It's all over but for the sweating?

[P-hack]

I do not recognize such a closed model as being valid for policy. I don't think any human should. You are more concerned of the IP rights of a few then the governance/expenses of billions of people, you know it is wrong.

Climate science for policy isn't like making a new iphone (where everyone can simply ignore it for being crappy).

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

No, because the quantity of heat energy trapped depends on local temperature. The way in which heat is moved around (via mass transfer) affects local temperature depending on where it ends up. Heat energy is not the same thing as temperature.



Even access to the full papers won't tell you that. The method used will be described and the results discussed. There is sufficient information for another group of people to duplicate the work if it is possibly equivocal or avoid duplicating if it is not. In either case an alternative method may - almost invariably will - be used as a check by another group.

There is sufficient information in the abstracts to get an idea of the approach taken anyway.

In the case of models, the detailed code is not accessible. That is the IP of the people doing the work.

Then how is that pier reviewed science, when they will not share their IP? How do they verify their results if the only ones they share those calculations with are others who believe the same way. Science should be open, open for review, open for scrutiny otherwise it is not Science.

[TheEnemy]

And yes I have asked politely, and got no response.

The first Climate gate I read some of the emails many of which discussed not disclosing information to certain scientists because they didn't agree with humans being the primary cause.

Take careful note, I said primary cause, not sole cause, or even had no effect.

Climate science is one of the few sciences that is not open very similar to defense research.

[P-hack]

It is no longer science, it is a nasty mix of politics and beliefs and capitalism backed by public coffers.

[NeilBlanchard]

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to that - but you cannot have your own facts.

Science is our best understanding of reality. Climate science is totally integrated into all other fields of science, and so it cannot be faked. So, just like evolution, you cannot remove it from science, and still remain credible.

[P-hack]

That is your opinion, but the reality is that there is more here than "truth". Truth does not hide or hold itself ransom and legislate. Your assertions that it cannot be faked have already been disputed (IP protection). That is like saying slot machines cannot be faked.

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

Then how is that pier reviewed science, when they will not share their IP? How do they verify their results if the only ones they share those calculations with are others who believe the same way. Science should be open, open for review, open for scrutiny otherwise it is not Science.

The method and reasoning is described. That is sufficient to reproduce the method (and results).

It isn't necessary to view the code because anyone is free to do similar work, perhaps in a similar way, perhaps with a different approach. Because there is a fundamental truth, any valid method will approach it.

That multiple methods do suggest that the climate is changing due to human activity is strong evidence for that to be so.

Virtually the same result can be found using different models. In the case of Pliocene climate, the model results also match what is found using physical evidence indicative of the climate during that period.

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

Climate science is one of the few sciences that is not open very similar to defense research.

"Climate" scientific research is done in exactly the same way as "other" scientific research. Indeed, research that is relevant to "climate" science is not only relevant to research aimed at determining how the Earth's climate works. There's not any demarcation between "climate" science and "other" science.

[NeilBlanchard]

Science is based on testable reality. Climate science involves chemistry, astrophysics, geology, biology, plate tectonics, satellites measuring gravity and lots of other things, including the sun, oceanography, dendrochronology, botany, and many other more esoteric fields, I'm sure.

You can't pick and choose which piece of science you want, because you can't ignore part of reality.

[P-hack]

science come policy needs to be open.