Anybody notice a paradox when critiquing AGW theories?

Question

It seems they all scream that you need to be a climate scientist to be able to critique climate science. yet not a single one of them seems to know the slightest thing about writing software. They rely almost exclusively on software engineering as the means by which to tell the rest of us that the world is coming to an end yet know nothing about it.

Brilliant guys! You can not have your cake and eat it too.

Answer 1

You are missing the point. When anyone says "You need to be a climate scientist to be able to critique climate science" they reveal that their conclusions can't bear scrutiny. It is like a Civil Engineer saying "You can't criticise my bridge for falling down unless you are a civil engineer."

Of course you can - millions of people around the planet have University level qualifications in physics and chemistry and related disciplines that make them more than qualified to ask questions. The scientist with nothing to hide provides clarification, not a refusal to discuss questions.

This protestation of "Leave it to Climate Scientists, trust me, I know what I'm doing!" is a neon sign a mile high flashing "I CAN"T DEFEND MY CONCLUSIONS!"



Scientists don't treat the scientific method like that.



Where there is smoke, there is probably fire, but there may in fact be no global warming.

Answer 2

>>Anybody notice a paradox when critiquing AGW theories?<<

Yes. Deniers are always critiquing paradoxical.



>>It seems they all scream that you need to be a climate scientist to be able to critique climate science.<<

I think that you're referring to credibility. For instance, you may be a 'software engineer', but that doesn't give you any credibility to make the argument that you're making, especially when you don't provide any examples. To me, it sounds like you're relying on hearsay as the basis for your outrage.

You also lack credibility for having no knowledge of climate change theory, which is obvious by your notion that scientists are saying, "the world is coming to an end".



_

Answer 3

I’ll be the first to admit that I have a very limited knowledge of writing software – Basic and HTML is my limit. That’s why in my company we have 6 climate scientists backed up by 5 computer programmers.



What I fail to understand is why a climate scientist would need to be able to write software, you’re attempting to create an argument that doesn’t exist. Have you ever used a calculator? If you have then by the application of your logic you don’t understand maths.



The vast majority of climate related software does nothing more than crunch numbers, trillions of numbers. The software simply speeds up the process otherwise it would take thousands of years to perform the calculations manually.



Just about every profession uses custom designed software to assist them in their work. What you’re saying appears to imply that if these people don’t understand the relevant software then they’re inadequate at doing their job.



“It seems they all scream that you need to be a climate scientist to be able to critique climate science.” Whatever subject you’re critiquing you need to have a good comprehension of the subject matter. I wouldn’t comment on the latest medical advances because I’m not a physician or a surgeon, I’d leave a review of the latest operatic performance to someone with an appreciation of art. I’d have thought a software engineer would refrain from commenting on the workings of the climate.

Answer 4

Being a qualified anything doesn't guarantee bug free code.

Scientists use software as a tool and like any tool, can only be as good as the professional using it, with due regard to knowing it's limitations & testing and verifying the applications to which it's being put.



There's nothing special about software engineers, except they probably have a greater choice of obscure & cryptic languages to write in.



Now statisticians, that's where they perhaps could use some help.

Answer 5

Either show me some code (it is available, you know) that is flawed in definition, structure, or contains bogus algorithms and computational formula - or shut the Hell up.



What makes you think every software engineer or computer scientist has published in the Journal of Mathematical Modeling and Algorithms or something similar?



<>



and



<>



I'll just chalk this glaring contradiction up to stupidity and a total disregard for the truth.



As for commercial software - conservatives should support this all the way. All of the major mathematical software companies are tied to the marketing industry. They have even adopted the terms/names of the variables and procedures they use from econometrics (which, for the under-educated, are not exactly the same as the terms and phrasing used by most scientists).



And I'm the first to admit that most of the cool new ideas in statistical analysis and modeling are coming from econo-stat-jock-dudes - mostly at Berkeley.



<>



"They" are right and you should follow their advice.



=====



edit --



Actually, I busted BMDP three times (including once after they were acquired by SPSS).



