# How many people take Global Warming totally on faith? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 21, 2007, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356 "2007-08-21T13:06:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 31
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/601 "2007-09-08T05:51:18Z")
No need to squint, one can check the graphs, the Met office in England using HadCRUT3 still found the heat is on: [http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/HadCRUT3.html](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/HadCRUT3.html) > [@](#): > > The annual timeseries illustrates the increase since the 1850s in global mean temperatures. This increase is much larger than the known sources of error. The warming has occurred in two main phases: 1920-40 and particularly since the mid-1970s. Research at the Met Office Hadley Centre using state of the art climate models has shown that this behaviour can only adequately be accounted for by a combination of natural and human factors: the latter dominate. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/602 "2007-09-08T08:40:07Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] The makers of that had this to say (and it seems the report is from the year 2000): [http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/cmip/overview\_ms/ms\_text.php](http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/cmip/overview_ms/ms_text.php) Of course, all that sounds to me like testing, but I guess you have to continue to deny this is taking place. What I see is that they are constantly verifying the accuracy of the models, and you are confusing the testing (that damn word again!) with the discrediting of them. What I can deduce, is that this shows efforts to identify the less reliable models and the phasing off of models that had to adjust for data not available that was deduced by other means. Incidentally, the new NASA missions that used IV&V, are going up presisely to get the data that modelers had more trouble getting, and the new models will get the data from those missions plugged in. What is clear to me is that more evidence is coming soon that will make the lives of skeptics even harder. [/QUOTE] GIGObuster, thanks for the cite. If you want to call comparing one model to another “testing”, you are quite right. However, it’s not testing, it is intercomparison. In either case, if you re-read my posts, you will see I was referring to testing as applying V&V and SQA to the models. That is the testing I was discussion, the testing that has not been done. Before we even begin to test the models against the real world, we need to make sure that they are bug-free, that the input data is correct, that the algorithms do not contain errors, and that the approximations actually converge. As far as I can determine, this has not been done, although I’d be happy to be proved wrong. Of course, the models can get tested against the real world, with or without V&V and SQA. [Here’s](http://caos.iisc.ernet.in/Monsoon_Prediction_2004.pdf) an example of that kind of testing regarding one of the larger climate phenomena, the Indian Monsoon. Report back and tell us how well the models performed. I also note that you didn’t comment on the fact that the models disagree with each other by up to 9°F. If that’s “testing”, then they failed the test. Finally, it seems that you approve the use of V&V for the satellites … why don’t you approve of it for the models? w. PS - The CMIP project is not called the CMTP for a reason. It’s not the “Climate Model Testing Project”, it is the “Climate Model Intercomparison Project”, which is a very different animal. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/603 "2007-09-08T09:00:41Z")
[QUOTE=intention] GIGObuster, thanks for the cite. If you want to call comparing one model to another “testing”, you are quite right. However, it’s not testing, it is intercomparison. [/quote] Potatoe, Potato. It is still testing when you check if something does work or not. [QUOTE=intention] In either case, if you re-read my posts, you will see I was referring to testing as applying V&V and SQA to the models. That is the testing I was discussion, the testing that has not been done. Before we even begin to test the models against the real world, we need to make sure that they are bug-free, that the input data is correct, that the algorithms do not contain errors, and that the approximations actually converge. As far as I can determine, this has not been done, although I’d be happy to be proved wrong. [/quote] Is that ok? Because it is not referenced yet, but I have seen reports of NASA adding V&V to the budget for their climate research. [QUOTE=intention] Of course, the models can get tested against the real world, with or without V&V and SQA. [Here’s](http://caos.iisc.ernet.in/Monsoon_Prediction_2004.pdf) an example of that kind of testing regarding one of the larger climate phenomena, the Indian Monsoon. Report back and tell us how well the models performed. I also note that you didn’t comment on the fact that the models disagree with each other by up to 9°F. If that’s “testing”, then they failed the test. [/quote] And you completely missed that that was the test, the ones that