Slashdot Mirror

and yet the world has cooled over the last 10 years so one of your assumptions is wrong. Which one is it?

Those are not "assumptions" but well-documented facts. Unlike your assertion that the world has cooled over the last 10 years, which is simply a myth.

I believe you are referring to this "Cloak [new scientist]", an interesting application seems to also be to project a faux object that isnt there.

Either way there is no need for sampling of the surrounding area, no camera fabric needed.

It isn't the birds that are having problems with wind turbines, it's *Bats*
Apparently their lungs cannot handle the presure gradients around the vanes so their lungs have been exploding.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14593-wind-turbines-make-bat-lungs-explode.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

Right. I wasn't suggesting that embryonic stem cells are obsolete. I have absolutely no background in biology, so I try not to say too much for fear of getting facts mixed up, but when the topic of embryonic stem cells is brought up, I do make it a point to note that these researchers have made a breakthrough with IPS cells. This is where the real medicine in practice will be, and eventually people won't be studying the embryonic stem cells quite as much. If I had to make a somewhat educated guess, I'd say the area of embryonic stem cells will remain in the research labs, not in actual medical practice, especially now that the cancer risk of IPS cells has been all but eliminated

No offense, but it's not *that* "astonishing". The wasp, for example, does something similar, laying their eggs on caterpillars, which are then fed on by the larvae as they develop. Weirder yet, some variety of wasp larvae actually seem to zombify the caterpillars and take control of them.

Clove extract neutralises asbestos fibres
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1535-clove-extract-neutralises-asbestos-fibres.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3942-masturbating-may-protect-against-prostate-cancer.html

"A team in Australia led by Graham Giles of The Cancer Council Victoria in Melbourne asked 1079 men with prostate cancer to fill in a questionnaire detailing their sexual habits, and compared their responses with those of 1259 healthy men of the same age. The team concludes that the more men ejaculate between the ages of 20 and 50, the less likely they are to develop prostate cancer."

video.

The bugs are removed with a scraper. Here is a pic.

I figured it was too good to be true:

Although, for now, the robots rely on mains power, Auger believes they could become truly self-sufficient.

I like technology-as-art projects, but it'd be much cooler if these things actually *were* powered by bug juice--that is, more like bug powered 75% of the time, with a battery backup or a solar panel (or both) for those days when all the flies have already been eaten--rather than just being combination clock-and-bug-zappers. I'd be interested to see their average power production vs. power consumption.

More direct link, more details, related contraptions (eats mice!): http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/dn17367-carnivorous-domestic-entertainment-robots/1

..the Earth leaving the Sun's heliosphere? As described in this article a few days ago: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227144.700-sun-leaves-earth-wide-open-to-cosmic-rays.html The (predicted) length of time for a cycle for this event, and the event described in the story is only a single order of magnitude off. Fairly common yet acceptable difference in in the field of Astronomy, I've been told.

Instead of linking to a blog that talks about another blog that refers to and links to the original story, why not just link to the original source to save us from 5 click throughs and give the original authors credit as well?

Original story: Domestic robots with a taste for flesh

Talk about a nested series of links. I had to go through 3 separate sites- Slashdot, Endgadget, and Hack-a-Day, one linked to the other, until I got to the original New Scientist gallery photos which had many more interesting robot pictures. Oh, and the end link wasn't to page 1 of the photo gallery and the links weren't obvious each time either. For those who don't want to go the long way around, here is the original link.

Okay, i'll look like some troll already mods, but give me a second.

I just feel that this is just another promo ad that gets sent to tech sites from some publicists to get the title of the technology spread with their name on it.

this article, (06/29/2009)
Brain controlled wheelchair developed at University of South Florida (02/11/2009)
from European scientists, Brain Controlled Wheelchair (05/11/2008)
Ambient Tech creates brain controlled wheelchair (09/06/2007)
Brain controlled wheelchair from spanish inventor (01/29/2007)
University of Electro Communications in Japan develop brain controlled wheelchair (08/11/2006)

Yeah I'll stop. Mod me down. I just think it's odd that this stuff gets press like it's something brand new. Perhaps sell us by saying its much better? Something. Please.

