"Really? So we've had accurate temp, CO2 and oceanic temperature data for the past several thousand years?
Define accurate. We are not talking about weather, we are talking about climate. There are proxies that paint a relatively accurate picture of the planet over longer periods time. For example, weather is like a playing a single game of craps. Climate is how is how the whole casino is doing after a year.
If you want to see the whole groupthink + inferences thing going totally wrong, you only have to look at most of the conspiracy theories where "scientists" infer that since steel doesn't melt at 1100C
Steel doesn't melt in a fire of that temperature. But fires burning in confined spaces won't be burning at that temperature. You can roast a steel bar in an open flame of 1100C untile the cows come home and the steel won't melt, but if you add in a bellows effect, that fire won't be burning at 1100C, it will be burning hotter all by using the same fuel.
So why should I believe a bunch of scientists who don't have enough observed data to cover 10% of the past 300 years much less 3000 or 15000 or more, and many apparently don't agree there is an issue in the first place?
Because:
1. They have a lot more data than that. Do not confuse meteorological records with climate records. Tree rings, ice cores, sediment cores, etc. all contain good information in regards to past climate. More recently, scientists have been able to use meteorological records to verify the climate record and corroborate it with the proxies showing very good matches.
Also, do not confuse climatology with paleo-climatology.
2. Many do agree there is a problem, hence the scientific consensus. Most of the debate now is determining the extent and effects of the change.
The data does not have to be made available to YOU. It IS made available to the peer-reviewers.
Would you also like to have just anyone review papers on nuclear research? If you were a company providing LIDAR data services, would you want researchers freely giving it away?
YOU are free to go to the scientists and convince them that you are a legitimate reviewer who needs the data. In MOST cases, the data is available freely. However, if the data used in research is from a proprietary third party then the researcher will not be able to distribute the data freely. This should not come as any surprise.
If you think this should be changed so that all data is freely released, then convince your politicians to make it so that scientists are not allowed to use classified, confidential, or proprietary data sources in their research.
There were no incriminating emails, as is apparent to anyone who has actually read through them all. Only an idiot would get there talking points on this matter from a skeptic blog or an MSM article.
The emails and everything else are available on bit-torrent. Read them yourself. It may help you from getting whiplash by jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions based on partial or no context email quotes.
You'd think people on slashdot would know better than this.
And your opinions are worthless when you jump to conclusions.
If you would just GO AND READ THE FUCKING RESEARCH ARTICLES IN QUESTION you will see that it's all there and explained, including the LIMITED DISTRIBUTION OF VARIOUS DATASETS. Seriously, it is. There just isn't a conspiracy about this. There isn't. No matter how much you want believe there is one, there isn't. Go to any of the reputable journals and the subject. See for yourself.
With that being said, some of the RAW data has not and cannot PUBLICLY be released because of contractual or other obligations with third party providers. Limited releases can be done for reviews and such. Special exceptions can be made. Or you can go and buy the data from the provider if you so wish. But the institution itself is not at liberty to disseminate the data. This is no different than a licensing agreement for software. You are not allowed to redistribute copies of Windows without express permission to do so, for example, though you are free to use your copy.
Just because the data isn't available to every TD&H doesn't mean it was not peer-reviewed and validated by other members of the research community.
Or are you going to operate under the assumption that all science is invalid unless you personally can view everything? Good luck with that.
I don't think Global Warming (as it was sold to us, no bait and switch Climate Change) is poor science at best.
You would, you know, being an expert in the field and such. There was no "bait and switch". Global warming implied rising temperatures everywhere which, of course, is not what would happen. Climate change was a better term to use as it implies a changing climate which more precisely encompasses what's going on.
Climate science is very well established and has tons of published peer reviewed articles. If you have some amazing research that discredits all of this, then by all means produce it as it would easily get you a Nobel Prize.
Too much money and politics are involved...
Certainly you can't be referring to the climate scientists with this remark?
The average climate researcher (Ph. D) earns about $75K. Hardly big money. Most grants for the research come from government institutions, which must be accounted for (i.e, no dumping a million bucks in your own personal piggy bank). The climate science budget in the US is a little over $2 billion, which is pocket changed compared to everything else. Now take that $2 billion and remove almost all of it. Why? Because almost all of it is going to building, launching, and maintaining new satellites. Actual climate researchers receive a small fraction that budget.
You're not going to get rich from being a climate researcher unless you head off into the private sector (and then you'll need some clout).
Politics? What politics? Climate researchers do not factor into the power structure in any meaningful way. They have to beg congress for the money they get. They have nowhere near the clout of the energy lobbies (big oil and the like)....Al Gore and Goldman Sachs agree on something you know it's very very bad.
Ad hominem and has nothing to do with climate research. Al Gore is not a climate scientist, and GS is desperate to show some good will to get the lynch mobs off their backs. Neither one contributes to the annals of climate research, though they may support it.
GOOD SCIENCE is all I ask for, which mean never hear the words ''the debate is over''.
Does that include your own side, which has been saying it for years now?
No respectable climate scientist says the debate is over. However, a debate is requires logical points backed up by facts and research. The skeptics are seriously lacking in this regard, and hence the only real debates on the topics are between the scientists themselves.
No, the WSJ is deliberately showing you cherry picked quotes taken even more out of context than the incomplete email threads. If you want to make your case, don't rely on questionable reporting. Download the archive and read the emails yourself. There is nothing nefarious going on.
We are not talking about religion. Belief has no place in science....but at this point in time, a day after we all got to learn that the top-institute for climate-change knowingly and willingly changed the numbers, lied...
Which is horseshit.
*sigh*
Honestly, is that what you think? Have you even read through the emails? And I don't just mean the cherry picked emails and quotes that the frothing skeptics have fed you.
Almost all the emails pertain to science discussions. Analysis of data, discussion of data sets, the merits of various proxies, etc. . If anything, the emails reveal an insight into the typical discussion that go on behind the scenes when attempting to perform and validate research. There's nothing nefarious about any of it.
If you can't understand the basics of the subject, then you have no grounds upon which to base your claims and you sound like an idiot when you do. Any fabrications would have have collapsed quite quickly in the face of peer review, which is the whole point for having peer-reviewed research to begin with.
Your claims are especially hollow when you're basing you're claims on incomplete email threads that lack the full context of the discussion.
I can not take this serious.
Yes, because as we all know one incident invalidates the decades of climate science. Grow up.
