[lug] Anyone else hate to get rid of old equipment?

[Nate Duehr]

On 5/26/2010 2:43 PM, Davide Del Vento wrote:
> Would you like to disproof this finding? Write your own model (or
> modify an existing one, they're open source), using sound physics,
> chemistry or even biology if you'd like to include vegetation growth
> (yes, some models already do that - and it's not enough to "correct"
> the CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere). Have your model able to
> accurately predict the past and current, measured, status of the
> climate. Have your model predict the same results (within the accuracy
> of the measurements and of the computation) with or without the human
> greenhouse emissions.
>    

There's a serious problem here with this... a scientist today might 
spend his/her entire life to do exactly that.

In that life, they need someone to pay the bills.  That person, in the 
U.S., is either government research money (you and I are paying for it) 
or private funding (biased probably from the get-go).

Our assumption when we pay government to do a scientific study, because 
none of us has the time or resources necessary to put in a lifetime's  
work -- is that they're paying both sides in any particular study topic, 
equally.  They don't.

Is there any person at NCAR who is DIRECTLY tasked in their job 
description (even one?) with attempting to debunk a single paper 
produced at NCAR?

I know OTHER academics may take shots at them, but that's a "may"... 
with public money there should be a "must" for a check of how the 
money's being spent.

And yes it costs more that way, and less research gets done.

Nate