SLRRP Software

It seems to me that every GCM(Global Climate Models) assumes that CO2 is a driving factor. Why has nobody tried making a model that assumes the opposite. Although this would not provide conclusive proof of a causal relationship at least then the modelers would be covering both bases.

As the saying goes assume makes an *ss out of u and me.

It is almost always the assumptions that you make that trip you up from seeing the truth.
James E:

Actually if a room is filled with 100% CO2 and another with similar qualities is filled with regular air. When light is shone on both rooms the CO2 filled room’s temperature will rise faster.

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm

Actually what you say may be incorrect if the paper referred to on this site is correct.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/the-available-evidence-does-not-support-fossil-fuels-as-the-source-of-elevated-concentrations-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-part-1/

There’s a lot to read so I’m just going to post it for readers to read through. I’m going to read through it myself.
Dawie:

My last comment was in reference to your comments about isotopes.
Jerry Lee:

Interesting and true. Not to mention the infrinite number of permutations of all the possible variables.

Which leads to another question? What qualifies as "good enough?" Seems all these models are run but nobody has defined what it means to be "good enough." In other words, at what point is a model’s prediction considered so bad that its results are thrown out? I don’t remember hearing anything about this.
panurge2:

Your arguments are so profound, I’ll let time be your judge.
Dana:

I take everything the the contemptible lot at Real Climate says with a grain of salt. They are extremely biased with one foot in science another in witch hunt. As in whichever scientist disagrees with their doctrine, that person is the witch.

If you are a witch then the good censoring author’s at realclimate.org have shown no scruples in how they will "attempt" to discredit your views. Even when we all know that ad hominem attacks are really just a guise to hide incompetence or a losing battle.

Case in point:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/

This is not the authorship of scientists but schoolyard bullies who punch you in the face if you do not give your lunch money to them.

Why don’t you try real scientific literature instead of their mindless banter.
I’m sorry I come off strong at times. I really don’t mean to be offensive. Just trying to get people to think for themselves.

Too many people in this world buy every "scientific" fact, even when scientists have proven time and again that they are human. They make mistakes and last but not least they are not always driven by pure motives.

Please, if you do not agree with me, at least think for yourself.
I’m going to apologize here. Dana, my remark about real science literature was uncalled for. I’m sorry.

Those are my opinions about realclimate.org. That does not mean that they are never on. I just find it hard to read that site because it is extremely filled with rhetoric.
Everybody has a bias, whether stated or unstated. It is not possible to be human without a bias.

Realclimate angers me because they have an aire of superiority. If you don’t believe what they believe, doesn’t matter what your qualifications are, your a kook. Rather than dealing with an issue they will "discredit", censor, or anything else that makes them smell like roses. They simply can not admit they are ever wrong.
Bucket22:

Scientist != infallible. (!= c lingo for not equal)

No they are not Michael Mann’s Hockey stick has been statistically discredited, by more than one source, but that doesn’t stop him from touting it as truth.

Just because a scientist is credentialed does not make him right.

Dr. Hathaway predicted Solar Cycle 24 would start in late 2006 early 2007. http://www.solarcycle24.com/news.htm
It still has not started. Does that mean the sun (a scientific fact) was wrong or the scientific consensus (a hypothesis)?

Until you can differentiate these two concepts I don’t think you have a mature understanding of science.
Bucket22:

Can I have your email so I can tell you I told you so in 50 years? Do you really think the argument for AGW is that strong?

Out of all the science disciplines in the wold Climate Science is a baby. Yet these buffoons stomp around as if they have all the answers. It is mind boggling how ridiculous the assumptions they make are.

What they are doing is akin to the Wright Brothers claiming to have mastered flight after flying their airplane for the first time.

They need to do their homework and get it right. Then in 50-100 years from now climate scientists can claim to have mastered climate science. But these scientists don’t want to do their homework and get the basis right, no these guys would rather have recognition now.
Einstein was not a published scientist when he came out with e = mc^2. Does that mean we should question its validity? the "peer-reviewed" argument only holds so much weight.
Bucket22:

Maybe you should try reading before you make comments.

Explain to me how this is not a journal?

http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm

Is it because you don’t like the what the journal says or because you really feel it is not a journal.

I could look at the headphones on my desk and tell you they are actually a computer. does not change the fact that they are headphones.
Bucket22:

"I said it’s not a reputable cited peer-reviewed journal. It’s a journal set up by like-minded political hacks."

Good one. "Discredit"(i.e. ad hominmen, look it up.) anyone you don’t wish to listen to as a hack or paid by oil. Then claim victory.

This is typical cult behavior. Religious cult leaders attain mind control over their subjects in this very manner. They brainwash their followers into believing that only they have the truth and anyone who says otherwise is not to be trusted.
Bucket22:

I’ve never seen anyone quite so versed in double speak. You claim for us to listen to any scientific writer that person needs to be credentialed and published. Then you told me that what Einstein said was okay because it went along with the consensus, in spite of his lack of credentials at the time.

Then you turn around and try to discredit other "credentialed", published, peer-reviewed scientist for no other reason than you don’t like what they have to say.

But you claim that in order for us to listen to a writer they need to be credentialed, published, "peer-reviewed" scientists? Which way is it, you can not have it both ways.?

Maybe you need to take some basic logic courses.