First I want to know how much has been fabricated and lied.
None. This has been blown completely out of proportion by people who don't understand (or don't want to understand) what they're looking at.
After that, I might support this type of research again, but only after all the liars are banned from 'research'.
There are thousands of climate researchers. Do you honestly think the CRU could have fabricated all of it's research and not have been discovered? Or are you one of those nut jobs that believes there is a worldwide climate conspiracy?
Debate about what exactly? The science is very well established. Feel free to fill your cranium with the hundreds of peer reviewed articles on the subject.
The "debate" is mainly from armchair climatologists who expect that find singular statistical anomalies that have negligible impact on conclusions is cause for a paper and a Nobel Prize. A debate could be had if the skeptics were putting forth anything that could get past a peer review. Instead of addressing shortcomings in their research, the skeptics seem for more comfortable performing ad hominem attacks and painting themslves as victims of a great Climate Conspiracy.
Why not believe that 2008 is the coolest since 2000? Just because temps are warming imply it's a straight uptrend. Other factors come into play that can affect the short term trend. For example, the flat temperatures between 1950 and 1980 was a result of the increased sulfates due to pollution. Ironically, once acid rain legislation kicked into gear the sulfates reduced by quite a bit and the temps started rising again. There's a couple of papers on the subject if you want to look it up.
"Is it really correct to even assume the overall trend is anthropogenic?"
The current consensus shows a confidence that the warming is a result of anthropogenic causes. Again, you can search the published research on the subject. There is A LOT.
"Or do we need to do some fancy footwork to make the data fit the hypothesis?"
Not really. At least, not in any of the research I've seen.
"What we don't have is good, healthy debate."
On the contrary, climate researchers are constantly debating various aspects of their research. ~X~
The point isn't whether or not the globe has been warmer or colder. The point is that on the average changes to climate happens relatively slowly and that apparently we've kicked things into high gear. Given the fact that we are still highly dependent on the climate to sustain ourselves, any sudden change should give people some pause.
Even if you don't think anthropogenic forcings are contributing, the rapid rise in temperatures should at least get people thinking about what the effects of rapid climate change on our lives. Turning food production areas into deserts and having pest show up in areas where there are no natural predators are just two problems that could happen (hence the research into the consequences).
No doubt the planet has been warm or colder in the past. But what's important is how a warmer planet will impact our livelihood in the immediate future.
If you meant the past several thousand years where humans managed to thrive, then yes because that's all that matters. A climate that significantly deviates away from what we are used to in a short time period would not exactly be a load of fun.
We depend on the current climate to survive. Turning the midwest US into a desert over the span of 10 years, for example, would have serious repercussions.
Longer term, paleoclimatolgists use multiple proxies to establish what long term climates may have looked like. Of course, they don't have nearly the granularity we have now ut it yields a pretty good idea of what things were like.
Climate changes happen. Climate changes can be good/bad/neutral. But rapid climate changes are bad for current life forms because it gives them no chances to adapt.
The current research is indicating the climate is changing rapidly. We can prepare and maybe mitigate it or we can ignore it and hope for the best.
I would think someone with such a low UID would have better critical thinking skills.
CRU did not produce a hockey stick graph. That was Mann et. al. and has been verified by many researchers. If people like youw ould spend your time actually reading the science journals instead of torching them as "conspiracy" you may learn something.
"I am asking for research which indicates clearly that global warming is occurring due to humans and this research must not be based on CRU's data."
How about GISS for starters.
Oh I see. You're one of those idiots who have selectively read the hacked emails instead of all of them. You've already jumped to your conclusions, in spite of the fact that there's really nothing in those emails nor are they even remotely complete. You've already thrown out the decades of research because you've already developed your pre-conceived notions abou what the CRU hack actually reveals. Which is actually nothing. Read all the emails.
It's completely pointless to respond to people like you, because you won't listen. But why not:
1. Do you think that it is even remotely possible that all of CRU's data was stored on a single storage medium and that ALL scientists who ever worked on the data, worked on this single storage - that too on the only master storage of data without ever taking any copies of this data?
No, and only a complete asshat would interpret the emails that way.
2. Do you think that it is even remotely possible that all of CRU's data was lost despite the fact that the email log released yesterday includes emails even from the mid 1990s. Why is that email was backed up while the rest of the data was lost?
No, and now you're expanding your asshattery by mixing up issues.
3. Why is that even reputed magazines such as Nature and Science who have policies on data retention for all articles published in them didn't either a) Get the data from CRU or b) Retain this data - despite it being their own policy?
The data distributed and retained by any institution is subject to any IP and contractual obligations that are in place on that data. CRU (along with many other institutes) often get data from several sources, a chunk of which is proprietary and have strict rules about distribution. Unless you have a justifiable reason for getting that data (like being a peer reviewer) then chances are you won't get it. You are free, however, as an individual to go to the data provider and buy the data yourself.
You, and other ignoramuses like you seem to gloss over the fact that THIS IS ALL DOCUMENTED IN THE FUCKING PEER REVIEWS.
4. Why isn't CRU releasing the raw data even now - despite all the controversy and wide-spread feeling that the research is flawed?
Are you illiterate? Can you not read the emails? Can you not read the peer-review arcticles? They are not allowed to distribute some of their data by law and/or contractual obligations.
And the only controversy is caused by the armchair climate Ph.Ds like yourself. Your personal feelings mean jack shit to climate science. What matters is the research and the results of that research, which is very much indicating the current warming trend is our own doing.
"The FOI rep agreed based upon the testimony of whom? Guys who said they'd rather delete their data than share it with their critics. It's simply unethical and anti-scientific to hold that view."
No it isn't, and if you'd hut your pie hole for 5 seconds and actually read the damn emails you'd see if for yourself. As a matter of fact, you can also look at the MannHouseReply.pdf in the conglomeration where Dr. Mann gives a very detailed and specific response to prior requests. Even after this response, ridiculous FOI requests were made that were, with the review of the FOI representative, to be unnecessary since all the information was either available publicly and/or was otherwise available.
"And you're jumping to conclusions about the violations and the "hacker". These are most likely from a whistleblower, based upon the scope and selectiveness of the leak. There's indication of money laundering (putting money in personal accounts to avoid taxation), which alone indemnifies the whistleblower."
A whistle blower would have:
1. Gone to the authorities instead of posting info anonymously. Doing this actually DAMAGES any possible case that could be brought up.
