Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Don't write to me asking me to support your crusade against global warming science

I've received yet another email indicating that the author thinks I don't believe man is responsible for global warming. This comes about because of an insidious sort of tribalism that has turned conversations about climate change into a "you're either with us or against us" situation.

For the record, my reading of the scientific literature and my own reproductions of Met Office data convince me that (a) the world is warming and (b) the most likely reason for this is man.

Much of the 'debate' about climate change reminds me of the pro-choice/pro-life non-debates in the US. Once you split down what look suspiciously like faith lines you're no longer doing science at all. Many people seem to mistake my criticism of the quality of source code used by UEA's CRU as indication of some underlying belief on my part.

Poppycock.

To be clear, I think the code I saw from CRU was woeful and had many easily identified bugs. I also think that source code used for scientific papers should be routinely be made available. And, yes, I did find errors in Met Office software. People who discuss those errors often seem to omit the fact that correcting them reduces the error range for global temperatures thus increasing the confidence that the temperature trend is up since the 1970s.

I find it very sad that I can't criticize the one area of climate change science I know something about (software) without suddenly being thought of as 'on the side of the skeptics/deniers'. I'm not on anyone's side. I'll call it like I see it.

6 comments:

apolytongp said...

Dude, you are the frigging bomb. I kid you not. Like what lamped Diogenes was looking for. I seriously think you would call something either way, completely impartially whichever side it helped. And despite EACH side thinking they would also, I think that's a motherfucking rare thing. I talk you up all the time, with all the limpdicked sides.

P.s. Could you please get rid of the comment restrictions to allow more open commenting!!!

apolytongp said...

Dude, you are the frigging bomb. I kid you not. Like what lamped Diogenes was looking for. I seriously think you would call something either way, completely impartially whichever side it helped. And despite EACH side thinking they would also, I think that's a motherfucking rare thing. I talk you up all the time, with all the limpdicked sides.

P.s. Could you please get rid of the comment restrictions to allow more open commenting!!!

John Graham-Cumming said...

I don't want to open up comments further because I already receive way too much spam and need to keep the site moderated so that I can easily delete it.

Be assured that the only comments that ever get deleted are spam.

apolytongp said...

The google account or live-id is a hassle.

apolytongp said...

There was a good post a while ago (maybe 2005 or so) by some computer blog guy. something to the effect of "Mann, you are wrong" although I googled and can't find it, and don't remember exact details. Basically the guy said he usually sides with scientists, not crank amateurs who know it better. But he reacted very hard against Mike Mann refusing to show his algorithm in 2005.

j said...

"used for scientific papers should be routinely be made available"

Although I am NOT sure of that warming

I think that at the moment what is need is a framework to release the code (and the data) and typificy the several problems that can happens and how to deal with them

Outsourced code, patents.

Something a person can sign and use to protect their work (morally) and free all the code and at same time it can used only by people how have signed the same declaration.

If somebody wants to contact me my email is in

http://goo.gl/n3ZqK

A think is time to start doing that. And I know the problem is complex. That is why we have to start.