failed are either corrected or as I understood from the article abut 3 were not going to be used anymore or were used in the comparison just to check how well the new not adjusted ones worked. [QUOTE=intention] Finally, it seems that you approve the use of V&V for the satellites … why don’t you approve of it for the models? [/quote] As you miss it, there are more mundane reasons why V&V has not been applied to models, AAICR the V&V people at NASA did not think it was needed, but I have seen a paper were the 2006 and 2007 budget included V&V for the climate models too. [QUOTE=intention] w. PS - The CMIP project is not called the CMTP for a reason. It’s not the “Climate Model Testing Project”, it is the “Climate Model Intercomparison Project”, which is a very different animal. [/QUOTE] Still, that is IMHO a test, and since physics and chemistry are the main components of climate models, the more I check the more I see that the testing never stops. [http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html) > [@](#): > > There have been major advances in the development and use of models over the last 20 years. The models are based mainly on the laws of physics. There are also empirical techniques which use, for example, studies of detailed processes involved in cloud formation. The most advanced computer models also include detailed coupling of the circulations of atmosphere and oceans, along with detailed descriptions of the feedbacks between all components of the climate system including the cryosphere and biosphere. Climate models have been used to reproduce the main features of the current climate, the temperature changes over the last hundred years and the main features of the Holocene (6,000 years ago) and Last Glacial Maximum (21,000) years ago. > > The bottom line is that current models enable us to attribute the causes of past climate change and predict the main features of the future climate with a high degree of confidence. We now need to provide more regional detail and more complete analysis of extreme events. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/604 "2007-09-08T10:18:09Z")
[QUOTE=jshore] [Here.](http://www.realclimate.org/Mann_response_to_Barton.pdf) [/quote] You didn’t quote what you were referring to, but that document does not appear to contradict what was said about him by the other side. Mann admits that he did not release his source code and doesn’t appear to claim that he released his data promptly. > [@](#): > > You: “There is plenty of evidence in this very thread. Evidence that climate models are tested on historical (as opposed to future) data…” Sorry, but that does not support your claim that I “have arbitrarily decided that you will only accept evidence of testing on future data” Do you have anything else to go on? Or will you admit that you have constructed a straw man? > [@](#): > > Since it is this radiative forcing that is relevant for a well-mixed greenhouse gas, that is the relevant thing to compare to. The source cited earlier would seem to dispute that claim. > [@](#): > > Well, the National Science Foundation seems to disagree with you on issues on intellectual property of this source code. Cite and quote please? Sorry, but since you invented your earlier claim about the NAS, I don’t have much confidence in your appeals to authority. > [@](#): > > [Here](http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/01/04/university_open_source/print.html) is an article that discusses the issue in a general context. Can you please quote the article where it says that release of source code is not standard practice in physical science modeling outside of climate modeling? > [@](#): > > …but there are good reasons why we can’t go to the extreme of having scientists forfeit their intellectual property completely. So are you claiming that releasing source code means that you forfeit your intellectual property rights completely? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/605 "2007-09-08T10:26:42Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Where were all these predictions published? Why does this article mention predictions about the Arctic, but not about the Antarctic? [/QUOTE] Since nobody has tried to answer this question, I will take a stab. My guess is that Antarctic conditions have not behaved as predicted by these climate models. In other words, the warmers’ list of predictions that have come true is cherry-picked at best. It’s the equivalent of a psychic giving you a list of 10 of her predictions that have come true. If this is the extent to which AGW has been put to the test, then AGW has not been tested. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/606 "2007-09-08T10:54:07Z")
> [@](#): > > …but there are good reasons why we can’t go to the extreme of having scientists forfeit their intellectual property completely. In most cases, these scientists are either working for or funded by the US Government. It is not their property. It is ours. We paid them to produce it, and now they won’t release it. James Hansen works for NASA. His top secret, high quality computer code for mangling averages of station data is not his intellectual property. It is yours and mine. w. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/607 "2007-09-08T11:18:32Z")