Um, spectrometry tells us WHAT the molecules do (whether Co2, methane, PFC, or other) and the Radiative Forcing Equation tells us by HOW MUCH. But if you don't like physics equations, maybe you've also just disproved space flight, the internet, microwave ovens and all manner of other "theories" which are about to disappear in a puff of logic? This basic aspect of the science is settled, and the so called 'sceptics' rarely debate it. They just recite one of the 26 top myths about climate change that New Scientist debunks here, one of which you recite in your answer (about physics models, see the first 2 myths here.) http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462

"That completely misrepresents the opinion of climatologists." Really? Like James E. Hansen, Nasa's lead climatologist. Oh, no, I guess not. How about atmospheric scientists from the University of Oxford? Hmm. No. Or maybe you mean Jonathan Overpeck, the director for the University of Arizona's Institute for the Study of Planet Earth who once said of climate change, "The results suggest the threshold is close to the end of this century, and it could come sooner. The Arctic is already warming much faster than we thought it would. To think we're not going to get 4 to 5 degrees warmer in another 50 years is wishful thinking." Oh, no, you don't mean him. How about Damon Matthews, from Concordia University in Canada, or Ken Caldeira, from the Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford ... no, not them. Perhaps you mean Roger Pielke Sr. of ClimateScience.org, who does at least say, "Policies that focus on CO2 by itself are ignoring definitive research results ... that humans have a much broader influence on the climate system."

I've not found a climatologist who has said that raising CO2 levels are a good thing or even a neutral thing.

I can find meteorologists, economists, physicists, and many other very clever people who say such things, but if there are climatologists out there saying "Ah, nevermind the CO2, it's no big thing," then they are outnumbered 100 to 1 at best. Is that "far less" consensus than the rest? No, I don't think so. Maybe a little less. But I'm giving you a hypothetical. I still haven't even seen one of these mythical pro-CO2 climatologists of which you write. Please enlighten.

Which cost exactly ? Climate changes. Humans have been dealing with huge climate changes for 170.000 years now. Why, exactly, should we prevent the next change ? Why, for that matter, do you think we're capable of doing so ?

And, which guarantee (or even strong indication) is there that CO2 reduction will help ? (not worldwide co2 reduction, obviously, China gets to pollute, all muslim countries get to pollute in addition to stoning women, all african countries ... obviously these are exactly the countries where you'd expect massive co2 increases to come from).

All actual, empirical information we have .

Sure, being the RTFA troll, I read the article. But that still doesn't convince me. The keyboard press is a brief instant on a device which is easy to place more or less out of line of sight. A visible password on a screen is present for a long time and there are a number of interesting ways to capture this. Whilst keyboards are not perfect I think that some protection is worthwhile. One thing is for sure. Nobody is going to remember to turn this on when they are in public and your password only needs to be captured once.

One thing that might be a possible compromise is the system the mail client on my Nokia phone uses. The most recent character entered in the password is displayed for a short time. I can see each individual character, but the entire password is not exposed. I worry on the subway, but since it's a personal device it's easier to make this difficult to see.

Researcher Implants Laser-Activated Brain Cells

... in a shark?

Well, it would help with this other problem...

The Imperial System of measurements is not the same as the customary measurements used in the United States. The legal arbiter of measurements in the United States is the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Apendixes B [PDF] and C [PDF] to their Handbook 44 provide a good overview of the structure of the respective standards and their relationship to SI (the science based International System, which was based on the Metric System).