2. You're "money laundering" innuendo is complete bullshit. There is not one mention of doing anything even remotely like you mentioned. There are docs about funding. There are emails discussing future research and funding. But no where is tax evasion even mentioned.
The email where this is pulled from is email 0826209667. This is an email where clearly english is a second or third language. In this email they talk about money from the ADVANCE group.
Of course, we are in need of additional money, especially for collecting wood samples at high latitudes and in remote regions. The cost of field works in these areas is increased many times during the last some years. That is why it is important for us to get money from additional sources, in particular from the ADVANCE and INTAS ones. Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible. Please, inform us what kind of documents and financial reports we must represent you and your administration for these money.
There is nothing nefarious here, unless semi broken english is nefarious. This is similar to limitations on contract expenses that can be charged before other regulations kick in.
As far as being a whistleblower goes, a whistleblower would have released something actually damning and make a lot more sense. This random jumble is what I'd expect from someone not really having much of a clue grabbing junk from a server and downloading it. The docs, the pdfs, and even the emails do not show anything nefarious. There is no ulterior motive. There is no dark conspiracy. At best, the emails show how incredibly annoyed and frustrated the scientists are dealing with imbecilic rhetoric and shoddy science posted by skeptics.
To sum up, you refuse to read the emails. You refuse to read what I've written, and you refuse to acknowledge that all the data is already available.
There's been no violation of laws. The UK FOI representative agreed the FOI request were unreasonable. The FOI representative agreed that inter-colleague emails were consider confidential.
You're the one with preconceived notions of some dark conspiracy. If the FOI rep didn't see any wrong doing, then what laws exactly were broken?
The only clear violations are on the part of the hacker.
"Look, when you write about how to avoid an FOI and direct people to DESTROY INFORMATION BEING REQUESTED, that's a crime."
Where were you when all those Bush emails went awanderin'. Wouldn't it be nice if that applied to ALL government.
But I can tell you have not read the emails. I just spent the past several hours reading them. Some are missing key pieces of context information. Others you can glean some context somewhat by reading the whole set.
FOI request should be reasonable. If you HAD read all the emails you'd see why what was being requested was not. You would also read how the FOI officer AGREED that the requests were unreasonable. It's up on bitorrent now. Download, unzip, grep.
If you read the emails and had even the slightest understanding of climate research, you'd also quickly realize that there is no tampering going on. There are several discussion on how to handle bad data sets. There a re several discussion on how to correct for known errors. And there is even a discussion that results in a data set being throw out entirely. There's discussions about reliability of observations. There's discussions about heat islands. And on and on and on. And not once, in all 1047 emails did any ever say "Oh my results don't work, I'm gonna fudge it."
"And if it's about letting the science out, then let it ALL out. Why hide data, why refuse to release R2 data, why try to ostracize other scientists? Science expects ethical people looking for the truth, not slicksters hiding their data, obfuscating the results, destroying data, and trying to spike dissent."
Regular at CA, aren't ya. The science is out. There are upteen thousand peer reviewed articles on the subject, complete with data and methods and only the truly lazy can't seem to find this stuff.
And for the last time, if you would actually read the research papers by Mann, the R2 data IS there.
Destroying data? Hiding data? That makes it quite difficult to get peer-reviewed don't you think?
If you had read the emails, you'd know full well why certain individuals are not held in high esteem. Think of viagra spam, but with less content and less tact.
"How people can try to rationalize fucking BREAKING THE LAW as "it's too hard" is beyond belief. "
Eh? Who's rationalizing? There were no laws broken except those the hacker broke. The peer-reviewed data and methods are out there. I don't think they could make it any more available unless they drop shipped it to your door.
Again, the FOI requests were ruled as unreasonable. Inter-colleague emails in regards to scientific discussion were ruled as confidential. If it were ruled otherwise, no one would do any papers since, by law, you'd have to reveal your research, methods, etc. BEFORE it was complete. That could lead to serious problems, especially if you're working with datasets you are note free to disclose (not all data comes from government researchers.).
Getting bombarbed by FOI requests by every Armchair Climatologist PhD is a waste of time and a waste of resources.
"We should let Bernie Madoff walk, it was too hard for him to keep track of all the money. Never should have gone after Enron, too much work for the books to be scoured."
Can you get any more melodramatic? Oh yes, you haven't mentioned Nazis yet.
How do you equate to "wasting scientific resources and tax payer dollars" to "letting Madoff walk"? Nevermind, I don't really want to know.
"Good god, listen to yourself. You're defending people who's own WORDS admit they are committing crimes by destroying data and avoiding FOI requests. All because, apparently, you support their cause."
That whooshing sound is the wind racing past your ears as you have stumbled off the cliffs of insanity. You can really hurt yourself jumping to conclusions. RTFEM. There is nothing incriminating in them. Really. There isn't.
I don't support their cause. Based on the preponderance of scientific research, I support the scientific conclusions. Their causes are irrele
You have partial email chains. That's it. You have people taking things out of context and making mountains out of mole-hills.
Raw data? Sure. Which raw data are you referring to? Would that be the raw data where you have several weather stations reporting -999C temperatures? Or the glacial ice core sample that was contaminated? Or the raw data series that shows a divergence but it's the only data series showing divergence when compared to dozens of others? The raw data with the bad satellite pass showing a 1000ft increase in vertical height of the Greenland Ice Shelf?
And what would you portend to due with the raw data? Cherry pick only the things you want instead of using the entire suite of corrected data sets?
Mann released that information ages ago. It's not that hard to find. Really it isn't. There are also other research papers based on his work that refine it.
It's also impossible to tell what the email deletions were in regards to, or whether or not it was a running joke. Or even what the emails contained. They don't appear in the hacked files.
And you have absolutely no idea what a huge PITA an FOI can be for a government agency. It is not a simple process, and it is not a short process, especially when there are pre-existing contractual obligations on that data. If you are a government agency contracting with a commercial entity, you cannot simply "turn over the data". It doesn't work that way.
They want to avoid FOI requests because:
1. It's a huge pain in the ass at the best of times. You have to track down the right people, get a bunch of approvals, verification that the data is not a going to be a danger if released to the open. Checking against contractual issues. Checking against licensing issues. Checking against IP issues. Running it through legal. Etc. etc. etc. . This takes a lot of time and resources, and I really don't blame them for not wanting to deal with the hassel.
