Given how much is claimed to rely of "fighting global warming" why isn't the evidence and its supporting arguments made in the open ?
The political line being spun by Labour right now is that we can't stop destroying our economic future right now by maxing up on debt because that would put the recovery in jeopardy.
However Brown and co are happy to campaign for the economic lobotomy that they claim their approach to "fightingglobal warming climate change" requires.
But the leaks from the CRU hack show us there is considerable uncertainty about what we have been told. Moves have been made to deny freedom of information requests to get at the base data. You also need the code used made available to check what is going on.
Now there are often arguments against releasing data and code, but given the claimed mass life and death cataclysms we are threatened with on the media every week by them and the economic sacrifice the Warmists demand we make, is it not time to get all the facts and arguments out in the open ?
This blog recommends that an incoming Conservative government makes a policy decision only to have its actions influenced by climate advice that comes from 100% open data and computer code sets. It may amaze you that this isn't currently the case !
Anything less will always be assumed to be a conspiracy, and may very well be the most costly error this country has ever made ( except perhaps electing Labour and having Gordon Brown in charge of the nation finances which is the biggest peace time disaster ever ).
Its time to come clean on climate change.
PS If you think this is a bit paranoid then you should nip over to Watt's up with That and look at some of the alleged CRU emails etc ( here's a good start point ) , and also research how government has been using propaganda to avoid even having a debate and to manipulate school children ( I'll be coming back to that latter in the week ).
Update: Lord Lawson is making the first step along the road to opening up the climate modelling debate by calling for an inquiry into the CRU data manipulation. See report in the Daily Telegraph here.
Also I recommend DK's skip through some of the controversy on the code comments here.
I have personally worked in a University software environment and moved into professional software engineering and what amazes me is that anyone ever thought that the scientists would be doing a better job than this. I suspect part of the problem is we don't have enough post graduate level engineers and scientists in politics.
Its easy to produce great looking graphics and startling predictions - much harder to question them and hold them to account and that needs to be done at a political level as well as scientific level ( the short comings about which are made all too obvious right now).
Further: There are growing demands for all the data and meta data and code to be placed in the open, see here.
However Brown and co are happy to campaign for the economic lobotomy that they claim their approach to "fighting
But the leaks from the CRU hack show us there is considerable uncertainty about what we have been told. Moves have been made to deny freedom of information requests to get at the base data. You also need the code used made available to check what is going on.
Now there are often arguments against releasing data and code, but given the claimed mass life and death cataclysms we are threatened with on the media every week by them and the economic sacrifice the Warmists demand we make, is it not time to get all the facts and arguments out in the open ?
This blog recommends that an incoming Conservative government makes a policy decision only to have its actions influenced by climate advice that comes from 100% open data and computer code sets. It may amaze you that this isn't currently the case !
Anything less will always be assumed to be a conspiracy, and may very well be the most costly error this country has ever made ( except perhaps electing Labour and having Gordon Brown in charge of the nation finances which is the biggest peace time disaster ever ).
Its time to come clean on climate change.
PS If you think this is a bit paranoid then you should nip over to Watt's up with That and look at some of the alleged CRU emails etc ( here's a good start point ) , and also research how government has been using propaganda to avoid even having a debate and to manipulate school children ( I'll be coming back to that latter in the week ).
Update: Lord Lawson is making the first step along the road to opening up the climate modelling debate by calling for an inquiry into the CRU data manipulation. See report in the Daily Telegraph here.
Also I recommend DK's skip through some of the controversy on the code comments here.
I have personally worked in a University software environment and moved into professional software engineering and what amazes me is that anyone ever thought that the scientists would be doing a better job than this. I suspect part of the problem is we don't have enough post graduate level engineers and scientists in politics.
Its easy to produce great looking graphics and startling predictions - much harder to question them and hold them to account and that needs to be done at a political level as well as scientific level ( the short comings about which are made all too obvious right now).
Further: There are growing demands for all the data and meta data and code to be placed in the open, see here.
3 comments:
I'll just read and not enter this one.
It's not done in the open because that would blow the whole charade, we all know that by now.
That is a very good suggestion.
There are cases where government can justify secrecy - ie when there are, or are claimed to be, inteligence sources who may be at risk. Governments get in the habit of secrecy.
However nature is not the sort opponent who is countering our moves & so there can be no justification, even in theory, for secrecy.
Post a Comment