Dec 31
A study by the University of Bristol finds:
In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.
I’ll believe the study that shares data, methods and programs.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
As in “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts”?
On what basis would you “I’ll believe the study that shares data, methods and programs.”? Are you claiming enough scientific knowledge to judge such a study? And if you are relying on the judgment of others, how will you select judges whose opinion you will accept? It’s tricky business when opposing opinions are flying among both scientific experts and economic interests.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:16 pm
My mind isn’t made up, except that I don’t trust climate science. I’ve had ample reason to cause that distrust.
Why would you assume I would review the study. I’m willing, more, to believe a study that makes its methods open so that others with needed expertise/time can review it. If there is software, I can play a role in that perhaps. I’ve already analyzed, with some distaste, the climate modeling source code recently revealed.
Read what I write, now what you want me to write.
Right now I don’t trust any climate scientist. I don’t trust this guy. None of them. I’m open, however, to being persuaded if their methods are open, transparent and confirmed outside of the bias of their current climate science peer review process.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Actually, I agree wholeheartedly that a scientific study that publishes it’s methods is more trustworthy. Why? Because of peer review. If you close your methods and only show your data to your buddies, you can wink at them to get them to agree. Open science can be reviewed by everyone with a sufficient skill set to understand the data.
A similar argument applies to Windows vs. Linux (now we are talking MY world). Windows has been accused of having backdoors for NSA types and people claim to have caught Vista sending packets to various government black suits.
Do I believe this conspiracy theory? Why shouldn’t I?! Windows is a closed platform which you cannot legally inspect closely, even if you have the skill set.
Linux, however, is Open Source. Meaning that if I think that my OS is talking to the NSA, I can crack open the source code and check for myself. Even though I never have beyond a cursory inspection, I trust in the peer review system that has.
Another extension of this argument is basic math. Lets say you are in a calculus class as the teacher and you give out an “extra credit” problem that is fairly difficult and someone comes to you with an answer. What if, however, they refuse to give you the work and steps to show that the answer is valid?
Science is more than the result. It is the method, data and calculation used to achieve that result. Science that predicts a doomsday and does not show their data and calculation methods is nothing but FUD.
FUD is a term in the software community referring to a Microsoft marketing tactic. It stands for “Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.” It has been used effectively by Microsoft in a number of situations about competing products.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Also, this science isn’t *that* contradictory. As I am reading it says that the percentage of human carbon emissions retained in the atmosphere has not changed which is contrary to the assumptions of some other studies. Big whoop!
December 31st, 2009 at 12:55 pm
#5… a lot of the models assume CO2 increases that drive a feedback system that then gets out of control. The “whoop”, so to speak, is how it pulls away the basics those disaster models rely on.
December 31st, 2009 at 8:41 pm
http://www.kids-science-experiments.com/
OK kiddies pay attention to the rules! “Skeptic” is the wrong title for those who don’t believe in man made global warming. Those who advocate it are more like classical skeptics who make up “truth.” A “sophist” is a paid skeptic, of which we have way too many!