The other (David Evens who is actually is a specialits in creating models) speaks about how all these alarmest models out there wont show their results, algorithems and assumptions. He said he is sceptical on global warming because everyone is keeping their work hidden so no one can replicate it. So naturally it must be true because they said so. Thats not science thats BS.
um im not batting for any team here ..
any uni will come up with a answer that the sponsor will be happy with!!!
so if anybody quote's a uni must allso reaserch who is paying the bill!!!
Both of these replies demonstrate complete ignorance about how the scientific process works. As commsirac has said in an earlier reply, science is peer reviewed and seeks to find the truth, not come up with evidence to suppport just any answer you want. That would be called religion. I don't think that it's any coincidence that much of the scepticism for global warming comes out of the US where there is an established history of attempting to distort real science with religious doctrine. Many of the techniques used to generate 'doubt' over GW are the same as those used against creationism.
Peer reviewed scientific reports - i.e. published; reports don't get published unless they are reviewed for accuracy, consistency and repeatability - in quality scientific journals will not produce any conclusion not able to be substantiated. Part of a published scientific report will include the methods used to gather the data described in such a way as to ensure that it can be understood and repeated by others if necessary. That means if you disagree with the results someone else has found, you can try to prove it. The result is the truth.
In my experience and in general, people who become scientists don't do it for the money (although there are a few areas where a lot of money can be made in science, it isn't in climate change/GW). They are very bright, well educated people and could probably make a lot more money had they done something else with their lives. They do what they do, and work very hard doing it, because they are interested in the area they are studying. To try to produce a result that someone else wants to see for mercenary reasons is not consistent with that and potentially professional suicide with peer review in any case. (There have been a very few cases where that has indeed occurred).
Because of the time scale for climactic change in the past vs how quickly we have altered the climate recently, it is difficult to get sufficient data to be able to say with mathematical certainty that what we are currently seeing in terms of temperature change is a long term trend. That is not the same as saying that the data doesn't point in a particular direction. For the same reason, it's difficult to determine the extent of the changes that will occur because it's a complex system with various feedback loops and there uncertainties involved, such as the necessity to make estimates of exactly the rates at which we will be putting GH gases into the atmosphere in the future. once again that's not the same as saying the data doesn't point in a certain direction; questioning the extent of change is not the same as questioning whether or not it will occur.
It's also worth saying that research into climate change covers multiple areas of science; the question has been approached from many different angles and diverse scientific specialties, not just one or two. Are all those people in on some big conspiracy? Of course not.