The word system seems misleading when applied to US customary measures. For example:

Appendix B. Section 2.2.5. From 1893 until 1959, the yard was defined as equal exactly to 3600/3937 meter. In 1959, a small change was made in the definition of the yard to resolve discrepancies both in this country and abroad. Since 1959, we define the yard as equal exactly to 0.9144 meter; the new yard is shorter than the old yard by exactly two parts in a million. At the same time, it was decided that any data expressed in feet derived from geodetic surveys within the United States would continue to bear the relationship as defined in 1893 (one foot equals 1200/3937 meter). We call this foot the U. S. Survey Foot, while the foot defined in 1959 is called the International Foot. Measurements expressed in U. S. statute miles, survey feet, rods, chains, links, or the squares thereof, and acres should be converted to the corresponding metric values by using pre-1959 conversion factors if more than five significant figure accuracy is required.

Does this make a difference? From one viewpoint, no, when do you ever need to keep something accurate within 2 mm over a mile? From another, yes, repeated iterations of computations based on incorrect conversions can produce just plain gibberish. Another bit of measurement chaos to keep in mind:

Appendix B. Section 2.3. British and United States Systems of Measurement. ... In the customary British system, the units of dry measure are the same as those of liquid measure. In the United States these two are not the same; the gallon and its subdivisions are used in the measurement of liquids and the bushel, with its subdivisions, is used in the measurement of certain dry commodities. The U. S. gallon is divided into four liquid quarts and the U. S. bushel into 32 dry quarts. All the units of capacity or volume mentioned thus far are larger in the customary British system than in the U. S. system. But the British fluid ounce is smaller than the U. S. fluid ounce, because the British quart is divided into 40 fluid ounces whereas the U. S. quart is divided into 32 fluid ounces. ...
1 U. S. fluid ounce = 1.041 British fluid ounces
1 British fluid ounce = 0.961 U. S. fluid ounce
1 U. S. gallon = 0.833 British Imperial gallon
1 British Imperial gallon = 1.201 U. S. gallons

We also must remember that NASA has proven itself incapable of managing the different systems of measurement before. Ten years ago NASA crashed a Mars bound probe because of botched conversions from customary to SI units. You would think that having paid $125 million for that lesson, they would want to avoid a recurrence. But, I suppose that they are from the government and they do not have to care.

There seemed to be several approaches but everyone was playing their cards close to their (patent) chest. They all seemed to be targeting lower altitudes of about 500-1000 metres.

One is described in some detail here and used cables to provide guidance (just the kite aloft): http://tinyurl.com/m57qtp (no, not a Rickroll).

The NS article has a summary image for another approach: http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2656/26562001.jpg

I'm generally against IP, but if this helps make green power technology more profitable it's really not that bad is it?

I'm generally against giving up my personal freedoms, but if getting implanted with a chip that allows me to be tracked accurately to within 3 meters will help stop the terrorists it's really not that bad, is it?

Uhm. Yeah. It is. Pork in your bill is always bad, and the IP laws are screwy enough, kthxbai.

Oh, and another thing... start substituting the word "expensive" when you read "profitable". It makes no sense to me to vote ourselves an automatic 400% increase in price for "green power" technologies, especially if we're excluding any ideas on making "green power" more affordable (read "more available") simply because they come from another country, and/or might step on copyright/patent toes in this country. (Do you really think China gives a rat's ass about violating American laws? Ask NEC about the counterfeit factories (yes, plural; 18, to be precise) they found because someone RMA'd a DVD player that NEC didn't even make. The workers thought it was a legitimate operation, they had NEC's name and logo all over the building and the uniforms, not just the products. Here, have a link.)

(Off-topic rant) My take on IP: 7 years (with a one-time extension of the same duration) was reasonable; 150 years is not. Let the mouse go already, I want my public domain works.

--
Please read and think before you respond or moderate. Thank you.

The idea uses computer control to fly the kites in a figure-of-eight circuit (or the like). They don't go anywhere substantial. New Scientist covered this last year (subscription required for full article): http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826562.000-to-make-the-most-of-wind-power-go-fly-a-kite.html

See this comment and the reply to it.

For more than ten years the New Sensationalist has been predicting catastrophes, world changing technologies, and the like. It's about time someone tried to call them on it.