I always run my analysis on multiple platforms using several commercial packages as well as my own code.



I also keep copies of everything so when new versions come out I can compare their results with what I know to be correct.



I busted them once when they changed their Box-Jenkins ARMA time series algorithm, and once each in singular- and cross-spectral routines.



The first time it happened, it took months because, as you might guess, I had to move through an almost infinite number of level supervisors and everyone I spoke with told me that the error must be mine. I finally packed up a ton of stuff (this was before (modern) email and the Internet) and sent it to them so they could run it themselves.



The last person I talked to gave me a phone number in case I found any other errors. When I did and called the number, it turned out to be the direct line to the President of the company.



In any case, I don't have to prove anything since I am not the one making a claim that there is some mysterious software problem. And every scientist I know checks not only the results of their own stuff, but also that of everyone else.



You must know as well as me that sitting down for the sole purpose of checking all mathematical software and code is an impossible task.



Have you ever tried to read another person's code and track variables through countless subroutines and functions? It's a nightmare and without just reason to do so, I won't.



As for regression testing of software, that's only for major major bugs. I wrote a FORTRAN program one time that produced bum results and I just could not find the damn thing.



Then I found something buried deep in a FORTRAN manual that said sometime, under certain circumstances, a variable array used in a certain way might return erroneous values because of some unique memory storage issue - AND there would be no hint that an error had occurred because neither the software nor the machine would have detected any possible problem.



Seriously, it took me two weeks to find the damn thing and then rewrite that portion of the code. And every climate scientist I know is just as thorough.



==========



edit ---



First, no scientist has any authority to tell anyone what to do.



Second, it you were to look at any of the major programs written by Cook, Briffa, Mann, etc., you would find a number of names at the top. Among those names are the professional mathematical and scientific-computing programmers that worked on the program along with the climate scientists.



Third, many programs are, indeed, written to perform a specific task and produce specific results.



Finally, you have yet to demonstrate a problem. Do you have even one case example where the particular tricks in your little tool kit should have, could have, or would have made a contribution to the science? Do you have a specific example where any accepted method or procedure was not followed?



You, apparently, have no knowledge of the programs and software used by climate scientists, or how they were created – so, you have nothing relevant to contribute.



It seems that you think you know some universal programming truth, but even if that were the case – you still have not shown that climate scientists are unaware of it or have neglected it.



=====



<>



OK, I'll admit that I do not know what you are talking about...since model building is nothing but a bunch of rules -there are hundreds of rules about how to define, build, and test the models



And there are rules about the rules to use - there are rules about what tests you can and cannot run and tests that must be run, - and there are rules about how the tests the rules told to you run are to be validated, verified, and evaluated.



It's called the scientific method of model building, for crying out loud.

Answer 6

So you are a software engineer then. And you are telling one of the physicists who knows what he is talking about that he is in error? You're being a hypocrit.



Edit: Please note that the effects of global warming are built on real life scientific knowledge. Not some backyard computer coding. Do you disagree that, with a warming atmosphere, certain tropical diseases will have a much wider spread? Do you deny that a warming SST will cause hurricanes?

Answer 7

I've heard this garbage before, and it is completely unfounded. Frankly, climate modeling was practically the first application of computers, so people have been doing this for about 60 years. Just because Beam isn't involved in programming climate models he thinks the people that are are incompetent. What arrogance.



Go back to your web Java programming or whatever it is that you do Beam.

Answer 8

"They do not find a qualified software engineer to write their code, they write it themselves."



lol wow. This question is so stupid that I hope for your own sake you're a troll, because you're making your fellow deniers look bad, not that they need much help.

Answer 9

Paul Crutzen, Nobel prize winning chemist for his work on the ozone layer, and strong advocate of urgent action on AGW, got into science through computing and codewriting.



See



http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/crutzen-lecture.html



http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes

/chemistry/laureates/1995

/crutzen-lecture.html



I am still amazed at how ludicrously AGW deniers assert that anyone who disagrees with them must be incompetent.

Answer 10

What does this have to do with anything?