|
Post by marchesarosa on May 7, 2011 9:16:17 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on May 7, 2011 9:30:35 GMT 1
I liked this: Perhaps the following job application (from another blog) should be redirected to the appropriate NZ authority Dear Sir, I am inquiring about the possibility of employment at the University. I was recently sacked from my previous job for conspiring to distort company figures. Before that I was fired for gross incompetence and for losing critical corporate data; and before that for attempting to corrupt audits by getting my mates assigned to the role, and for attempting to cover-up my dishonesty by criminally inciting others to delete incriminating files and emails. I was thinking maybe something in your Climate Research Unit, but I’m concerned I may be over-qualified. I also have two convictions for fraud. Is this enough? Please advise soonest. Yours Sincerely,
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 7, 2011 10:57:14 GMT 1
Warwick Hughes is the person who received the following email from Jones when he asked for his data in February 2005, “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
Ho Hum. The usual upthegardenpath of climate "science". Very hard to unlearn these "unscientific" attitudes, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 7, 2011 14:06:11 GMT 1
A related Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach Y’know, some of these climate games are getting kind of boring. I’m tired of people who are paid with my taxes hiding their data, results, and findings. Case in point, the “Community Earth System Model” of the University Center for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). They describe their model as: The Community Earth System Model (CESM) is a fully-coupled, global climate model that provides state-of-the-art computer simulations of the Earth’s past, present, and future climate states. OK, fine. This new CESM model is the successor to the CCSM3.0 climate model. People always tout the fact that the CESM code is open source, so you can investigate their results. I wanted to find out more about the CCSM3.0 model, in particular the forcings used in the AR4 simulations of the 20th century. What could go wrong? Well, the first thing to go wrong is that you have to register to read their data. I don’t like that, but I can live with it. But then I find out that I can’t just register—I need to be approved by the good folks at UCAR to even view their holy climate results, we wouldn’t want just anyone reading them I guess … About 95% of the UCAR funding comes from my taxes, and I need their approval to see their results??? C’mon, fools, this is not secret Al-Qaeda documents or the floor plan to Fort Knox, it’s just your stupid model results. Why are you making it hard to access? Having no option, I applied to get access to the repository where they store the sacred results and forcings of the model runs. I figured OK, I can play their games. So I applied for the lowest level of access, read-only. But this being climate science, today it got worse, viz: From: XXX <XXX@cgd.ucar.edu> Subject: Your request for access to the CESM repository was declined. Date: May 6, 2011 12:49:13 PM PDT Your request for access to the CESM repository was declined.You still have access to all public releases of CESM. Go to www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ for access to the public model releases. Title: First Name: Willis Middle initial: Last name: Eschenbach Account name: XXX My position: climate researcher Primary working group: Climate Change and Assessment Relevant working groups: Atmosphere Model:Climate Variability: Type of access: Level-1: Read-only Summary of work: Analyzing the relationship of forcing to output of cesm models List of CESM collaborators: None Start date: Now End date: 2 years after starting Submission date: 5/6/2011 Acceptance status: Declined Password issued: no Remarks on status: please use released cesm1 code baseOooooh, that angrified my blood mightily, and I waxed wroth. I am ashamed to say that I generally disturbed the peace of the neighborhood with my voluble speculations on the species and personal habits of their ancestors, and with my loud suggestions that the good folks of UCAR should perform anatomically improbable forms of sexual auto-congress … And Judith Curry and other people wonder why the public doesn’t trust climate scientists, and why their message is so widely disbelieved? In general, the public rightly assumes that people who hide something … have something to hide. Bozo logic, I know, but strangely, people believe it. I can’t tell you how tired I am of this petty, provincial, and anti-scientific ‘you have to say the secret password before I’ll show you my results’ point of view. I have linked to this post in my response to the charming UCAR fellow … we’ll see how it plays out. Yeah, I know I should have written to them to straighten it out before posting, and if this were my first rodeo I would have done that. At this point, I’ve been stuffed around by this kind of nonsense too many times, I’m tired of being Mr. Nice Guy. And more to the point, there is absolutely no reason for them to restrict access in the first place. It is non-secret, non-sensitive public data paid for by public money, and the public should have full and unfettered access to read it any time, without preconditions. w wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/06/top-secret-noforn-restricted-access-climate-model-results/#more-39387
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 7, 2011 14:12:35 GMT 1
Jack replied
“And more to the point, there is absolutely no reason for them to restrict access in the first place.”
Actually, there are lots of good reasons: You are going to look at their data and find stuff wrong with it, and then ask more questions, and find stuff wrong with their answers, and such behavior will financially harm them, cause some politician, who controls the purse strings to cut them off.
Everything would be so much better if would just SHUT UP, and get out of the way of those dedicated scientists feeding at the public trough.
And so for those reasons, you won’t be able to see the data.