It's a cold-war leftover. Reprocessing spent fuel allows the extraction of plutonium for use in nuclear weapons (see DPRK). Arms limitation treaties and talks often touched on reprocessing fuel, since it was one way to increase a nations' nuclear stockpile. This story is a few years old, but summarizes the situation nicely.

Posting AC to avoid undoing mod points.

The problem with package inserts (at least here in europe) is that if there is even a small chance of a rather uninteresting and non-dangerous drug interaction it will end up in the package insert, why? liability!
And at least here the package insert usually doesn't specifiy which interaction has been encountered, and the same goes for the doctors version of "package inserts".

Same goes for side effects, I'd say anything you do, eat, take or otherwise endulge in can have effects on your body that are undisirable.

In my opinion the pill (well there are differenct kinds, i think we are talking oestrogen based) is a very save medication which has been tested for decades, and I often have to wonder how high the correlation (not even speaking of causality) between pill and sideffects realy is.

Another interesting read btw.:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915--most-scientific-papers-are-probably-wrong.html

Somebody ought to go through back issues of the New Sensationalist and look at all of their predictions or reports of great inventions or processes "that will be commercialized in two or three years" to see what their track record is. I wonder if they can live up to the standards set by astrologers.

Someone mod parent Funny. Insightful - maybe it is that too.

We are all waiting for the major disaster of Windows that makes everyone abolish it. One cause may be that Mount St. Helens is one vent of a Supervolcano.

Mount St. Helens seems to be sharing the magma pocket with Mount Rainier.

It don't have to come down to a volcano erupting to take out Redmond, it's enough with a considerable quake.

But on the other hand - it's more likely that Microsoft does something utterly stupid which makes them drop dead. Just look at GM, they failed to adapt.

On the very day this question was posted, this article appeared in New Scientist, talking about the $3B the US' National Science Foundation received as part of the stimulus, and the promise made by Pres. Bush and supported by Pres. Obama to double the NSF's funding in 10 years.

Perhaps the government does fund research...

Cold fusion does not work.

In theory. In practice, you & your anti-science friends are eating crow:

Johan Frenje at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an expert at interpreting CR-39 tracks produced in conventional high-temperature fusion reactions, says the team's interpretation of what produced the tracks is valid.

"I must say that the data and their analysis seem to suggest that energetic neutrons have been produced," he says, although he would like to see the results confirmed quantitatively.

-Neutron tracks revive hopes for cold fusion

(Wasn't this book reviewed once before on Slashdot?)

That book is all about the previous generation of military robots. Take a look at the next generation:

• The Legged Squad Support System. This is the next generation of "Big Dog" - fully militarized, no more annoying two-cycle engine noise, stronger, faster, more range, about the same size. This isn't even considered a research project; it's on the weapons deployment track.
• The Multi-Robot Pursuit System. Packs of robots to hunt down uncooperative humans. Your tax dollars at work.
• The Foster-Miller robot gun turret. This machine gun turret accessory turns any moving platform into a killbot.

Wait until China starts cranking out these things by the millions.

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg20227117.000/mg20227117.000-3_600.jpg

This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.

Eight forms of human language remain uncracked by modern linguists. Surely trying to speak Ventaxian and understand their communication will be nigh impossible. Heck I don't think their characters have been encoded into unicode.
Let alone knowing how their transmissions are encoded or even if they have a concept of DRM. If we don't know their codecs then those broadcasts will simply fall into the cosmic background radiation and remain lost to us until these aliens do something as gross as landing on the White House lawn and actually share their technology via their universal translator.
Who's to say they're even going to be interested in humanity at all. They may decide that ants have a far older and more interesting worldwide civilization which fits their xenothropic principle rather than appealing to our hubris that nigh-hairless primates are the pinnacle of culture and society upon this ball of mud.
On the bright side this guy says it'd be easy to figure out the grammar of a living alien language but there's still the problem of idiom which would only serve the muddy the waters of communication and possibly precipitate conflict.

> I have yet to plumb the depths of their ignorance, as I have yet to plumb the depths of their immorality

Wood's Hole Oceanographic Institute has a submarine that just might reach....