2. The data being requested may or may not be suitable for use. Much like software, the datasets are being updated regularly. In some of the emails, this is plainly clear (some scientists bitch about inconsistencies in the datasets and such). Errors found. Errors are corrected. Requesting unfinished data is like requesting to use software that hasn't been tested.
3. The people requesting the data are hostile, and the scientist know the data will be misappropriated. Hence why they prefer only releasing the final products since at that point the science has be done and PEER REVIEWED. It's very difficult to do research when you have twenty hostile individuals interfering by making specious claims and generally pointless noise.
An EXAMPLE of GOOD SCIENCE is to let the science be done, THEN CRITICIZE IT. So far, no one has built a falsifiable case that disproves climate change nor refutes that anthropogenic causes are a contributing factor. No one has developed a model that shows the current warming trend is the result of natural variation. No one has been able to refute the science. Finding minor errors does not refute climate change.
Bad science is pointing at places where research might not have been done yet and screaming "SEE! IT"S ALL A HOAX!!" Bad science is finding minor errors and screaming "IT"S A CONSPIRACY!!!"
Bad science is encouraging the masses to disregard science and follow their intuition instead.
The emails largely show that scientists are just as human as anyone else. They get pissed off. They get frustrated. They get tired of refuting the same tired old crap everyday. They get fed up with people who are barely qualified to operate a motor vehicle telling them that they don't know how to do their job.
Or perhaps you'd hold up better under such pressure. But I doubt it. I'm sure if someone were to publish a random selection of your work or private emails that you wouldn't come off so saint-like either.
The main point being is that someone grabbed a bunch files and "randomly" selected what to show the world. How can anyone draw
Honestly, do you have some sort of support group you and others like you go to reinforce your idiotic rhetoric?
Let me clue you in. There's this wonderful tool called google that allows you to search the internet. You can enter in terms like "climate model" and "climate data" and, like magic, you'll get a list of resources.
How about you mosey on over to the GISS ModelE site, where you can *gasp* get the source code for the model, along with the *OMG* data. You can also try reading the IPCC report, which amazingly enough DOES explain the methodologies and data for the production.
Or, if you weren't like the thousands of armchair scientists out there who think their intuition is more reliable than spending decades dedicated to research in the field, you could actually try enrolling in a degree program in one of the various fields relating to climate, such as atmospherics dynamics. Then you could actually argue the science without sounding like an imbecile.
The letters are not damning. There isn't anything in them that I've read that GIVEN THE WHOLE CONTEXT OF THE DISCUSSION is damning, other than scientist are human and get pissed off at idiots and assholes like veryone else.
The DB comments, like the rest, are also out of context. That's like reading a bunch of source code and generating opinions of the coders by their comments in the code.
You also say yourself that you are no expert. Then how can you possibly comment on their comments? Climate data is noisy. Models can produce anything from daily averages to decadal averages. Some data series have know errors or unreliable segments so they are either smoothed over or ignored.
Let's put this in some perspective. Let's say you write an email with the title "Sex?" and had the content: "Man, I want to fuck a sheep right now!". If someone were to get ahold of that email and read it, what would they take away from it? Pretty damning right? Especially if the person didn't know you.
However, if that was just one email in a thread about a movie where drunk frat pledgers have to fuck a sheep to get in (a la Revenge of The Nerds), then that email is no longer quite so damning. In fact, it may even be funny.
You can't take singular emails, comments, etc. as gospel without the context surrounding them. Unless your the media of course.
And did you even bother to read the thread about WHY they did this?
One editor in particular, was pressuring several others into allowing shitastic research papers into the publication. The papers were terribly done, used questionable data, had specious conclusions, and overall should not have been allowed in any scientific publication. In other words, despite the peer reviewers and others saying they were crap, they got published anyway. This lead to 6 editors resigning over the publication of these shoddy examples of scientific research.
The point of a peer-reviewed journal is that it's peer reviewed. When others start making decisions what should be published or not IN SPITE OF WHAT THE PEER-REVIEWERS SAY, then contributing or citing other research from said publication becomes, at best dubious.
Context people. You can't read one paragraph or on email and get the whole picture. Not to mention that we don't have the whole story, only what the hacker wants you to see. And of that, we have no idea what parts are real or doctored.
For example, you make a rather LARGE assumption that the globe heating has zero impact on economics. Where'd the billions saved come from?
What if the desertification strikes the midwest of this country, the major producer for food? Those billions will be gone long before 20 or 30 years have elapsed. Anti-desertification measures? Applied to 1/3 of the country? That isn't going to be cheap and/or practical. Your also neglecting the advancement of invasive species into areas where they haven't been, thus no known predators to control them. What about the increased power needs for a warmed planet (AC in summer, pumping water into drought areas, etc.).
Especially considering the software developed for such platforms. Most models run on supercomputers are written in Fortran. If there is an real software engineering, it's more of an afterthought. The core of some of these models still contain F77 code, with F77 styles and program structure complete with detailed variable names such as iqxn4. They're not well documented. They're very fragile. Porting to a new system (even if running just a different flavor of Linux) can take weeks to months because of the way implementation is done. Sometimes just going to a new version of the same compiler will cause things to break. And sometimes you need to be an advanced linux just to get everything to run, let alone compiling and linking.
Models up to this point have been ad hoc conglomerations of pieces of code individuals have written and managed to stick together. These often are individuals who were not trained to be software engineers and know enough about programming to be dangerous. Sometimes these codes were never intended to be used outside of a research paper (but were used anyway). They models work, but not much else.
In fact, if you want a prime examples of how software should NOT be written, there's a number of scientific models that fit the bill (complete with 10,000 line subroutines).
As far as supercomputing goes, we are just barely emerging from the "highschool hacker" days. If you want an application that scales to these levels effectively, you need to have some people who know what they're doing get involved. You also need the tools, which have been sorely lacking in this area.
Slashdot Mirror
"Really? So we've had accurate temp, CO2 and oceanic temperature data for the past several thousand years?
Define accurate. We are not talking about weather, we are talking about climate. There are proxies that paint a relatively accurate picture of the planet over longer periods time. For example, weather is like a playing a single game of craps. Climate is how is how the whole casino is doing after a year.
If you want to see the whole groupthink + inferences thing going totally wrong, you only have to look at most of the conspiracy theories where "scientists" infer that since steel doesn't melt at 1100C
Steel doesn't melt in a fire of that temperature. But fires burning in confined spaces won't be burning at that temperature. You can roast a steel bar in an open flame of 1100C untile the cows come home and the steel won't melt, but if you add in a bellows effect, that fire won't be burning at 1100C, it will be burning hotter all by using the same fuel.