Well, since GIGObuster has decided not to report back on the test that I cited above, I guess I’ll have to. Modern day computer models don’t outperform the methods developed in 1932 for predicting the Asian Monsoon. To quote from the abstract: > [@](#): > > Our analysis of the predictions generated by the operational models at IMD from 1932 onwards suggests that the forecast skill has not improved over the seven decades despite continued changes in the operational models. Clearly, new approaches need to be explored with empirical models. The simulation of year-to year variation of the monsoon is still a challenging problem for models of the atmosphere as well as the coupled ocean–atmosphere system. We expect dynamical models to generate better prediction only after this problem is successfully addressed. Ooops … I can see why GIGObuster didn’t want to report back to us … w. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/608 "2007-09-08T11:36:46Z")
> [@](#): > > There have been major advances in the development and use of models over the last 20 years. The models are based mainly on the laws of physics. There are also empirical techniques which use, for example, studies of detailed processes involved in cloud formation. The most advanced computer models also include detailed coupling of the circulations of atmosphere and oceans, along with detailed descriptions of the feedbacks between all components of the climate system including the cryosphere and biosphere. Climate models have been used to reproduce the main features of the current climate, the temperature changes over the last hundred years and the main features of the Holocene (6,000 years ago) and Last Glacial Maximum (21,000) years ago. > > The bottom line is that current models enable us to attribute the causes of past climate change and predict the main features of the future climate with a high degree of confidence. We now need to provide more regional detail and more complete analysis of extreme events. Oh my gosh, I can’t believe it, a bunch of climate modelers willing to actually say in public that climate models are wonderful, there’s a first … well, that does it, it’s the famous "tipping point, that proves your case entirely, I’m convinced now. I’ve seen the light, I recant my heretical beliefs, I now believe that the sun rotates around the earth. Are you serious? You really think that climate modelers extolling the virtues of their climate models means something? Your faith is touching … next you’ll be telling us that you believe that cigarettes won’t harm you, because the tobacco company executives said so. The mind boggles … w. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/609 "2007-09-08T12:34:50Z")
**jshore** , why do you think that a climate modeler should disclose the results of all tests, whether good or bad? What’s wrong with just disclosing good results and throwing the bad results down the memory hole? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/610 "2007-09-08T13:30:51Z")
[QUOTE=intention] In most cases, these scientists are either working for or funded by the US Government. It is not their property. It is ours. We paid them to produce it, and now they won’t release it. [/QUOTE] As you well know, [the NSF explicitly disagrees with you](http://www.realclimate.org/Mann_response_to_Barton.pdf) on this issue for research that they have funded: > [@](#): > > Dear Mr. McIntyre, > > I apologize if my last electronic message was not clear but let me clarify the US NSF’s view in this current message. Dr. Mann and his other US colleagues are under no obligation to provide you with any additional data beyond the extensive data sets they have already made available. He is not required to provide you with computer programs, codes, etc. His research is published in the peer-reviewed literature which has passed muster with the editors of those journals and other scientists who have reviewed his manuscripts. You are free to your analysis of climate data and he is free to his. The passing of time and evolving new knowledge about Earth’s climate will eventually tell the full story of changing climate. I would expect that you would respect the views of the US NSF on the issue of data access and intellectual property for US investigators as articulated by me to you in my last message under the advisement of the US NSF’s Office of General Counsel. > Respectfully, > David J. Verardo > Director, Paleoclimate Program > Division of Atmospheric Sciences > National Science Foundation > 4201 Wilson Blvd. > Arlington, VA 22203 Now, if you think the policy should be different, you have the right to fight for changes of the policy. However, you don’t have the right to make up what the policy is. As for the policy for people actually working at NASA, [this](http://nodis.hq.nasa.gov/npg_img/N_PD_2820_001C_/N_PD_2820_001C__main.pdf) directive is typical gooblygook legalize but it seems to say basically that NASA must protect its intellectual property rights and use careful discretion in deciding when to release software: > [@](#): > > d. NASA’s policy regarding intellectual property protection of software and the release of software is to accomplish the following: > > (1) Report and inventory software created by or for NASA as valuable intellectual property as required in NPR 2210.1. > > (2) Manage and protect software created by or for NASA as valuable intellectual property during all phases of the life cycle. Assert intellectual property rights for software, where deemed appropriate, in order to facilitate its transfer and reuse by commercial, industrial, educational, and government organizations. > > (3) Establish uniform procedures and requirements concerning the release of software created by or for NASA that will maximize its benefit to NASA, the U.S. public, and the U.S. economy. > > (4) Release software in accordance with NPR 2210.1, External Release of NASA Software, consistent with law and applicable agreements, for commercial, industrial, educational, and governmental purposes. > > (5) Establish procedures to ensure Agency compliance with copyright laws protecting computing software and with the provisions of Executive Order 13103, Computer Software Piracy, including the adoption of software asset management procedures to ensure that the Agency does not acquire, reproduce, distribute, or transmit computer software in violation of applicable copyright laws. [Here](http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=2210&s=1A) is more information that I frankly did not have the energy to read. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/611 "2007-09-08T15:30:25Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] **jshore** , why do you think that a climate modeler should disclose the results of all tests, whether good or bad? What’s wrong with just disclosing good results and throwing the bad results down the memory hole? [/QUOTE] See my answers in posts #518 and 520. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/612 "2007-09-08T15:55:31Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] You didn’t quote what you were referring to, but that document does not appear to contradict what was said about him by the other side. Mann admits that he did not release his source code and doesn’t appear to claim that he released his data promptly. [/quote] See, for example, his statements: > [@](#): > > The most serious contention in your letter — namely, that my work has not been > subject to replication because I have failed to make available the underlying research data — is incorrect. Your letter notes that the National Research Council’s “gold standard” for scientific research is the ability of other scientists to replicate first-generation research, and I fully agree. My colleagues and I follow the National Research Council’s guidance with regards to the disclosure of research data, and all of our data and methodologies have been fully disclosed and are available to anyone with a computer and an internet connection. As a result of our willingness to share our research with others, an independent team of scientists has used the research data my colleagues and I have made public to replicate our research and confirm the reliability of our findings. See Wahl, E.R., Ammann, C.M., Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes Reconstruction of Surface Temperatures: Examination of Criticisms Based on the Nature and Processing of Proxy Climate Evidence, Climate Change (2005) (forthcoming) and associated website: [http://www.cgd.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/MBH\_reevaluation.html](http://www.cgd.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/MBH_reevaluation.html). > [@](#): > > The data, descriptions of methods, and results related to my research — more > than sufficient to permit other researchers to replicate the research — have been > extensively archived (in many cases, in several archives) on public websites, and data links within the websites. The website addresses appear in the margin. > [@](#): > > I have made available all of the research data that I am required to under United States policy as set by the National Science Foundation. In accordance with the rules promulgated by the Foundation and supported by the Foundation’s General > Counsel, I maintain the right to decline to release any computer codes, which are my intellectual property. > [@](#): > > My computer program is a piece of private, intellectual property, as the National Science Foundation and its lawyers recognize. It is a bedrock principle of > American law that the government may not take private property “without [a] public use,” and “without just compensation.” That notwithstanding, the program used to generate the original Mann et al. 1998 temperature reconstructions is posted at this website: ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MANNETAL98/ > (see “METHODS” subdirectory) You might also want to read the letter from AAAS [here](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/barton-and-the-hockey-stick/). It is also interesting to read what [fellow Republican Sherwood Boehlert](http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000497letter_from_boehlert.html) (Chairman at the time of the House Science Committee) had to say to his colleague Joe Barton when Barton started this witchhunt of Mann et al: > [@](#): > > Moreover, the only charge that has been leveled against Dr. Mann