Not really. You make the most if you turn it into an industry. Intel 'windows' and mouse + Bill Gates for the geek win. Intel developed it - Bill Gates made it an industry.
To be fair, Bill Gates is not a research scientist, has not (as far as I'm aware) been published in a trade journal, nor was there a war of publications between Intel and Gates. I personally can't follow the comparison you've made between scientific repudiation and computer software. Of course, I already share Gordon's position there that money making scientists are the ones that do the best research. Patents and publication has always been my experience in the area of research.
Carbon isn't an industry...wait, oh yeah, it is a big one. The green and organic and sustainable movement are all quite large. Organic food alone is $30B a year. The carbon market was suppose to reach $2 Trillion.
While the public may support both organic food and global warming, generally scientists do not support organic food. Are they compromising their ability to tap into the 30B market? No, that's silly. I still reject the hypothesis that money is either the only or major contributor to scientists performing research. If you've never heard about "wasted research" on things like fruit flies, I'm not sure how to show you that scientists love the questions themselves.
I just looked at the difference between GISS in rural vs urban and then GISS vs UAH/RSS. The GISS and UAH/RSS don't match. That is where "there is a problem" in my opinion is based on. There was a MWP before Mann etc. What happened? I looked for the lack of signal to match Mann's work, and found proxies, but they did not agree with his commentary. When reviewed by outside sources, it turns out they didn't agree.
Turns out it was fabricated. Did the guy who found out the problem make bank? No, basically he gets told he doesn't have anything to contribute and to shut up. The guys collecting the data have
'proof' and the IPCC ignores them. Some actually did work for the IPCC. Lead Authors even. They were dropped when they disagreed. Quite a few good scientists actually collect the data and show that the models are not trending with the empirical data. They get told they are just being paid by Big Oil. Or, basically what you guys have said so far. That there is a consensus and to shut up. When other people did publish emails what happened? In some cases they had their equipment confiscated, faced lawsuits, and related. Should we ask Galileo about how well he got treated for speaking up and being right?
There's so much in here that slants past the reality of what happened. In review: Mann published the paper that included the hockey stick in 1999. McIntyre and McKitrick published in 2004 that it was wrong, and criticized the use of the bristlecone pine data that came from a single record. NCAR then published an independent study of the data using multiple sources that showed slightly different results in the past - mostly in 15th century - but that otherwise completely confirmed the Mann analysis and led to a rejection of the McIntyre and McKitrick paper. In the meantime, other scientists like Huang and Smith and Oerlemans all tested other proxies like bore holes, ice cores, and stalagmites - all of their results confirmed the Mann paper as well. Spencer, Pielke, Pielke Jr., Christy, Lindzen, Motl have all worked on the IPCC reports and been major contributors to some sections. Even when other scientists disagree with them, they have not been removed from the table. That is a commonly made obfuscation that does not have actual bearing in what has happened to date. On the other hand, each of those scientists has had their recent published work tested for confirmation - in the cases of Spencer and Lindzen, the confirmation tests have found the original paper to be lacking. Spencer in particular has done some great satellite work, though.
If you have two papers, one with one conclusion and a later paper with a different conclusion, they don't just cancel out. Nor, as you know, can you just take the paper that sides with your preconceived bias. It requires the ability to look at the methodology used. This is the area where denial scientists have most been hit for bad science. This is what destroyed the McIntyre and McKitrick paper.
The emails thing, again? I thought we found in this thread that there was nothing there but innuendo and trumped up "tricks". The reason people got in big trouble on the whistleblower side was because a) they committed a crime to get the emails and b) an independent review found the scientists had done nothing wrong other than insulate themselves from predatory behavior by opposition groups.
Lastly, for every Gallileo there are a whole bunch of bad scientists using poor methodology to prove a falsehood. Hundreds, maybe thousands. In Gallileo's case, later experiments to confirm or repudiate then confirmed his work. Yay, science works, right? In the case of global warming, no competing science that shows the ice, stalagmites, holes, trees, bugs, troposphere... you name it - nothing is coming out to radically change our view that warming is happening and we are the cause. The pile of science is high and deep in support. The contrarian papers are so small as to be both notorious and insignificant at the same time.
