have categoric proof.
  
• I have looked long and hard.
  
• They did not answer my email.
  
• I am not making any grounds for dishonesty and am insinuating nothing.
  
• I am not looking for a conspiracy.
  

If you can get hold of the HadGCM3 source code, I'd be glad of a copy, but as SF says, it's unlikely because it is used for commerical purposes.

I haven't gone off anywhere. You were insinuating that by not releasing the source code there was something suspicious. I was merely countering that.

[Devonian]

And off you go again!

• No I do not have categoric proof.
  
• I have looked long and hard.
  
• They did not answer my email.
  
• I am not making any grounds for dishonesty and am insinuating nothing.
  
• I am not looking for a conspiracy.
  

If you can get hold of the HadGCM3 source code, I'd be glad of a copy, but as SF says, it's unlikely because it is used for commerical purposes.

Can you read?

No, of course I can't...

Edited January 14, 2008 by Devonian

[VillagePlank]

But you are saying "That they do not supply the source code seems, to me, to violate the scientific method."?

Well Roo has corrected me in that you don't need to publish source code in order to be scientific. I stand corrected and disagree with that philosophy entirely. Especially if it is considered standard practice.

[jethro]

But it's not: the majority of the posts are secondary referrals to work, they are NOT the original work (yes, I know there is sometimes a problem finding original papers, but that still doesn't make it any better) and if it's not the work itself, then it really should not be posted, because there is no way to validate what is genuine and what is hearsay.

Also it is the way that the same bits of stuff crop up again and again over multiple threads despite numerous posts saying why this is not to be trusted, why this piece of work has been discredited, disproved, etc, etc.

If there was a genuine wish to learn the threads would be moving forward as each point is addressed. The fact that the same-old-same-old keeps coming up suggests this is not happening and that rather, people have an agenda that they wish to be proved right at all costs: and that agenda is that the AGW scientists are wrong.

As I have said before, I have no means of validating the science for, or against, but I do know secondary and unsubstantiated material when I see it, and I know that academic rigour demands that such material be discounted: when writing my PhD I would have had it thrown out had I said anything that I could not back up with peer-reviewed material from multiple sources...I might have thought something unsubstantiated was interesting, but if it could not be supported by proof, and I could not find the primary source for the assertion, it would have been dismissed immediately by my examinors. That is how academia remains reliable.

The same level of proof should be required here, as we are talking at a level of argument that requires it. There is, to my knowledge, no-one in the regular enviro threads who knows enough about the science to be able to attack it in the way they attempt to.

A further point is that there is NOTHING to suggest that the scientists involved in the AGW arguments are untrustworthy, ignorant, unquestioning, etc, etc. These claims are constantly bandied about: that they are somehow in it for the money (hahahahaha!), biased in their approach, haven't looked at all aspects of the argument, etc, etc. How can any of us, especially those of us who have no knowledge of the academic science system, make such claims? They are just slander. That is the true ad hominem problem here...

Sometimes it is impossible to gain access to original papers, are you saying that unless they are available in the public domain, they should be disregarded? I agree original work is always the favoured option but you have to draw a line between what is an acceptable source of abstract and that which is not. An example to demonstrate:

If I read in the Daily Express that global temperatures are not so hot, in fact they have been warmer in the past, then I would dismiss it, I certainly would not post a link to it. However if, as here a press release is made claiming the same thing but it is from the Havard-Smithsonian centre for Astrophysics, I would post it. Are you saying institutions such as these are disreputable?

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/archive/pr0310.html

The circular nature of discussions on here IMO opinion is because there are, as yet no definitive answers in any of this.

If we all are to have Climatology degrees in order to discuss any of this then quite frankly, what is the point of any of these threads? We are all capable of reading and deciphering views, if one scientist says something and another says something completely opposite, it is not us making the prognosis, merely discussing it. Following this logic, should we only have chefs following recipes? Haynes publishing would go bankrupt overnight if their workshop manuals were considered beyond the reach of anyone other than mechanics.

