Global Warming: Science or Scare-mongering?

Forum rules
Derek

#1

Post by Derek »

Megacruncher wrote:
A spirited debate between Iain Inglis, a true green believer in man-made global warming, and Derek, who is a prophet for the coming ice-age,
has got all acrimonious & personal & Iain has left the team while
Derek, who stopped crunching ages back,
has been told to stop posting.

A devastated silence has followed with no posts on the Boinc bit of their forum in 5 days.
Hi All,
Errrr, Willie, may I pick you up on, "Derek, who is a prophet for the coming ice-age,".
Really, me, that, news to me....Well, it is a bit of an exaggeration isn't it Willie. :lol:
That said, one thing does appear certain from what records we do have - an ice age does seem inevitable, it is just a question of when,
sometime in the next 8,000 years seems probable, BUT, no one knows with any certainty.
AND that possibility or it's probable drivers (Milankovich [orbital], solar, lunar, oceanic cycles and phases,
plus factors we are not sure of, or do not know of or understand to any meaningful degree at present, ie, Svensmark effect)
ain't being modelled.
What is not modelled adds up to a massive opportunity TO MODEL, but that is simply not allowed to be considered.
I questioned to try to get improvements in what was modelled, "they" did not want to know,
because, according to them, it is a "settled science".
- It was once "settled" that the earth was flat,
modern climate modelling is absolutely no better, and
equally an as blinkered approach.

Well, OK, so some people do seem to get hot under the collar if anyone (me for example) dares to question the present "consensus's" position / """theory""".
Especially if said person is prepared to research, and back up what and why they question........
ie - "Reliability" of met Office weather forecasts.

Shame the answers were not of the same standards............

Saul Alinsky springs to mind, as explained below.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/f ... d-459.html

and,


In all honesty I think the thread that really got Iain to go off like he has, was this one.
http://www.scottishwebcamslive.com/boar ... =22&t=4247

AND, why has Iain left the Team. ?
I have said I will not post there again regarding climate modelling / scepticism, and I will not (several people privately have described Ian's request as gagging me).
For clarity I have not let anyone else see the email except SST at GWS - and that was in strictest confidence.
I have asked Iain for a reasonable discussion, in a reasonable manner, with a reasonable question.
I thought this a reasonable question, or starting point for a discussion.
"The variations, and causes of perfectly natural climate variations are niether understood, or quantified.
Patently the "human contribution" to climate overall, wether it be large, small, or insignificant,
is not known, and can not be a "settled science".
"
Iain has not even attempted an answer.

But yet Iain has left the Team (presumably taking his credits with him).
I wonder, did he ask for, or demand something more from Ian with regards to "Derek must be dealt with"......?

I have never left the Team as it would loose the Team those credits I did accrue.


Reeltime - "Either of them poachable?"
- I think you may misunderstand the basis of the discussions and why "they" are so "off" with me.

AND, why I do not crunch what is a waste of time any longer.
If I thought there was the remotest chance it may help, I would still be crunching but
the basis of the models is sooooo far out and disconnected from reality and observation I do not see the point.
I have tried to explain what I have found out the models actually model and why linked to below.
OK, so 38 pages ain't short, but there is much to realise about WHAT is modelled, and WHY.

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/f ... d-309.html

If anyone can not access that site, or would rather not, then just pm me an email address here and I'll send you a copy of the pdf (1.8Mb) by email ASAP.

BTW - The pdf was deliberately written "accepting" the greenhouse effect "theory",
which I do question to exsist at all now I have looked into it a bit deeper.
Certainly space is not cold, how can nothing have a temperature ?

Oh, how I wish I could of asked Einstein, "Please explain, how do you bend nothing. ?"
But that is another "story".
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:

#2

Post by Megacruncher »

Hi Derek,

No offense re prophet remark - it was indeed a bit of an exaggeration for comic effect.

I'm sure that given enough time there will be another iceage. I'm also reasonable persuaded that in the shorter term we can expect some global warming, quite possible anthropogenic, which will have major impact on our species. However I fully accept your contention which I think is that some who should know better have swapped proper scientific enquiry for a more polemical discourse in a most unhelpful fashion.