My comments were that I wasn't just following WUWT, it was because I had done the work looking at these items for trends before he started his side blog. Or SS. I said I downloaded GISS information, part of the work with surface stations. That another part where I really was confused with your commentary - I never said
I made new calculations, just played with the calculations and with multiplanet temperature graphs and downloaded stuff from GISS. It isn't like my old machines could do huge factoring, or I had the time or resources. Sheesh. I just looked at GISS data and proxies and the formulas, I saw the trends and factoring and data myself. I looked at stuff guys - I had a crappy computer and the internet. I downloaded the raw data to compare but not all of it. Really? I have a life. If you had done a
fraction of what I had done then I guess you would have realized what a silly comment yours were about me running calculations. I read the FORTRAN, the commentary alone was interesting. I couldn't run it. It was a mess, huge, bloated.
Plenty of us have taken a look at the published models and available data. You're the first person I've ever conversed with that didn't find the data to be confirming, but that's all anecdotes. It does surprise me. As I've said previously, it's easy enough to use excel to use a workable model, and the data all confirms unless you try to play with it using weird time periods or bad statistics. It frustrates me to no end when I've seen Watts or others overlay a trend line that is no real trend for the data they are showing. I believe that was part of the problem that scientist from Western Washington got into, as well.
I can look at the equation and see the factoring, I can look at the data and notice a trend. I can to the research myself to find studies and see if they show a MWP or not. I can look at the GISS raw data and see the results for UHI.
You can also. There is a ton to look at. It was fun.
I came to a different conclusion then you and figured if you had done the same amount of work you would also.
Shrug, I dunno here. Everything I look at says warming. I mean this very, very sincerely: is it possible you've made a mistake? In the interest of fair discourse, I'll keep looking through my notes, too.
But setting up a program that needs to be ran on a supercomputer and yet they still didn't have a resolution better then 500 miles? (AR3/4 construction, with the old GISS FORTRAN. mind you, I haven't played with the setup for the new model yet.)
Just, wow.
Really, who the F would think an old pentium that was old 10 years ago could do something like that? Not a rational position, yet you hoisted it on me.
This part's really between you and Gordon, but as a 3rd party in the discussion, I don't think you've taken his comment as charitably as you could have. Gordon's entire premise is that when scientific discoveries are made that buck the conventional wisdom, and those discoveries are methodologically sound, the position of scientists change. The researchers that make that publication become famous. It appears you rejected this because it didn't happen for M&M, Christy, Lindzen, and others. In your rejection, you appear to attack Gordon as a critic of your resources. Does my commentary add perspective?
It is like one person saying "apples are red" and your reply is "no, oranges are orange dummy. Here is a link to where is says at skeptical science..."
Again, act charitably. I'm the one that has entirely linked to skeptical science - and I explained why since it directly links to published papers that form the response. And I have at my very best tried to keep it apples to apples. I've yet to see a specific rebuttal from you where you said I wasn't addressing your point or data. Up to a point (new research untested), I am always going to take published papers over blog posts.
When the main forcing factor of the equation went from 1.1W/m2x3(for water) to 1.1W/m2x2(for water), the basis in the models for run away changed in a big way.
Huge. You comment that it was a small factor just relates to my points:
Otto's paper has already been superceded by Karoly's paper. Karoly's paper says minimum 2 C change but unlikely to exceed 6 C change. Hooray for science getting better. But the results are still in line with expectations and still at a level that needs to be addressed. Karoly's paper was linked to the thread if you'd like to go back and read it.
The science is ever changing (my position, when you said it was settled, well known, and proven and I was stupid for countering it)
It is ever changing, and well known, and proven, and settled. I don't think you're stupid, but in this case I do think you're incorrect. I think I need to describe a scenario for how this could be:
Suppose in 1995 a scientist publishes a paper that finds a result to be 100 dimensionless. In 1997 another scientist publishes a paper with a better methodology that shows the result to be 96.9. Three years later the first scientist publishes again to find 97.12. Two years after that another scientist publishes 97.054. And so one and so on. These results are ever changing. They are proven and well known. They are settled. This is how I see global warming.