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17242-robot-sub-reaches-the-worlds-deepest-abyss.html

Then again, maybe even it can't reach.

Because of course most of the arable land on the planet isn't currently needed to feed people. And even the current minuscule production of biofuels hasn't caused price hikes in food products that have left people starving to death.

If you hadn't been paying attention in the last couple of years there have been tremendous food shortages throughout the world (leading to numerous food riots) mostly caused by loss of food production due to the spread of the fungus UG99 http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726474.400-killer-wheat-fungus-threatens-starvation-for-millions.html do we really want to produce even less food just so you can pump even more CO2 into the atmosphere???

When hasn't there been a food shortage somewhere in the world?

Because of course most of the arable land on the planet isn't currently needed to feed people. And even the current minuscule production of biofuels hasn't caused price hikes in food products that have left people starving to death.

If you hadn't been paying attention in the last couple of years there have been tremendous food shortages throughout the world (leading to numerous food riots) mostly caused by loss of food production due to the spread of the fungus UG99 http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726474.400-killer-wheat-fungus-threatens-starvation-for-millions.html do we really want to produce even less food just so you can pump even more CO2 into the atmosphere???

As for Fission vs Fusion fusion is the very clean option fission is more geared to producing weapons grade plutonium and produces an awful lot of nuclear waste. Fusion on the other hand is extremely clean in comparison the only waste will be the reaction chamber when it is decommissioned.

For those who are interested you can build a fusion reactor in your garage http://www.brian-mcdermott.com/fusion_is_easy.htm

Cheers

I remember Sony showing a wand type thing with their prototype Eyetoy for the PS2 years ago, and here's a blurb from 2005:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7890

Sony doesn't need to copy Nintendo, they'd had motion sensing controllers and games longer than Nintendo has. Remember that the PS2's best selling addon is the Eyetoy, selling even more than the Network Adapter.

Unlike glucose, fructose is almost entirely metabolized in the liver. "When fructose reaches the liver," says Dr. William J. Whelan, a biochemist at the University of Miami School of Medicine, "the liver goes bananas and stops everything else to metabolize the fructose." Eating fructose as compared to glucose results in lower circulating insulin (pancreatic beta cell insulin release is controlled only by blood glucose levels) and leptin levels, and attenuation in the suppression of ghrelin postprandially.[53] These hormones are implicated in the control of appetite and satiety, and it is suspected that eating large amounts of fructose increases the likelihood of weight gain.[54] Excessive fructose consumption is also believed to contribute to the development of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.[55]

Also, consider this Newscientist article, this one, and if you want more, have a look at an article published in "The Journal of Clinical Investigation" about a link between HFCS and Diabetes in April.

Unlike glucose, fructose is almost entirely metabolized in the liver. "When fructose reaches the liver," says Dr. William J. Whelan, a biochemist at the University of Miami School of Medicine, "the liver goes bananas and stops everything else to metabolize the fructose." Eating fructose as compared to glucose results in lower circulating insulin (pancreatic beta cell insulin release is controlled only by blood glucose levels) and leptin levels, and attenuation in the suppression of ghrelin postprandially.[53] These hormones are implicated in the control of appetite and satiety, and it is suspected that eating large amounts of fructose increases the likelihood of weight gain.[54] Excessive fructose consumption is also believed to contribute to the development of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.[55]

Also, consider this Newscientist article, this one, and if you want more, have a look at an article published in "The Journal of Clinical Investigation" about a link between HFCS and Diabetes in April.

I don't know about atmospheric radiation in general, but the 2006 underground nuclear test was confirmed by analyzing trace amounts of radioactive xenon isotopes in the air, as far away as in Canada.

I'm still awaiting this product: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12817424.000-technology-many-holograms-multiply-data-storage.html

"100 million million bits per square centimetre."

Interesting New Scientist blog: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/05/is-ida-a-pop-star-fossil-or-po.html They seem to make two main points- firstly that the whole thing is degenerating into hype, but more interestingly that there wasn't a big debate here anyway. Yes, it's a missing link, but it's one that all rational people knew must have existed somewhere. It hasn't ignited debate between creationists and evolutionists, for the reason that they don't really debate each other anymore- at least not in scientific circles.