So why should I believe a bunch of scientists who don't have enough observed data to cover 10% of the past 300 years much less 3000 or 15000 or more, and many apparently don't agree there is an issue in the first place?
Because:
1. They have a lot more data than that. Do not confuse meteorological records with climate records. Tree rings, ice cores, sediment cores, etc. all contain good information in regards to past climate. More recently, scientists have been able to use meteorological records to verify the climate record and corroborate it with the proxies showing very good matches.
Also, do not confuse climatology with paleo-climatology.
2. Many do agree there is a problem, hence the scientific consensus. Most of the debate now is determining the extent and effects of the change.
~X~
You've got to be kidding me.
The data does not have to be made available to YOU. It IS made available to the peer-reviewers.
Would you also like to have just anyone review papers on nuclear research? If you were a company providing LIDAR data services, would you want researchers freely giving it away?
YOU are free to go to the scientists and convince them that you are a legitimate reviewer who needs the data. In MOST cases, the data is available freely. However, if the data used in research is from a proprietary third party then the researcher will not be able to distribute the data freely. This should not come as any surprise.
If you think this should be changed so that all data is freely released, then convince your politicians to make it so that scientists are not allowed to use classified, confidential, or proprietary data sources in their research.
~X~
You could try reading the actual research, but that would be too much work and goes against your preconceived notions.
Independent scientists have looked at the research. That's the whole point of peer review.
~X~
There were no incriminating emails, as is apparent to anyone who has actually read through them all. Only an idiot would get there talking points on this matter from a skeptic blog or an MSM article.
The emails and everything else are available on bit-torrent. Read them yourself. It may help you from getting whiplash by jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions based on partial or no context email quotes.
You'd think people on slashdot would know better than this.
~X~
And your opinions are worthless when you jump to conclusions.
If you would just GO AND READ THE FUCKING RESEARCH ARTICLES IN QUESTION you will see that it's all there and explained, including the LIMITED DISTRIBUTION OF VARIOUS DATASETS. Seriously, it is. There just isn't a conspiracy about this. There isn't. No matter how much you want believe there is one, there isn't. Go to any of the reputable journals and the subject. See for yourself.
With that being said, some of the RAW data has not and cannot PUBLICLY be released because of contractual or other obligations with third party providers. Limited releases can be done for reviews and such. Special exceptions can be made. Or you can go and buy the data from the provider if you so wish. But the institution itself is not at liberty to disseminate the data. This is no different than a licensing agreement for software. You are not allowed to redistribute copies of Windows without express permission to do so, for example, though you are free to use your copy.
Just because the data isn't available to every TD&H doesn't mean it was not peer-reviewed and validated by other members of the research community.
Or are you going to operate under the assumption that all science is invalid unless you personally can view everything? Good luck with that.
~X~
I don't think Global Warming (as it was sold to us, no bait and switch Climate Change) is poor science at best.
You would, you know, being an expert in the field and such. There was no "bait and switch". Global warming implied rising temperatures everywhere which, of course, is not what would happen. Climate change was a better term to use as it implies a changing climate which more precisely encompasses what's going on.
Climate science is very well established and has tons of published peer reviewed articles. If you have some amazing research that discredits all of this, then by all means produce it as it would easily get you a Nobel Prize.
Too much money and politics are involved...
Certainly you can't be referring to the climate scientists with this remark?
The average climate researcher (Ph. D) earns about $75K. Hardly big money. Most grants for the research come from government institutions, which must be accounted for (i.e, no dumping a million bucks in your own personal piggy bank). The climate science budget in the US is a little over $2 billion, which is pocket changed compared to everything else. Now take that $2 billion and remove almost all of it. Why? Because almost all of it is going to building, launching, and maintaining new satellites. Actual climate researchers receive a small fraction that budget.
You're not going to get rich from being a climate researcher unless you head off into the private sector (and then you'll need some clout).
Politics? What politics? Climate researchers do not factor into the power structure in any meaningful way. They have to beg congress for the money they get. They have nowhere near the clout of the energy lobbies (big oil and the like). ...Al Gore and Goldman Sachs agree on something you know it's very very bad.
Ad hominem and has nothing to do with climate research. Al Gore is not a climate scientist, and GS is desperate to show some good will to get the lynch mobs off their backs. Neither one contributes to the annals of climate research, though they may support it.
GOOD SCIENCE is all I ask for, which mean never hear the words ''the debate is over''.
Does that include your own side, which has been saying it for years now?
No respectable climate scientist says the debate is over. However, a debate is requires logical points backed up by facts and research. The skeptics are seriously lacking in this regard, and hence the only real debates on the topics are between the scientists themselves.
Here is a link to an article from the WSJ on hacked emails showing scientists deliberately manipulating data to get results they want. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj [wsj.com]
No, the WSJ is deliberately showing you cherry picked quotes taken even more out of context than the incomplete email threads. If you want to make your case, don't rely on questionable reporting. Download the archive and read the emails yourself. There is nothing nefarious going on.
~X~
I sort of believe in climate change...
We are not talking about religion. Belief has no place in science. ...but at this point in time, a day after we all got to learn that the top-institute for climate-change knowingly and willingly changed the numbers, lied...
Which is horseshit.
*sigh*
Honestly, is that what you think? Have you even read through the emails? And I don't just mean the cherry picked emails and quotes that the frothing skeptics have fed you.
Almost all the emails pertain to science discussions. Analysis of data, discussion of data sets, the merits of various proxies, etc. . If anything, the emails reveal an insight into the typical discussion that go on behind the scenes when attempting to perform and validate research. There's nothing nefarious about any of it.
If you can't understand the basics of the subject, then you have no grounds upon which to base your claims and you sound like an idiot when you do. Any fabrications would have have collapsed quite quickly in the face of peer review, which is the whole point for having peer-reviewed research to begin with.
Your claims are especially hollow when you're basing you're claims on incomplete email threads that lack the full context of the discussion.
I can not take this serious.
Yes, because as we all know one incident invalidates the decades of climate science. Grow up.
First I want to know how much has been fabricated and lied.
None. This has been blown completely out of proportion by people who don't understand (or don't want to understand) what they're looking at.
After that, I might support this type of research again, but only after all the liars are banned from 'research'.