that might prompt Congressional notice - that he was refusing to share data - has been soundly rejected by the National Science Foundation, and those who continue to raise the charge are well aware of that. > [@brazil84](#): > > Sorry, but that does not support your claim that I “have arbitrarily decided that you will only accept evidence of testing on future data” > > Do you have anything else to go on? Or will you admit that you have constructed a straw man? I refuse to play your petty little word games. You are not fooling anyone but yourself with them. The fact is that you have come up with all sorts of excuses not to consider tests of the AGW theory to carry much weight…and chief among them seems to be this issue of future data. > [@brazil84](#): > > The source cited earlier would seem to dispute that claim. The fact that you can find one source, who isn’t even an atmospheric scientist to dispute a claim does not make it incorrect. > [@brazil84](#): > > Cite and quote please? Sorry, but since you invented your earlier claim about the NAS, I don’t have much confidence in your appeals to authority. See my post above where I quote the letter from the guy at NSF or see what Rep. Boehlert wrote in what I quoted above. > [@brazil84](#): > > Can you please quote the article where it says that release of source code is not standard practice in physical science modeling outside of climate modeling? Implicit in the whole discussion in that article is that codes don’t often get released…that, in fact, employees at national labs or universities don’t necessarily even have the authority to release their codes: > [@](#): > > Hoskins’ “privatize it” attitude has become the norm among administrators at many universities and federal labs across the country. As a result, computer-science professors and researchers who want to release their work to the public as open-source software often face an uphill battle. > > Some familiar with the situation say the problem is that universities and federal research labs have become more interested in making money than serving the public interest. > > … And, as I pointed out, this goes without saying in the industrial context! At any rate, if you have doubts about this, I encourage you to go to any physics journal and see if most of the papers give the source code for the calculations. And, when you find that they don’t, why don’t you send the authors e-mail requesting it and see what sort of responses you get. > [@brazil84](#): > > So are you claiming that releasing source code means that you forfeit your intellectual property rights completely? Well, in large part you do. Scientists, particularly modelers, spend a large part of their professional lives writing these codes. If someone can act as a parasite and just take these codes and use them, or modify them a bit and use them, then yes, I think your intellectual property rights have in large part been forfeited. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/613 "2007-09-08T15:58:44Z")
[QUOTE=jshore] See my answers in posts #518 and 520. [/QUOTE] Ok let’s see . . . In post 518, you state the following: > [@](#): > > I’m not sure in what context you are talking about failures. In case you haven’t guessed, I’m talking about failure in the context of testing climate models against historical data. In post 520, you state the following: > [@](#): > > Well, as I explained, in the context you are talking, this doesn’t really make sense. What about it do you not understand? You agree that sometimes climate models are tested against historical data. You agree that sometimes the climate models don’t do well in those tests. And you agree that even if the climate model does not do well, the result should be dislosed. Why is it important to disclose even if the climate model does not test well against historical data? Why? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/614 "2007-09-08T16:08:17Z")
[QUOTE=jshore] See, for example, his statements: [/quote] None of those statements says WHEN the data was released. Yes or no? > [@](#): > > I refuse to play your petty little word games. i.e. you know perfectly well that you set up a strawman but you refuse to admit it. > [@](#): > > The fact that you can find one source, who isn’t even an atmospheric scientist to dispute a claim does not make it incorrect. And the fact that you find one source that assumes something is true does not make it correct. > [@](#): > > See my post above where I quote the letter from the guy at NSF or see what Rep. Boehlert wrote in what I quoted above. Where in those posts does it discuss the issue of money? > [@](#): > > Implicit :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Well, in large part you do. Scientists, particularly modelers, spend a large part of their professional lives writing these codes. If someone can act as a parasite and just take these codes and use them, or modify them a bit and use them, then yes, I think your intellectual property rights have in large part been forfeited. Oh really? Then I suppose that JK Rowling has forfeited her copyright interest in Harry Potter by publishing? Besides, how would Hanson be damaged if somebody had the source code to his climate model, modified it, and used it to make their own model? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/615 "2007-09-08T16:24:53Z")
