Global Warming: Science or Scare-mongering?

Forum rules
User avatar
Megacruncher
G.L.S.B.
G.L.S.B.
Posts: 4699
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Contact:

#11

Post by Megacruncher »

Sorry if the quality of the debate dissappoints but in as far as I promised anything it was to allow any point of view and not to ban anyone.

I'm not much of a one for conspiracy theories although I'm only too aware of the human capacity for earnest and generally wellintentioned self-delusion especially when "thinking" in groups.

Anyhoo I rather suspect that sooner or later we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
Willie the Megacruncher
Image
Nightlord

#12

Post by Nightlord »

That's all right NL, just you do what you can, every little helps!
By way of quick explanation - my circumstances are different now and I only have 5 active machines, 4 of which are GPU based and the other is a slow old P4. There are a few projects that are non-CPU intensive (e.g. FreeHal) and I can crunch them at the same time as GPU's, but WCG gets pretty much all my available heavy CPU resource just now.

@ Derek:

I'm afraid I'm not a climate scientist, just an ordinary engineer who likes to question why and how things are they way they are. It is important to investigate both sides - indeed if "sides" there are. I see this situation more in terms of a spectrum of views and scientific accuracies.

I don't know how experienced you are in climate modeling, but I am aware that yours is not the only voice to raise dissension at the currently accepted norms. There must be others who share your views that would be willing to assist in the generation of experimental analysis to shed further light on the subject.

Therefore, one suggestion you may wish to consider: the Boinc server code is public domain. You could setup a Boinc project, or solicit assistance to do so, generate your own models, and run a project that aims to analyse the the different data sets you refer to.

If I may digress for a moment to provide a simile, a few years ago on the SETI project, I questioned why work units that had "too many" spikes, gausians and triplets were discarded. My argument was that these WU's may in fact contain the data the project was seeking. The accepted norm was that these WU couldn't possibly contain anything of use because a real ET signal would not contain such characteristics. By definition however if a signal was of ET source, how could we know for certain, except we know what "natural" looks like.

Climate change science has similarly held belief systems - the "group think" that Willie refers to. I could (and still can) argue about SETI because I have an RF engineering and computer science background. I can't substantiate either position in Climate science because I don't have the skills or experience and neither do the majority of the public. I'm afraid I go along with the accepted norm (while recognising the gap in my knowledge). Hence your references make for an interesting alternative position.
User avatar
Megacruncher
G.L.S.B.
G.L.S.B.
Posts: 4699
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Contact:

#13

Post by Megacruncher »

Excellent plan. :idea: Assuming at least some climate scientists want to crunch alternative models, can agree on what these should be and can find some programmers to help them code some apps then it would be a pretty simple matter for then to harness the power of the world's greatest super computer BOINC.

If those with an alternative view were to get together to do this (and it wouldn't be that expensive, most Boinc projects are run by 2 or three people) then Derek wouldn't be able to say:
The opportunity for masses of real good honest useful crunching is mind boggling, but it is simply not allowed to be considered at the moment.
If they offered a GPU application & decent credits they could out crunch CPDN in a few months.
Willie the Megacruncher
Image
Derek

#14

Post by Derek »

I'm "away" for a few days because of this advert placed in a local paper to East Anglia Uni. - ironic eh...
Yup, I am "involved" with this advert..
(23rd January - Later edit - HAS now been published, quarter page, full colour, page 5, in the East Anglian Daily Times)

Image

Text reads,
CLIMATE CHANGE – THE TRUTH

Demand ACTUAL EVIDENCE that carbon dioxide affects the climate.
THERE IS NONE.

Demand ACTUAL EVIDENCE that sea levels are rising abnormally.
THERE IS NONE.

Demand ACTUAL EVIDENCE about ocean acidification.
THERE IS NONE.

Demand ACTUAL EVIDENCE that polar bears are going extinct.
THERE IS NONE.

Ask your local MP for EVIDENCE that the UN’s IPCC is a SCIENTIFIC organisation.
Then read:
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/UN_IPCC ... itised.pdf

CARBON DIOXIDE DOES NOT AFFECT OUR CLIMATE
BECAUSE IT CAN NOT POSSIBLY DO SO!
YET POLITICIANS SPEND YOUR MONEY TO PROTECT YOU
AGAINST THIS NON-EXISTENT THREAT

Take great care of our precious planet.
Do not be bullied into reducing your carbon footprint.
That will cost jobs and greatly increase your tax and energy bills.
It can make no difference to the climate.

For PROPER climate science and EVIDENCE of normal climate behaviour
please visit these websites:

www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com (ILMCD)
www.iceagenow.com
www.climatedepot.com
http://climaterealists.com
www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/
http://icecap.us/index.php

Our WORLD is COOLING.
CARBON DIOXIDE keeps RISING

This advertisement was placed by Hans Schreuder, retired scientist.
Web donations via ILMCD welcome, thank you.


Footnote by Derek, not in the advert,
involved / associated / same opinion are,
Piers Corbyn, David Bellamy, and many others now (me included).
All share one central understanding,
there is no greenhouse effect as proposed / modelled at present.......
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Climate Prediction”