There are thousands of climate researchers. Do you honestly think the CRU could have fabricated all of it's research and not have been discovered? Or are you one of those nut jobs that believes there is a worldwide climate conspiracy?
~X~
Debate about what exactly? The science is very well established. Feel free to fill your cranium with the hundreds of peer reviewed articles on the subject.
The "debate" is mainly from armchair climatologists who expect that find singular statistical anomalies that have negligible impact on conclusions is cause for a paper and a Nobel Prize. A debate could be had if the skeptics were putting forth anything that could get past a peer review. Instead of addressing shortcomings in their research, the skeptics seem for more comfortable performing ad hominem attacks and painting themslves as victims of a great Climate Conspiracy.
Why not believe that 2008 is the coolest since 2000? Just because temps are warming imply it's a straight uptrend. Other factors come into play that can affect the short term trend. For example, the flat temperatures between 1950 and 1980 was a result of the increased sulfates due to pollution. Ironically, once acid rain legislation kicked into gear the sulfates reduced by quite a bit and the temps started rising again. There's a couple of papers on the subject if you want to look it up.
"Is it really correct to even assume the overall trend is anthropogenic?"
The current consensus shows a confidence that the warming is a result of anthropogenic causes. Again, you can search the published research on the subject. There is A LOT.
"Or do we need to do some fancy footwork to make the data fit the hypothesis?"
Not really. At least, not in any of the research I've seen.
"What we don't have is good, healthy debate."
On the contrary, climate researchers are constantly debating various aspects of their research.
~X~
You're missing the point.
The point isn't whether or not the globe has been warmer or colder. The point is that on the average changes to climate happens relatively slowly and that apparently we've kicked things into high gear. Given the fact that we are still highly dependent on the climate to sustain ourselves, any sudden change should give people some pause.
Even if you don't think anthropogenic forcings are contributing, the rapid rise in temperatures should at least get people thinking about what the effects of rapid climate change on our lives. Turning food production areas into deserts and having pest show up in areas where there are no natural predators are just two problems that could happen (hence the research into the consequences).
No doubt the planet has been warm or colder in the past. But what's important is how a warmer planet will impact our livelihood in the immediate future.
~X~
If you meant the past several thousand years where humans managed to thrive, then yes because that's all that matters. A climate that significantly deviates away from what we are used to in a short time period would not exactly be a load of fun.
We depend on the current climate to survive. Turning the midwest US into a desert over the span of 10 years, for example, would have serious repercussions.
Longer term, paleoclimatolgists use multiple proxies to establish what long term climates may have looked like. Of course, they don't have nearly the granularity we have now ut it yields a pretty good idea of what things were like.
Climate changes happen. Climate changes can be good/bad/neutral. But rapid climate changes are bad for current life forms because it gives them no chances to adapt.
The current research is indicating the climate is changing rapidly. We can prepare and maybe mitigate it or we can ignore it and hope for the best.
~X~
I would think someone with such a low UID would have better critical thinking skills.
CRU did not produce a hockey stick graph. That was Mann et. al. and has been verified by many researchers. If people like youw ould spend your time actually reading the science journals instead of torching them as "conspiracy" you may learn something.
"I am asking for research which indicates clearly that global warming is occurring due to humans and this research must not be based on CRU's data."
How about GISS for starters.
Oh I see. You're one of those idiots who have selectively read the hacked emails instead of all of them. You've already jumped to your conclusions, in spite of the fact that there's really nothing in those emails nor are they even remotely complete. You've already thrown out the decades of research because you've already developed your pre-conceived notions abou what the CRU hack actually reveals. Which is actually nothing. Read all the emails.
It's completely pointless to respond to people like you, because you won't listen. But why not:
1. Do you think that it is even remotely possible that all of CRU's data was stored on a single storage medium and that ALL scientists who ever worked on the data, worked on this single storage - that too on the only master storage of data without ever taking any copies of this data?
No, and only a complete asshat would interpret the emails that way.
2. Do you think that it is even remotely possible that all of CRU's data was lost despite the fact that the email log released yesterday includes emails even from the mid 1990s. Why is that email was backed up while the rest of the data was lost?
No, and now you're expanding your asshattery by mixing up issues.
3. Why is that even reputed magazines such as Nature and Science who have policies on data retention for all articles published in them didn't either a) Get the data from CRU or b) Retain this data - despite it being their own policy?
The data distributed and retained by any institution is subject to any IP and contractual obligations that are in place on that data. CRU (along with many other institutes) often get data from several sources, a chunk of which is proprietary and have strict rules about distribution. Unless you have a justifiable reason for getting that data (like being a peer reviewer) then chances are you won't get it. You are free, however, as an individual to go to the data provider and buy the data yourself.
You, and other ignoramuses like you seem to gloss over the fact that THIS IS ALL DOCUMENTED IN THE FUCKING PEER REVIEWS.
4. Why isn't CRU releasing the raw data even now - despite all the controversy and wide-spread feeling that the research is flawed?
Are you illiterate? Can you not read the emails? Can you not read the peer-review arcticles? They are not allowed to distribute some of their data by law and/or contractual obligations.
And the only controversy is caused by the armchair climate Ph.Ds like yourself. Your personal feelings mean jack shit to climate science. What matters is the research and the results of that research, which is very much indicating the current warming trend is our own doing.
~X~
"The FOI rep agreed based upon the testimony of whom? Guys who said they'd rather delete their data than share it with their critics. It's simply unethical and anti-scientific to hold that view."
No it isn't, and if you'd hut your pie hole for 5 seconds and actually read the damn emails you'd see if for yourself. As a matter of fact, you can also look at the MannHouseReply.pdf in the conglomeration where Dr. Mann gives a very detailed and specific response to prior requests. Even after this response, ridiculous FOI requests were made that were, with the review of the FOI representative, to be unnecessary since all the information was either available publicly and/or was otherwise available.
"And you're jumping to conclusions about the violations and the "hacker". These are most likely from a whistleblower, based upon the scope and selectiveness of the leak. There's indication of money laundering (putting money in personal accounts to avoid taxation), which alone indemnifies the whistleblower."
A whistle blower would have:
1. Gone to the authorities instead of posting info anonymously. Doing this actually DAMAGES any possible case that could be brought up.
2. You're "money laundering" innuendo is complete bullshit. There is not one mention of doing anything even remotely like you mentioned. There are docs about funding. There are emails discussing future research and funding. But no where is tax evasion even mentioned.