To look at new research papers, papers outside the consensus does not infer untrustworthiness, ignorance, blindness or greed on the part of any scientist, for myself it merely demonstrates an incurable desire to know more, discover how the planet works, a yearning to learn.

[VillagePlank]

I haven't gone off anywhere. You were insinuating that by not releasing the source code there was something suspicious. I was merely countering that.

You'd do well to find me suppose that something is awry or suspicious -as oppose to plain irritating

Moving on, then ...

Here's an example (it's not the Hadley CM, though - which, I believe, is the main player) Note that this is the ported version and not the original codebase which, from my searches, is unavailable - which is implied here And you haven't been able to apply for a license, now, since June 2007, here

Pay particular attention to section 5, obligations, and section 7, warranty, on the first link. As SF intimated - it is a commercial agreement. Indeed under the license agreement you cannot bring the Met Office into disrepute - so wouldn't be able to tell anyone even if you did find problems!!

Edited January 14, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Roo]

Sometimes it is impossible to gain access to original papers, are you saying that unless they are available in the public domain, they should be disregarded?

Yes, if they are being used as the truth. It is not difficult to get access to the original papers: just email the author. It's what I do all the time.

Are you saying institutions such as these are disreputable?

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/archive/pr0310.html

No, nor did I ever, but items in e.g. Science Daily, various blogs, websites, etc, etc are not valid material in any shape, means or form. Also, even Harvard has a PR dept which will be doing it's press releases: it wouldn't count as a source in academic discourse. So, although it might be better than the Express, it is not primary evidence, and cannot be treated as such.

If we all are to have Climatology degrees in order to discuss any of this then quite frankly, what is the point of any of these threads? We are all capable of reading and deciphering views, if one scientist says something and another says something completely opposite, it is not us making the prognosis, merely discussing it.

But to be able to dismiss something, then, yes, one does have to have a good grounding in science. Also, as I have said before, to cite a second hand source, or one that has been proven to be unreliable or untrue to back up one's argument, is just bad debating and isn't valid, even on a forum.

As for the point of these threads...in the enviro section, I do sometimes wonder (and I don't mean that nastily ).

I'm sorry to sound harsh, but if people truly do want to learn then it might be worth taking a detailed look at what the learned have said rather than dismissing them in favour of some secondary hearsay (e.g. the SSRC) which has nothing to teach beyond how not to do academia. Those with 'the learning' (for want of a better phrase) have said why they disregard the other theories and have said it over and over again: to keep digging up material from obscure parts of the ether to contradict them is not learning, it is just trying to prove a point for the sake of it.

[jethro]

With the greatest of respect Roo, what you are proposing here is outside the realms of a public forum whose members consist of laymen. If you require such rigour as only citing original source and that alone, and that sources such as institutions (because they have a PR dept) and science journals cannot be considered, then perhaps this forum is not for you? Academic institutions may satisfy your requirements more fully.

[Roo]

You'd do well to find me suppose that something is awry or suspicious -as oppose to plain irritating

Moving on, then ...

Here's an example (it's not the Hadley CM, though - which, I believe, is the main player) Note that this is the ported version and not the original codebase which, from my searches, is unavailable - which is implied here And you haven't been able to apply for a license, now, since June 2007, here

Pay particular attention to section 5, obligations, and section 7, warranty, on the first link. As SF intimated - it is a commercial agreement. Indeed under the license agreement you cannot bring the Met Office into disrepute - so wouldn't be able to tell anyone even if you did find problems!!

It's all very standard, they provide the stuff for free to anyone in academia who wants it, and at the moment they're re-drafting their agreements so the license is temporarily unavailable. I don't see why this is iffy.

And as for bringing the MetO into 'disrepute': this is standard stuff that I get all the time when using any government info (e.g. Ordnance Survey, National Archives, British Library, etc, etc). It's to stop dodgy research citing them erroneously as a source.

