Yes, open sourcing won't work unless the source is open. That is a true statement.
PC Gaming News
Results 21 to 30 of 277
26-11-2009, 03:24 #21
26-11-2009, 05:43 #22
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.
Last edited by B Ephekt; 26-11-2009 at 05:49.
26-11-2009, 17:29 #23
27-11-2009, 22:43 #24
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.
27-11-2009, 22:49 #25
27-11-2009, 23:24 #26
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.
EDIT - oh, looks like I got to be the ninja this time. I take it you're taking your toys & going home.
27-11-2009, 23:36 #27
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.
Last edited by B Ephekt; 27-11-2009 at 23:41.
27-11-2009, 23:48 #28
28-11-2009, 02:07 #29
And since you don't know anything deeper than a magazine article about climate change or science, that means you should just shut up.
28-11-2009, 02:53 #30
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.
Originally Posted by John Holdren
Last edited by jmervyn; 28-11-2009 at 03:07.