The email where this is pulled from is email 0826209667. This is an email where clearly english is a second or third language. In this email they talk about money from the ADVANCE group.
Of course, we are in need of additional money, especially for
collecting wood samples at high latitudes and in remote regions.
The cost of field works in these areas is increased many times
during the last some years. That is why it is important for us
to get money from additional sources, in particular from the ADVANCE
and INTAS ones. Also, it is important for us if you can transfer
the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier
and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day)
will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid
big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible. Please,
inform us what kind of documents and financial reports we must
represent you and your administration for these money.
There is nothing nefarious here, unless semi broken english is nefarious. This is similar to limitations on contract expenses that can be charged before other regulations kick in.
As far as being a whistleblower goes, a whistleblower would have released something actually damning and make a lot more sense. This random jumble is what I'd expect from someone not really having much of a clue grabbing junk from a server and downloading it. The docs, the pdfs, and even the emails do not show anything nefarious. There is no ulterior motive. There is no dark conspiracy. At best, the emails show how incredibly annoyed and frustrated the scientists are dealing with imbecilic rhetoric and shoddy science posted by skeptics.
~X~
To sum up, you refuse to read the emails. You refuse to read what I've written, and you refuse to acknowledge that all the data is already available.
There's been no violation of laws. The UK FOI representative agreed the FOI request were unreasonable. The FOI representative agreed that inter-colleague emails were consider confidential.
You're the one with preconceived notions of some dark conspiracy. If the FOI rep didn't see any wrong doing, then what laws exactly were broken?
The only clear violations are on the part of the hacker.
~X~
"Look, when you write about how to avoid an FOI and direct people to DESTROY INFORMATION BEING REQUESTED, that's a crime."
Where were you when all those Bush emails went awanderin'. Wouldn't it be nice if that applied to ALL government.
But I can tell you have not read the emails. I just spent the past several hours reading them. Some are missing key pieces of context information. Others you can glean some context somewhat by reading the whole set.
FOI request should be reasonable. If you HAD read all the emails you'd see why what was being requested was not. You would also read how the FOI officer AGREED that the requests were unreasonable. It's up on bitorrent now. Download, unzip, grep.
If you read the emails and had even the slightest understanding of climate research, you'd also quickly realize that there is no tampering going on. There are several discussion on how to handle bad data sets. There a re several discussion on how to correct for known errors. And there is even a discussion that results in a data set being throw out entirely. There's discussions about reliability of observations. There's discussions about heat islands. And on and on and on. And not once, in all 1047 emails did any ever say "Oh my results don't work, I'm gonna fudge it."
"And if it's about letting the science out, then let it ALL out. Why hide data, why refuse to release R2 data, why try to ostracize other scientists? Science expects ethical people looking for the truth, not slicksters hiding their data, obfuscating the results, destroying data, and trying to spike dissent."
Regular at CA, aren't ya. The science is out. There are upteen thousand peer reviewed articles on the subject, complete with data and methods and only the truly lazy can't seem to find this stuff.
And for the last time, if you would actually read the research papers by Mann, the R2 data IS there.
Destroying data? Hiding data? That makes it quite difficult to get peer-reviewed don't you think?
If you had read the emails, you'd know full well why certain individuals are not held in high esteem. Think of viagra spam, but with less content and less tact.
"How people can try to rationalize fucking BREAKING THE LAW as "it's too hard" is beyond belief. "
Eh? Who's rationalizing? There were no laws broken except those the hacker broke. The peer-reviewed data and methods are out there. I don't think they could make it any more available unless they drop shipped it to your door.
Again, the FOI requests were ruled as unreasonable. Inter-colleague emails in regards to scientific discussion were ruled as confidential. If it were ruled otherwise, no one would do any papers since, by law, you'd have to reveal your research, methods, etc. BEFORE it was complete. That could lead to serious problems, especially if you're working with datasets you are note free to disclose (not all data comes from government researchers.).
Getting bombarbed by FOI requests by every Armchair Climatologist PhD is a waste of time and a waste of resources.
"We should let Bernie Madoff walk, it was too hard for him to keep track of all the money. Never should have gone after Enron, too much work for the books to be scoured."
Can you get any more melodramatic? Oh yes, you haven't mentioned Nazis yet.
How do you equate to "wasting scientific resources and tax payer dollars" to "letting Madoff walk"? Nevermind, I don't really want to know.
"Good god, listen to yourself. You're defending people who's own WORDS admit they are committing crimes by destroying data and avoiding FOI requests. All because, apparently, you support their cause."
That whooshing sound is the wind racing past your ears as you have stumbled off the cliffs of insanity. You can really hurt yourself jumping to conclusions. RTFEM. There is nothing incriminating in them. Really. There isn't.
I don't support their cause. Based on the preponderance of scientific research, I support the scientific conclusions. Their causes are irrele
You have partial email chains. That's it. You have people taking things out of context and making mountains out of mole-hills.
Raw data? Sure. Which raw data are you referring to? Would that be the raw data where you have several weather stations reporting -999C temperatures? Or the glacial ice core sample that was contaminated? Or the raw data series that shows a divergence but it's the only data series showing divergence when compared to dozens of others? The raw data with the bad satellite pass showing a 1000ft increase in vertical height of the Greenland Ice Shelf?
And what would you portend to due with the raw data? Cherry pick only the things you want instead of using the entire suite of corrected data sets?
Mann released that information ages ago. It's not that hard to find. Really it isn't. There are also other research papers based on his work that refine it.
It's also impossible to tell what the email deletions were in regards to, or whether or not it was a running joke. Or even what the emails contained. They don't appear in the hacked files.
And you have absolutely no idea what a huge PITA an FOI can be for a government agency. It is not a simple process, and it is not a short process, especially when there are pre-existing contractual obligations on that data. If you are a government agency contracting with a commercial entity, you cannot simply "turn over the data". It doesn't work that way.
They want to avoid FOI requests because:
1. It's a huge pain in the ass at the best of times. You have to track down the right people, get a bunch of approvals, verification that the data is not a going to be a danger if released to the open. Checking against contractual issues. Checking against licensing issues. Checking against IP issues. Running it through legal. Etc. etc. etc. . This takes a lot of time and resources, and I really don't blame them for not wanting to deal with the hassel.
2. The data being requested may or may not be suitable for use. Much like software, the datasets are being updated regularly. In some of the emails, this is plainly clear (some scientists bitch about inconsistencies in the datasets and such). Errors found. Errors are corrected. Requesting unfinished data is like requesting to use software that hasn't been tested.