As for being poached I can quite see that you'd rather not crunch CPDN again but there are dozens of other Boinc projects out there that you might consider deserving of your spare CPU cycles. We'd be happy to advise & suggest.

Cheers,
Willie the Megacruncher
Image
Derek

#3

Post by Derek »

Megacruncher wrote: Hi Derek,

No offense re prophet remark - it was indeed a bit of an exaggeration for comic effect.,
No offence taken at all Mega. And I did laugh.
Megacruncher wrote: I'm also reasonable persuaded that in the shorter term we can expect some global warming, quite possible anthropogenic, which will have major impact on our species.
However I fully accept your contention which I think is that some who should know better have swapped proper scientific enquiry for a more polemical discourse in a most unhelpful fashion.

As for being poached I can quite see that you'd rather not crunch CPDN again but
there are dozens of other Boinc projects out there that you might consider deserving of your spare CPU cycles. We'd be happy to advise & suggest.

Cheers,
I have to ask "reasonably persuaded" by what, ? in regards to "in the shorter term we can expect some global warming, quite possible anthropogenic, which will have major impact on our species." .
BTW - That is quite a statement, based on what please, given it's gravity. ?
I have looked and I see no proof, or anything to be honest, whatsoever, at whatever scale of man's supposed effects globally upon climate. Locally yes, heat islands, etc, but globally, errr, no.

re my "contension" Spot on, and Thank you, spot on.

Don't forget the proponents of the unproven (I'm being generous) hypothesis are telling us all that CO2 is a pollutant....!!!!!!!!!!!
It makes plants grow better for pete's sake. Sorry pete, whoever you are..

If climate modelling ever becomes more reasonably and broadly based, and / or investigative,
then I will happily "donate" CPU cycles, but given the present unquestionable and belief only basis, errr, nope, not a chance.
Between now and a possible then, I will use my time fighting the scam rather than crunching,
apologies and all that, but which is more important. ?
Niether will or would probably have much effect, but at least I will know I tried what I thought best.
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:

#4

Post by Megacruncher »

None of us, and that includes all the scientists, can know what is actually going to happen in the future.

It is quite possible that in 30 or 40 years time we will look back and say "That was a lot of fuss about nothing but at least we've got energy efficient technology and renewable energy sources to replace the fossil fuels which are going to run out sometime soon anyway."

I'd feel much less silly saying that than "Bloody hell it's hot today why don't we pop down to the beach at Portobello. Oh yes, that's right, it vanished underwater years ago & anyway we'd better stay at home and fight off the land, water & energy refugees laying siege to the higher ground".
Willie the Megacruncher
Image
Derek

#5

Post by Derek »

Is that the "precautionary principle" Willie. ?
That killed 30 million (mostly the poor and young) in Africa because "they" banned DDT using bad science.

There is a lesson there.

BTW - The so called "fossil" fuel oil will probably not run out, man never has run out of a resource, the free market sorts that out.
AND, there are now happening international conferences on abiotic oil...

It ain't a question of "if" any longer, regarding abiotic oil formation, that has already been proven,
(no proof exists for biological or "fossil" formation of oil though.....)
it is only a question of "how much".
In this the governments and big oil ARE vested interests, 5 pounds a gallon vested interests....

BTW - One of the best analysis of climategate I have seen so far.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... alysis.pdf
Nightlord

#6

Post by Nightlord »

The recent discussion in this thread is useful to assist us making up our minds over the issue. However, we should remember a couple of things while posting in this thread.
  • The thread is about improving the performance of The Scottish Boinc Team in the Climate Prediction project.

    The team has demonstrated interest in distributed computing projects under the Boinc wrapper, but traditionally we have not significantly debated the scientific merits or otherwise of the projects. That's not to say the we shouldn't debate them, but maybe there is a better place for such a discussion?
Personally I feel that even if the body of scientific evidence indicating human stimulated climate change is ultimately proved wrong, we (as in mankind) would be foolish not to inquire and investigate, if only due to the potential for significant damage to our world and that of our children.