Yes, and never with any specific examples... just a broad accusation. Surely since you believe these accusations, you could point me towards a source? So that I'm not hypocritical, I'll direct you toward what I consider a very thorough defense of climate science. It's two years old now, but still relevant.

HA! That article talks about computer models being used for investment. Tell me, how well do you think THAT worked out for them? Also, check out the comments section there. Those guys do a better job of refuting it than I can, as there are some computer scientists in the computer modeling section. There is also a lot of interesting discussion in the "CO2 Levels Lag Behind Temperature Changes" portion. There are some posters who claim that water vapor accounts for 99% of heat retention. Having moved from 100% humidity southeast Texas, where the High temp is often 95, while the low is only 80, to low humitidy Lubbock, where The high is 105 and the low 50, not to mention the fact that a generally warmer planet will put more water vapor into the air kind of intuitively busts the "CO2 as main actor in Global Warming" thing. Thanks for posting that article. There is a lot of great stuff there, although most of it points in the other direction from your argument.

Yes, you do. Epicycles, before they were abandoned, did the best job to date of explaining the motion of the planets. Until a better model arose, it would have been silly to abandon it.

Unless people think it's right. You have to show that a scientific theory is lacking. Epicycles NEVER adequately explained planetary movements. Not even close, really. They would be sort of close for a few days out, then it would all go to hell, and that was simple, non-chaotic movement. In this world, a tiny error (like overestimating the "blanket effect" of CO2, or underestimating the amount of time the water spends in the atmosphere) would ensure that you got wildly erroneous results.

Exactly my point... the people presenting a contrary view are not building models. There is plenty of money. Here's an article about the well-funded deniers. How you can claim that the problem is money is beyond me. The big money would overwhelmingly prefer that global warming were a non-issue.

Businesses are focused on debunking global warming, not improving climate science. As such, they haven't funded climate research that could go against them.

So no sources, then? I thought so. Put yourself in my position... you are asking me to change my mind on an issue based on an unsubstantiated claim from a random poster on slashdot.

My company's website has some information on our cancer work, which comes from the same principle. www.selenbio.com

Then why are they funding the deniers?

They don't, not really. They try to get the most bang for their buck, so they pay people to publish newsletters and do PR. They aren't particularly interested in research that they can't control.

Do you have any proof of this? I'd assert that they aren't getting government money because they aren't interested in building a model. In fact, if I want to go all crazy conspiracy, I'd say that they know building yet another model will force them to come to the same conclusion as everyone else who has built a model, and the money will stop flowing their way from the denier gravy train. Here is a pretty hilarious list of the "scientists" who deny global warming. Sorry about the clearly biased source, but the list is too hilarious to pass up.

I have a few links:

most models ignore the energy output from the sun.

Sort of... they tend to ignore short-term variation like sunspots. This is because they only have records going back about 100 years, so it would not be a sufficient input for a model fitting hundreds of thousands of years worth of data. Here's a good article addressing this common argument. In any event, if you are looking for long-term trends, why are you interested in short-term solar events and cycles?

If you express doubt in the "Humans are to blame for global warming" you will be labeled as a "Denier" and ignored.

First of all, I'm not ignoring you. Second of all, whining about how you are labeled has nothing at all to do with the accuracy of the climate models... that's the straw man.

Selectively pruning a data set is a subtle thing that can end up with the model saying what you want it to say with a high measure of goodness-of-fit without it being accurate.

That's true, but do you have evidence of this occurring in climate models? In all of them?

The "Hockey stick" graph that Gore used in his presentations has been shown to be generated in such a manner.

There were certainly flaws in the original model, but it wasn't exactly "wrong", it just wasn't as accurate as it could be - and the criticism was used in part to improve the model... this is exactly how science is supposed to work, so I'm not sure why you would hold this up as a criticism of climate science. Here is a good discussion of the hockey stick graph episode.