By the way, another bedrock principle of science is that you take somebody else’s work and build on it yourself. i.e. act as a “parasite.” Yes, I’m sure that the NAS, the NSF, and the TVA disagree with me. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/616 "2007-09-08T19:02:46Z")
[QUOTE=intention] Well, since GIGObuster has decided not to report back on the test that I cited above, I guess I’ll have to. Modern day computer models don’t outperform the methods developed in 1932 for predicting the Asian Monsoon. To quote from the abstract: Ooops … I can see why GIGObuster didn’t want to report back to us … w. [/QUOTE] As close to a straw man as you can get, as many have admitted before, extreme weather phenomena like hurricanes are not a good way to check climate models, the resolution is not there. And that is precisely what the Met office meant by: “We now need to provide more regional detail and more complete analysis of extreme events.” That information was there for you to see and you only decided to ignore it and turn to childish taunting. The evidence even from HadCRUT3 still shows the evidence of the earth warming up. It is indeed more than just faith. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/617 "2007-09-08T19:55:06Z")
**brazil84** , I have to conclude after all this time that you are happy drowning yourself with a glass of water. You are demanding why is important to disclose? That is what scientists do. Why is that the source code is not disclosed many times? That is what lawyers and intellectual property do to scientists. You need only to bark up the right tree so we can save time. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/618 "2007-09-08T20:10:41Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] You are demanding why is important to disclose? That is what scientists do. [/quote] Why? Why is it important to disclose failures and successes in the context of checking climate models against historical data? > [@](#): > > Why is that the source code is not disclosed many times? That is what lawyers and intellectual property do to scientists. How? What lawyer is preventing Hansen from disclosing his source code? How is the concept of intellectual property preventing him from disclosing his source code? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/619 "2007-09-08T21:19:58Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] By the way, another bedrock principle of science is that you take somebody else’s work and build on it yourself. i.e. act as a “parasite.” Yes, I’m sure that the NAS, the NSF, and the TVA disagree with me. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE] Well, yes, it’s right in black-and-white that the NSF, the party who was funding Mann’s research, does unambiguously disagree with you. Taking somebody else’s work and building on it does not mean you are entitled to their source code. > [@](#): > > How? What lawyer is preventing Hansen from disclosing his source code? How is the concept of intellectual property preventing him from disclosing his source code? Well, I linked to the NASA policy on distribution of software that they produce. I don’t know if NASA would outright stop him from releasing it but, at the very least, it looks like he has to jump through some bureaucratic hoops and deal with some lawyers to get it released. To be fair, I don’t think that it is only the employers. Scientists too sometimes balk at the idea of releasing their code. It represents a lot of hard work and, once they have produced it, applying it to various problems allows them to publish, which is their lifeblood. Furthermore, code is seldom in very good shape to be distributed to outside parties so releasing it usually entails sprucing it up quite a bit with lots of comments and detailed explanations of how to use it. And, even after that, those who look at it usually come back to you with lots of time-consuming questions and do “stupid things” with it, which may not be that stupid really but were not the way you used it or intended it to be used. Within my corporation, I think I am a lot less protective over my code than most people. (I am talking here about releasing it to others in the company…not releasing outside the company which, as I noted, I have absolutely no legal authority to do and would likely be fired for doing.) But even I would usually prefer to run it myself rather than give it to someone else to run because in the end it is probably less time-consuming and they are also more likely to do something with it that it wasn’t really meant to do. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2007, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/620 "2007-09-08T21:21:44Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Why is it important to disclose even if the climate model does not test well against historical data? [/QUOTE] Why don’t you tell us since it is you who feels so strongly about this and then we can tell you whether or not we agree with you and why. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356.md?page=30) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356.md?page=32)