3. The people requesting the data are hostile, and the scientist know the data will be misappropriated. Hence why they prefer only releasing the final products since at that point the science has be done and PEER REVIEWED. It's very difficult to do research when you have twenty hostile individuals interfering by making specious claims and generally pointless noise.
An EXAMPLE of GOOD SCIENCE is to let the science be done, THEN CRITICIZE IT. So far, no one has built a falsifiable case that disproves climate change nor refutes that anthropogenic causes are a contributing factor. No one has developed a model that shows the current warming trend is the result of natural variation. No one has been able to refute the science. Finding minor errors does not refute climate change.
Bad science is pointing at places where research might not have been done yet and screaming "SEE! IT"S ALL A HOAX!!" Bad science is finding minor errors and screaming "IT"S A CONSPIRACY!!!"
Bad science is encouraging the masses to disregard science and follow their intuition instead.
The emails largely show that scientists are just as human as anyone else. They get pissed off. They get frustrated. They get tired of refuting the same tired old crap everyday. They get fed up with people who are barely qualified to operate a motor vehicle telling them that they don't know how to do their job.
Or perhaps you'd hold up better under such pressure. But I doubt it. I'm sure if someone were to publish a random selection of your work or private emails that you wouldn't come off so saint-like either.
The main point being is that someone grabbed a bunch files and "randomly" selected what to show the world. How can anyone draw
Honestly, do you have some sort of support group you and others like you go to reinforce your idiotic rhetoric?
Let me clue you in. There's this wonderful tool called google that allows you to search the internet. You can enter in terms like "climate model" and "climate data" and, like magic, you'll get a list of resources.
How about you mosey on over to the GISS ModelE site, where you can *gasp* get the source code for the model, along with the *OMG* data. You can also try reading the IPCC report, which amazingly enough DOES explain the methodologies and data for the production.
Or, if you weren't like the thousands of armchair scientists out there who think their intuition is more reliable than spending decades dedicated to research in the field, you could actually try enrolling in a degree program in one of the various fields relating to climate, such as atmospherics dynamics. Then you could actually argue the science without sounding like an imbecile.
But I guess that sounds too much like work.
~X~
The letters are not damning. There isn't anything in them that I've read that GIVEN THE WHOLE CONTEXT OF THE DISCUSSION is damning, other than scientist are human and get pissed off at idiots and assholes like veryone else.
The DB comments, like the rest, are also out of context. That's like reading a bunch of source code and generating opinions of the coders by their comments in the code.
You also say yourself that you are no expert. Then how can you possibly comment on their comments? Climate data is noisy. Models can produce anything from daily averages to decadal averages. Some data series have know errors or unreliable segments so they are either smoothed over or ignored.
Let's put this in some perspective. Let's say you write an email with the title "Sex?" and had the content: "Man, I want to fuck a sheep right now!". If someone were to get ahold of that email and read it, what would they take away from it? Pretty damning right? Especially if the person didn't know you.
However, if that was just one email in a thread about a movie where drunk frat pledgers have to fuck a sheep to get in (a la Revenge of The Nerds), then that email is no longer quite so damning. In fact, it may even be funny.
You can't take singular emails, comments, etc. as gospel without the context surrounding them. Unless your the media of course.
~X~
And did you even bother to read the thread about WHY they did this?
One editor in particular, was pressuring several others into allowing shitastic research papers into the publication. The papers were terribly done, used questionable data, had specious conclusions, and overall should not have been allowed in any scientific publication. In other words, despite the peer reviewers and others saying they were crap, they got published anyway. This lead to 6 editors resigning over the publication of these shoddy examples of scientific research.
The point of a peer-reviewed journal is that it's peer reviewed. When others start making decisions what should be published or not IN SPITE OF WHAT THE PEER-REVIEWERS SAY, then contributing or citing other research from said publication becomes, at best dubious.
Context people. You can't read one paragraph or on email and get the whole picture. Not to mention that we don't have the whole story, only what the hacker wants you to see. And of that, we have no idea what parts are real or doctored.
~X~
How often do you go off a cliff when jumping to conclusions?
Did you even bother to READ the email thread this was a part of?
This was discussing the correction of a data series with a KNOWN ERROR. They were discussing how to correct the ERROR.
Here ya go: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/of-buckets-and-blogs/
~X~
You have some really odd scenarios there.
For example, you make a rather LARGE assumption that the globe heating has zero impact on economics. Where'd the billions saved come from?
What if the desertification strikes the midwest of this country, the major producer for food? Those billions will be gone long before 20 or 30 years have elapsed. Anti-desertification measures? Applied to 1/3 of the country? That isn't going to be cheap and/or practical. Your also neglecting the advancement of invasive species into areas where they haven't been, thus no known predators to control them. What about the increased power needs for a warmed planet (AC in summer, pumping water into drought areas, etc.).
And that's just a few issues.
You have grossly oversimplified the problem.
~X~
Especially considering the software developed for such platforms. Most models run on supercomputers are written in Fortran. If there is an real software engineering, it's more of an afterthought. The core of some of these models still contain F77 code, with F77 styles and program structure complete with detailed variable names such as iqxn4. They're not well documented. They're very fragile. Porting to a new system (even if running just a different flavor of Linux) can take weeks to months because of the way implementation is done. Sometimes just going to a new version of the same compiler will cause things to break. And sometimes you need to be an advanced linux just to get everything to run, let alone compiling and linking.
Models up to this point have been ad hoc conglomerations of pieces of code individuals have written and managed to stick together. These often are individuals who were not trained to be software engineers and know enough about programming to be dangerous. Sometimes these codes were never intended to be used outside of a research paper (but were used anyway). They models work, but not much else.
In fact, if you want a prime examples of how software should NOT be written, there's a number of scientific models that fit the bill (complete with 10,000 line subroutines).
As far as supercomputing goes, we are just barely emerging from the "highschool hacker" days. If you want an application that scales to these levels effectively, you need to have some people who know what they're doing get involved. You also need the tools, which have been sorely lacking in this area.
Ah well. Bitch and moan.
~X~
Or in other words, if we want to see this kind of crap we can just watch Glen Beck.
~X~
Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and it's OK for you.
~X~
Just like building software. The first version is never the best version, but it's a good place to start from.
~X~
*GROWL* send....more....xstians....*GROWL*
~L3O~