I don't see anywhere in your link that it is unavailable.

VP as this means a lot to you, I really would suggest that you telephone them/visit to ask about how to get hold of it.

[VillagePlank]

VP as this means a lot to you, I really would suggest that you telephone them/visit to ask about how to get hold of it.

I tried them, as well, but being that I am not attached to academic institution they wouldn't issue me a free license Probably for the reasons that you mention regarding erroneous citations.

Anyway, that wasn't the point. I can find no link to download the HadCM3 source code, nor apply for a licence. This PUM release doesn't include climate configurations.

I think it's about time we started an open-source CM.

(BTW, the links I provided are for the 'ported' model. This is not the same as the 'actual' running model: that would be the UM and not the PUM. Again, the presumption is for commercial reasons. Please don't see the word 'commercial' and equate it with 'iffy' That is NOT what it means and it is NOT what is intended)

EDIT:

Certain versions of the model are made available as Ported Unified Model (PUM) releases once they have been accepted by internal users.

here Edited January 14, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Roo]

With the greatest of respect Roo, what you are proposing here is outside the realms of a public forum whose members consist of laymen. If you require such rigour as only citing original source and that alone, and that sources such as institutions (because they have a PR dept) and science journals cannot be considered, then perhaps this forum is not for you? Academic institutions may satisfy your requirements more fully.

It's got nothing to do with being laymen, and everything to do with knowledge and the pursuit of the truth (whatever that might be). Surely that is why we all have these discussions here? To learn? It's dead easy to knock down dodgy source material but it's difficult to argue against solid evidence. If there was more of it, then you might convince even me!

Truly amazing things can come from questioning the accepted truth, but for it to mean anything (even on a weather forum!), it has to be done in a logical and supported way.

There's tons of primary stuff readily available and out there on the internet, we just need to use it and stop relying on unsubstantiated material which we bicker over ad infinitum.

I tried them, as well, but being that I am not attached to academic institution they wouldn't issue me a free license Probably for the reasons that you mention regarding erroneous citations.

It is a shame that only those in institutions can get it for free: is unfair, though understandable, I guess.

Did you ask about them about the UM? Or might be worth getting someone like TWS to ask for you (as he is in an institution)?

[Mr Sleet]

Well, you'd need Astro-physicists to look into the Solar and planetary influences, Atmospheric scientists for the well, the clue is in the title, Oceanographers, because there's an awful lot of water and water vapour out there, etc etc etc. There are many separate disciplines which make up a complete view of climate, then you have to take into account how climate change of today is similar/different to climate change of the past. Then you need specialists who measure and judge the impact upon animals and plants. Plus experts to look at the expected impact upon humans, plus if we're to blame you need folk to figure out alternative technology which will provide for increasing energy demands in a more sustainable, cleaner way. I guess you'd need a few financial whizz kids to figure out where all the money's coming from to pay for this, I expect thrown into the pot there would have to be folk who decide whether or not financial outlay is justified in land/lives saved or emissions cut.

This is just an off the cuff list, I'm sure people could add to it.

At the end of the day, we've got to figure out what is happening, why it's happening, has it happened before, if so, what happened next, where do we go from here, what do we need to do, can we do it, will it make any difference, how do we pay for it, who pays for it, what do we do first; that's an awful lot of decisions, it's going to take more than just climatologists to answer that lot.

Well said Jethro. Climatologists big up the problem for sure- keeps them in work. That's why I wouldn't have blind faith in what they say - vested interest.

[Roo]

Well said Jethro. Climatologists big up the problem for sure- keeps them in work. That's why I wouldn't have blind faith in what they say - vested interest.

Evidence please?

[Mr Sleet]

Evidence please?

Have you ever seen a homeless climate scientist ?

[Roo]

Have you ever seen a homeless climate scientist ?

Oh now I've heard it all.......

Edit: You will, of course, be able to tell me how much a scientist earns then?

Edited January 14, 2008 by Roo