Obama Nation: Cap and Whoops! ("Climategate")

[The Harlequin]

Yes, open sourcing won't work unless the source is open. That is a true statement.

[B Ephekt]

Without the pretentiousness, how do you propose opening the source when thousands of scientists around the world gather and contribute to the body of information? The entire point of this complaint is that information was withheld before being proposed anywhere formal. Your solution doesn't seem to have a better answer to this.

[SilentMoon]

+1 for the girl genius avatar, H :)

[jmervyn]

I crafted a beautiful post this AM, complete with a tweak on B.E. and pretentiousness, only to have the warnings and the eye-bleedings and the aaarghhhh destroy it.

So instead, I'll just post to my chock-full-o'goodness post on the Diii OTF. It's not just rough language, this ain't going away, and the resulting scandal very likely will damage both Copenhagen and Cap & Tax.

[B Ephekt]

nevermind...

[jmervyn]

Steven Milloy (junkscience.com) isn't a scientist in any field, and is of questionable credibility in any case.

Unsurprisingly, the majority of "evidence" I've seen on this issue has been political or religious in nature. I'd love to see those gaming perr review excommunicated, but so far the evidence is pretty laughable.

Speaking of pretentiousness... Inferring funding is prima facie evidence of questionable credibility when your 'side' is represented by AlGore? BTW, good job make a beeline for the credibility of the 4th edit, which I provided since it was archival and provided a search engine.

Seriously, though, I've always found their* claims about computer modeling suspect. And now that not only have tests found a purposeful "hockey stick" in their code, but that other code can't even forecast history, I'd love to know why you would still insist that the skeptics are indulging in fantasy.

*their = spoilered large pic of what's actually a pretty small community of AGW advocates implicated in this.

Spoiler

EDIT - oh, looks like I got to be the ninja this time. I take it you're taking your toys & going home.

[B Ephekt]

I edited specifically because I foresaw the "your side" and Gore nonsense. (But this isn't a political issue, right? ) Gore is a business man, that's blatantly obvious. He's also not a scientist, so it's pretty much a universal strawman against AGW.

As I've said before, I don't have a side on this. I think AGW is plausible, but we don't have any solid evidence for it yet. But we also don't have any scientific evidence that refuses it. I'm not terribly impressed that people who oppose AGW for political and religious reasons think it's a hoax.

Computer modeling aided in our understand of DNA, and produces artificially evolved manufacturing and industrial processes. I don't think we should implicitly trust it (GIGO and all), but it's obviously not a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

[jmervyn]

I edited specifically because I foresaw the "your side" and Gore nonsense. (But this isn't a political issue, right? ) Gore is a business man, that's blatantly obvious. He's also not a scientist, so it's pretty much a universal strawman against AGW.

Still, crying foul about Horner is pretty much a strawman for AGW, and one which these "scientists" have all but refined to an art. During some downtime today, I read a great quip about peer review vis-a-vis the quote about democracy.

As I've said before, I don't have a side on this.

Sure you don't. If someone produced scientific evidence of God, you'd be all over it like a cheap suit. But that doesn't detract from the real issue - these "scientists" were advocates from the onset, and anyone who didn't question their claims rigorously had likely never heard of Sir Cyril Burt.

Computer modeling aided in our understand of DNA, and produces artificially evolved manufacturing and industrial processes. I don't think we should implicitly trust it (GIGO and all), but it's obviously not a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

'Course not. Modeling is a great tool, and one which nobody can dismiss. At issue is the degree to which the AGW advocates implicated were trying to claim the modeling was factual and solid, when the programmers' notes indicate that they were full of carp. Modeling an engineering failure of a bridge, great stuff. Modeling DNA, hard and tenuous, but at least productive and reproducible. Modeling a system as complex as weather hundreds of years into the future, sheer folly. And, as it turns out, only possible through the use of significant haXX0rs.

[nabbed]

At issue is the degree to which the AGW advocates implicated were trying to claim the modeling was factual and solid, when the programmers' notes indicate that they were full of carp.

If you want to argue science of this issue, you should either stop right here and now or go to realclimate.org and discuss science with actual scientists involved with this scandal. Doing a Fox News "trick" here will not "hide" your scientific ignorance, and therefore, will not be productive.
And since you don't know anything deeper than a magazine article about climate change or science, that means you should just shut up.

[jmervyn]

And since you don't know anything deeper than a magazine article about climate change or science, that means you should just shut up.

So since I'm not a subject matter expert among a community of self-policing exclusionary experts, who have now been shown to have gamed the "peer review" process, exhibited absolute intolerance to anyone questioning their claims, and prohibited legal examination of said claims, I am not allowed to question them? "Just shut up" and let them confiscate my wealth?

Uh, no, thanks, I'll wait to see if they're brought up on charges for <FRAUD>! Yes, fraud, and obviously conspiracy to commit fraud in the bargain. That's what you call it when you falsify data and claim it's scientific and valid (let me guess, you don't know who Sir Cyril Burt was either). And since they were *also* more or less fabricating the data used in their IPCC analysis by use of deliberately engineered computer modeling, I think I'll wait to see if there are lawsuits won against them on the same grounds.

EDIT - as if being told to 'just shut up' about the emperor having no clothes, this little tidbit comes along as subsequent to the revelations, Obama suddenly changes his plans and decides to attend Copenhagen.

“In practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing – it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.”

If this wasn't a favorite cause for the fascist left, the screams would be reaching the heavens by now. Wasn't it B00sh who was being derided for politicizing science?