Hacker News Reader

Comment by Oletros | Hacker News Reader

> No, I think that the data has been adjusted, sometimes purposefully and sometimes unknowingly, in a direction which results in more warming due to the peer pressure involved.

Any example of those pressures?

> Then, we have scientists who make models which should be falsifiable, but instead of declaring that the models don't work when they fail to match reality, they make adjustments to "fit the curve".

Any example of those fittings?

A lot of talking of "the left" like demons but none of you can't give just one example of those falsifications. Perhaps because there is none and "some right" is just inventing them?

View on HN

I looked into this deeply about six months ago. I don't remember the specifics.

There's a paper out there where two completely separate groups of scientists disagree with each other on what the adjustments to the data should be. These are not alarmist versus deniers, these are both alarmist scientists who think it's a big problem.

They both can't be correct. Someone is making incorrect adjustments.

As to the models, when the models failed to predict reality, they should have been thrown out. But they keep turning out revision after revision of the models, which continue to fail to predict the future.

You cannot claim that models are predictive of anything until they have successfully predicted actual reality, but what these scientists are doing are saying "well, the models didn't predict well, but we made adjustments and now they predict better), which means nothing. For all we know, the adjustments could've made the predictions worse.

The other side defends by stating that the models are the best we have, but I would argue that they are worse than nothing. They have gone from being wildly inaccurate, to just somewhat inaccurate.

Of course I don't have any proof, because the internal deliberations are not public, the code for the models is not public, and the revisions to the data and models are not public.

Frankly, I'd be very happy if they would release the source code for the models so we could see what a clusterfuck they are.

> As to the models, when the models failed to predict reality, they should have been thrown out.

What models have failed to predict reality?, all the models have failed?

> Of course I don't have any proof, because the internal deliberations are not public, the code for the models is not public, and the revisions to the data and models are not public.

Really?

> Frankly, I'd be very happy if they would release the source code for the models so we could see what a clusterfuck they are.

So, you don't have any proof, you don't know that the IPCC models have been aligned with reality but you claim that they are a clusterfuck.

I think that you didn't look very deeply, or perhaps, you deep only on some sites that are not very scientifics.

Of course I don't have any proof. If I had proof, there wouldn't be any discussion.

A five minute Google search will show you that the vast majority of the models have ranged from being somewhat inaccurate to wildly inaccurate all in the direction of predicting more global warming.

Furthermore, I'm not aware of any other models with publicly released source code. In my opinion, that's ridiculous, since people want us to literally re-organize the economy around these predictions.

Do you want to defend the idea of keeping the source code for the models private?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com