[LINK] Real Science - Was - The meaning of climate change denial

[TKoltai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Stephen Wilson
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 June 2012 10:01 AM
> To: 'Link List'
> Subject: Re: [LINK] The meaning of climate change denial
> 
> Tom,
> 
> You still miss the point of my process observations.
> 
> I don't dip into climatology literature, as it's not my 
> field. Instead I 
> follow the science at a distance. I stay informed through New 
> Scientist 
> and similar organs. I note that the editorial position of New 
> Scientist 
> on climate is pretty much unchanged in thirty years.
> 
> Real science is not done by individual non exerts like you 
> dipping into 
> the odd paper, put their way by cherry picking lobby groups or 
> journalists with an agenda. Real science is not done by lay 
> people going 
> "I'll see your favorite paper and raise you my favorite paper". The 
> steady refinement of scientific consensus is incalculably 
> more thorough.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Steve Wilson.

You may be right Steve,

But it appears that Real Science is now promoted by money people rather
than scientists.
The basis of current climate change legislation can be calculated on a
280 kb program that can be downloaded here.
http://edgcm.columbia.edu/ModelII/modelII_source.zip

About: http://edgcm.columbia.edu/ModelII/ReadMe.html

The model will compile on an iPhone for all of you climate watchers...
But therein lies the rub... 

The model does not include one skerrick of real data.
Not one iota of historical records.

It takes a number of user nominated parameters and then calculates some
numbers like this:
http://www.realclimate.org/data/H88_scenarios.dat (The actual numbers
presented to the US Congress in 1988)

Today, anyone with excel could better this result with very little
effort.

So Steve, as you can see, climate change is not based on peer reviewed
papers. (With the exception of later redacted or qualified ones [Revelle
R.]). It is based on a small program and a speech on the floor of
congress about a table of scenarios that in hindsight were so wrong that
they required all the actual factual data to be
"re-aligned/rejigged/adjusted/recalculated" [or choose any other word
you can think of that means "cooked"].

Any thinking person, even without a scientific disciplinary background
has to look at this hodge podge outcome (0.4 of one degree [after
considerable "adjustment"] is not 3.6 degrees...) and start to wonder.

Anyone familiar with "r" with access to long term temperature results
not located in built-up urban heat islands would start to wonder why
anyone would use thermometer data from inside the middle of cities as
useable data to demonstrate planetary climate change.

Anyone attempting to replicate any AGW graph with independently collated
data (e.g.: Australian rural data, Sierra Nevada's rural data, Evian
rural data, Fiufalu rural data, etc) from non University or Government
stored digital datasets, notices immediately a different result to the
hundred year temperature data.
They note that solar cycles influence sea temperatures etc.   

That Stephen is real science.
Quoting fellow "researcher's" papers is opinion trading and "I owe you
one" swapping not empirical data collection.

...and real science is often done by men that were artists, alchemists,
school teachers and not as you say "real scientists".

Real science is most often achieved by those that take an interest in a
subject and then go on to either succeed and proving the interest or
disproving it, usually through observation, or prototype development.

I have never seen real science achieved with three hundred odd lines of
a whatif scenario program written in Fortran with limited parameters and
no data lookup functionality. (I personally have seen a large number of
financial derivatives result from such an environment, but never a
scientific result.) 

I sincerely doubt that anyone else has either.



TomK