I have raised concerns elsewhere about the way the CPDN project has brushed aside some voices of it's volunteer crunchers over code optimisation. However, that does not mean I feel that the project is unworthy of support. I choose not to run it just now due to my limited resources. If I had the resources available I would choose to contribute to the performance of TSBT and the CPDN project for the reason given above and I urge all TSBT crunchers to do likewise.
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:

#7

Post by Megacruncher »

maybe there is a better place for such a discussion?
Indeed & using my powers of moderation I have split the topic to separate this debate from the original thread.
If I had the resources available..
That's all right NL, just you do what you can, every little helps! :lol:

As for the "precautionary principle" it beats recklessness: Obviously any decision will involve unknown unkowns & the possibility of unintended consequences but it's difficult to see how making good use of what we've got (however little or much that might be) and developing aiternatives can be a bad thing.

As for DDT it was never banned, except for agricultural use & even then in a rather piecemeal fashion, and has remained widely in use for disease vector control. It's arguable that the malarial resistance to DDT which has emerged in recent years would have come about sooner had the general agricultural use of it not been curbed sooner.
Willie the Megacruncher
Image
Derek

#8

Post by Derek »

Thank you for splitting off the posts Mega, and a great thread title. 8)

"recklessness" have you read the climategate analysis link above yet. ?
It really can leave you in no doubt.

Firstly, what raw data. ?
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:

#9

Post by Megacruncher »

great thread title. 8)
Thank's. I was letting my inner tabloid sub-editor out to play!

I've read the climategate document and I think that all you can say is, what can you expect if you let human being with all their flaws of vanity & stubbornness do science? Just because someone is prejudiced doesn't make them wrong. And while it certainly severely undermines their case it doesn't prove the opposition right.

Speaking of flaws, do you not worry that some of the anti-AGW lobby seem to have major unmet mental health needs?

One consolation, if Hitler was alive today being compared to Barack Obama would at least make him spin in his grave! :lol:
Willie the Megacruncher
Image
Derek

#10

Post by Derek »

Please Willie, you invited me here for a better level of discussion than was being "engaged in" at the friendly forum.

OK, I'm away for a few days now, but...

Regarding the climategate analysis, errr, they have been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be deficient in every major scientific respect.
The raw data is largely missing, certainly not correctly archived.
The same goes for the computer codes / processing.
FOI requests were deliberately ignored where possible, and loopholes were sort at every possible opportunity to avoid being open with "their" "science"

They was a largely successful, concerted, continueing, and deliberate conspiracy (their description) to control and bias the peer review process.

All other avenues of debate / discussion were ignored / silenced / demonised / etc, etc,.

" Just because someone is prejudiced doesn't make them wrong. "
That is not the point, refusing to consider any other possibility is a far worse state of affairs.
AND, they wouldn't know if they were wrong, even if everybody else did.........

------------------------------------------------

Regarding modelling - my major concern.
Please read my 38 page pdf as to what is actually modelled.

Why are we not modelling Milankovich cycles, lunar, solar, oceanic, plankton blooms,
etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,.....
This is the point models could be used as investigative tools to help improve our understanding,
not to reach a predetermined politically correct result, as is the case now.

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.

Purely as an example of what I mean are you aware of,
http://twitter.com/Piers_Corbyn

Excerpt from a pdf I can not find an online link to at present - my apologies,
" Will they ever learn?
Piers said “This ongoing cold winter has put the Met Office, standard meteorology, global warmers and state media into denial of reality.
The BBC World at One Radio 4, (Martha Kearney, 13th Jan 13.25hrs) stated that no-one could have predicted that this cold spell could have been so bad (/prolonged).
The fact is we did just that in WeatherAction and the BBC were made very aware of it, and
attended the WeatherAction conference where we publicly announced it on Oct 28th (see kanetv video link below) but they didn’t warn the public.

Roger Harrabin BBC Environment Analyst has not yet acknowledged or responded to my letter to him on such serious matters
- http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4905 "


Other forms of weather forecasting are producing real results,
the present CO2 / AGW modelled paradigm IS NOT.
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”