There are plenty of other models that are accepted as "good enough" in other fields, but most of those models are not being used as the basis for national and international policy.

During the 80s and 90s I would have agreed with you (and did, actually) - the models were too immature to base policy upon. Now, however, the error bars are much tighter and even the most conservative models show man-released CO2 to cause significant warming.

most models ignore the energy output from the sun.

Sort of... they tend to ignore short-term variation like sunspots. This is because they only have records going back about 100 years, so it would not be a sufficient input for a model fitting hundreds of thousands of years worth of data. Here's a good article addressing this common argument. In any event, if you are looking for long-term trends, why are you interested in short-term solar events and cycles?

If you express doubt in the "Humans are to blame for global warming" you will be labeled as a "Denier" and ignored.

First of all, I'm not ignoring you. Second of all, whining about how you are labeled has nothing at all to do with the accuracy of the climate models... that's the straw man.

Selectively pruning a data set is a subtle thing that can end up with the model saying what you want it to say with a high measure of goodness-of-fit without it being accurate.

That's true, but do you have evidence of this occurring in climate models? In all of them?

The "Hockey stick" graph that Gore used in his presentations has been shown to be generated in such a manner.

There were certainly flaws in the original model, but it wasn't exactly "wrong", it just wasn't as accurate as it could be - and the criticism was used in part to improve the model... this is exactly how science is supposed to work, so I'm not sure why you would hold this up as a criticism of climate science. Here is a good discussion of the hockey stick graph episode.

There are plenty of other models that are accepted as "good enough" in other fields, but most of those models are not being used as the basis for national and international policy.

During the 80s and 90s I would have agreed with you (and did, actually) - the models were too immature to base policy upon. Now, however, the error bars are much tighter and even the most conservative models show man-released CO2 to cause significant warming.

Well, considering the criticism I just posted is so well known that it is posted as a standard "denier" argument,

Yes, and never with any specific examples... just a broad accusation. Surely since you believe these accusations, you could point me towards a source? So that I'm not hypocritical, I'll direct you toward what I consider a very thorough defense of climate science. It's two years old now, but still relevant.

You don't have to build your own model to point out the epicycles don't explain planetary movement.

Yes, you do. Epicycles, before they were abandoned, did the best job to date of explaining the motion of the planets. Until a better model arose, it would have been silly to abandon it.

If there is so much money out there for competing models, show me. I haven't seen any.

Exactly my point... the people presenting a contrary view are not building models. There is plenty of money. Here's an article about the well-funded deniers. How you can claim that the problem is money is beyond me. The big money would overwhelmingly prefer that global warming were a non-issue.

The results were never published, due to politics.

So no sources, then? I thought so. Put yourself in my position... you are asking me to change my mind on an issue based on an unsubstantiated claim from a random poster on slashdot.

Those types of companies would like to disprove global warming, but the development of a new model for climate science is well outside of their field of interest.

Then why are they funding the deniers?

Only the government has any money right now, and they have blacklisted all climate change "deniers".

Do you have any proof of this? I'd assert that they aren't getting government money because they aren't interested in building a model. In fact, if I want to go all crazy conspiracy, I'd say that they know building yet another model will force them to come to the same conclusion as everyone else who has built a model, and the money will stop flowing their way from the denier gravy train. Here is a pretty hilarious list of the "scientists" who deny global warming. Sorry about the clearly biased source, but the list is too hilarious to pass up.

This'll probably come as a surprise to you, but do some research - there is not a single bit of scientific evidence that CO2 warms the atmosphere, the only link proven is that a warmer atmosphere brings more CO2 - usually 200-300 years later than an initial rise in temperature.

That's pretty hilarious, that you think I'd be surprised by this old gem of denier doctrine.

This has been thoroughly debunked.

and that our world is being projected onto our consciousness by benevolent aliens/gods has got to be at least a little bit crazy.

href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?full=true.

I just find it amusing how odd beliefs can line up with the latest scientific theories.