From http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools...:

In other words, the model isn't ready/reliable. Perhaps you'd better stop staring at the Sun for so long, AC: the risks to your health are much greater than those posed by Global Warming.

So says the article that we lack "the ability to adequately process the need for the whole species' long-term survival". Evolution sets forth that we compete with members of our species for resources, caring most about what happens to our relatives (those who have the most-in-common DNA). The reason we don't care what happens to the "whole species" is because that is worse for us as individuals, in the context of the propagation of our DNA.

Oh, and climate change doesn't concern the "whole species" either. It concerns only those who have beach-front property and those who will have to move from arid landscapes. The "whole species" will do fine through GW.

And if you read the website for the Fifth CMIP (at your link on the first page), you'll see that it:

The snippet from the press release doesn't identify the model(s) used; it doesn't even specify a model associated with the Fifth CMIP. So even if one were do "dig around" as you suggest, he would still have no idea what model(s) were used to generate their projections. Now when you get around to wrapping your head around that, then you can turn in your ignorance to overlooking the admission on the CMIP website that (1) the models they consider produce significantly different projections and (2) the feedbacks are "poorly understood".

Have a nice day.

Is it a supposition on your part that there's any code there to verify, do you think?

I'm talking about the code they used to generate the projections in their release. Without being able to examine the and develop opinions about its reliability/applicability to the real world, the projections contain nothing more valuable than what can be found in an advertisement for an expensive vitamin supplement.

Now if they'd only make available [1] the models (as in code) used to generate those projections and [2] a supercomputer to run it on, then someone could actually use this. The historical data has been available to interested scientists for a long time: releasing it to the public on a website provides only the appearance of openness. Without the transparency of how those projections were generated, the value of them is the same as a press release from a known politically-biased entity. (Yes, I'm talking about the Obama administration, which can't stop the endless string of daily press releases likely to be contradicted a couple of Tuesdays later.)

The reason there is little research against global warming theories is because that effort is unpopular, in terms of funding. Universities, the government, etc. all want to claim they are fixing a problem. No one wants to fund a study that doesn't make a showing of "progress".

When the proponents of GW come up with confirmable theories (ones that don't require the "adjustment" of collected data and last more than a year or two), then they shall have my ear.

Please don't inject intelligent thinking into the discussion. It will confuse the pundits.

Unlike what the promoters of GW have been saying, this revision of their theories doesn't confirm their theories either.

If the data isn't accurate enough to explain the disparities in the data, then it isn't accurate enough to explain a theory of man-made global warming either.

So you think that all of the temperature readings (as a whole) taken from the ships all have the same offset error, over only a particular about 15 year period (but not before and after)? Really? I hope that such a correction is not a common one to make: it would make the conclusions of these "scientists" even more suspect.

I don't need to spend my reading time in the annals of junk science.

I think you're missing the point (perhaps intentionally). If these "scientists" can't reliably predict collected data, why should we trust their computer models? The inaccuracies in the data they speak of can't be explained by errors due to limited resolution. Statistics says that such errors would be in both directions (for and against their conclusions). Their problem is that they have no explanation for the data adverse to their position, other than to call it "inaccurate".

And you're playing the old trick of shifting the burden of proof. It is not up to me to disprove what they have to say: it is their burden to show that they are correct. When what they have to say doesn't stand up to the light of criticism (by their peer scientists), they haven't met their burden.

I decline your invitation to play with Chicken Little.

FTA:

May I ask a question or two?

1. They admit that they're using inaccurate data. Why should we trust the conclusions they reach?
2. The population has grown a great deal over the "last century" (and correspondingly the amount of carbon dioxide released). Why would the warming rate now be "virtually identical" to that from 100 years ago?

I can get more reliable information from people living in the psych ward. Can we please stop having every word from these kooks published as "scientific research", please?

So, in other words, these models were specifically made for and distributed by an ISP, and were not off-the-shelf models. The backdoors were there for the ISP managers. For 99% of network users out there, these vulnerabilities are of no practical concern.

Because merely attaching one work to another is probably not a "work of authorship" under the copyright statutes. Originality is only one part of that. If there were something unique or artistic about the combination, then perhaps...

No, those works would be merely transformative in nature, and would not be copyright-eligible.