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 7, 2011 14:15:12 GMT 1
A related Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach Y’know, some of these climate games are getting kind of boring. I’m tired of people who are paid with my taxes hiding their data, results, and findings. Case in point, the “Community Earth System Model” of the University Center for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). I too read that post. I also read the comments where it is quite clear that Willis Eschenbach got his wires crossed and now refuses to admit it. The source code and data is freely available - Steven Mosher posted links from the site Willis was complaining about where these can be down loaded by anyone. Willis was refused access to the code that was still under development, i.e. the work in progress code. That seems a reasonable position for anyone to take. If you were writing a book, would you be happy for folk to be commenting on your immature drafts or would you rather they waited until you were happy with the finished article? Read ALL the comments as well as the article - they're quite illuminating in all sorts of ways.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 7, 2011 20:04:31 GMT 1
Sense from Von StorchPosted on May 7, 2011 by curryja| 64 Comments by Judith Curry judithcurry.com/2011/05/07/sense-from-von-storch/#more-3169This is an interesting exploration of scepticism. Like the majority, apparently, I, too, accepted the IPCC-promoted "orthodoxy" until I was prompted (by The Great Global Warming Swindle March 2007) to start digging on the internet to discover the reasons underlying the dissent of so many eminent scientists. As for Willis's experience of refusal of access it would have been easy enough to state that access was denied for the reason you gave, Louise, PENDING completion of the code. It is a "mindset" that refuses without giving reasons. You are an apologist for that mindset. If anyone calls themselves a "scientist" or does a piece of shoddy "research" that even a schoolboy could critique effectively YOU are there slavering over it and bringing it home to us for our delectation. You are indiscriminate and uncritical. You are a joke and a time waster, Listener.
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 7, 2011 20:35:42 GMT 1
If anyone calls themselves a "scientist" or does a piece of shoddy "research" that even a schoolboy could critique effectively YOU are there slavering over it and bringing it home to us for our delectation. I find this to be an extraordinary post as, to me, it perfectly describes your approach on this board. Along with your personal attacks on me of course. You have fabricated a whole history of me: I use a proxy server (not true) I work in science (not true) I'm American (not true) I drink alcohol to excess (not true) I'm Helen, Lazarus, Listener and a whole host of others (not true) I'm a CO2 cultist, whatever that is (not true) I detest blogs and think only science papers worth quoting (not true) Why not just address your comments to the posts I write rather than those in your head?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 7, 2011 20:43:23 GMT 1
Swallow Hansen, GISS, AMAP, the IPCC, Falklands sea-level and all the other propaganda, Louise, but please don't try to sell it here.
NOTHING that is happening to the world's climate or weather ANYWHERE falls outside historical precedent. Geddit?
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 7, 2011 20:52:03 GMT 1
Swallow Hansen, GISS, AMAP, the IPCC, Falklands sea-level and all the other propaganda, Louise, but please don't try to sell it here. NOTHING that is happening to the world's climate ANYWHERE falls outside historical precedent. Geddit? So you DO believe that 'the science is settled' I think that this is not the case, the science is NOT settled. We do NOT know how or why the climate changes the way that it does. This seems to be the fundamental difference in our positions.
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 14, 2011 12:11:11 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 14, 2011 13:59:01 GMT 1
I don't believe the science of climate is settled, Louise. so please don't try to engage in semantic arguments with me. This is not WoM.
On the contrary, I think what has until recently been known by the shorthand of "natural variability" of weather and climate should be intensively explored. Unfortunately, since the 1980s when the model-dominated, ideology-dominated CO2 Treasure Hunt has prevailed, empirical research seems to have stopped (except that which is claimed to verify the CO2 hypothesis).
The most interesting "climate" research now takes place OUTSIDE mainstream IPCC pretend climate "science".
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 14, 2011 19:14:31 GMT 1
The most interesting "climate" research now takes place OUTSIDE mainstream IPCC pretend climate "science". Like the cloud seeding experiments at Cern - REAL science. Watch Jasper Kirby's presentation. The results will be out very soon. link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid106573614001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAGKlf6FE~,iSMGT5PckNvcgUb_ru5CAy2Tyv4G5OW3&bctid=941423264001
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 14, 2011 19:25:05 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 14, 2011 20:54:38 GMT 1
"why you think it is not mainstream climate science?"
Because it is carried out by REAL scientists - physicists, geologists etc doing EXPERIMENTS to test a hypothesis, NOT people who call themselves "climate scientists" collecting only the data which confirm the number they first thought of.
Yes, REAL scientists certainly do understand the need for observational emprical underpinning for models, Louise. The IPCC "climatologists" work back to front. They decide on the result ( it was CO2 wot dun it) and then create "models" which produce required results often by extreme selectivity in the variables applied. They also use abstruse statistical methods they lack the expertise to properly understand. That is why a REAL expert statistician like Steve McIntyre can cut the ground from under their feet with a systematic "audit" of their proclaimed" results.
There is no dooubt that the best investigations into climate are NOT conducted by the IPCC's hacks.
|
|