Slashdot Mirror
New NASA Data Casts Doubt On Global Warming Models
bonch writes "Satellite data from NASA covering 2000 through 2011 cast doubt on current computer models predicting global warming, according to a new study. The data shows that much less heat is retained by carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere than is assumed in current models. 'There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans,' said Dr. Roy Spencer, a co-author of the study and research scientist at the University of Alabama." Note: the press release about the study is somewhat less over the top.
This is just a plot by Bush Cheney & Big Oil to destroy the world!! Now hurry up with the organic hempseed paint so I can finish my sign protesting Nuclear power plants and solar power plants that despoil Nature's beauty and wind turbines that spoil the views of multimillionares in Nantucket!! We won't save the world until China produces everything because there's no pollution in China!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
We should follow wherever the data leads. That's science. Up till now, the data has suggested that global warming is very real.
I really wish the people at the Heartland Institute are right. I really do. I'd hate to witness major migrations because farming conditions dramatically change across the globe. But I also really, really wish they'd drop the sensational language (alarmist models, etc), because I'd able to actually take them seriously. Not to mention that I also would like to see them actually properly quote the papers they reference. For example, the abstract in this particular paper is actually far less strong than what the venerable James Taylor says.
Abstract:
"The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains
the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.
Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is
largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing,
probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and
likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite
and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While
the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of
lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we
find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy
in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that
atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due
primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in
satellite radiative budget observations. "
James Taylor: "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism"
Go fuck yourself with a chainsaw, James Taylor.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I'll wait for some peer review to decide whether this guy is on to something or whether his findings are nothing but hot air (pun intended).
A few notes about TFA:
1) The data comes from satellites put into space by NASA, but NASA is in no way involved in this study.
2) If this study actually significantly contradicts our knowledge of global heating, why has it been published in Remote Sensing, and not a more reputable journal?
3) They only interviewed the guy from the University of Alabama who lead the study
4) The author works for The Heartland Institute
5) They seem to have replaced the words "accurate" and "accepted by the scientific community" with "alarmist"
6) Source on UN's involvement? Seems like they threw that one in just to go for the "UN = bad" reaction that a lot of people have
Alarmist marklar!
Alarmist alarmist alarmist alarmist, marklar alarmist alarmist alarmist.
Marklar.
Dr Roy Spencer is a creationist. A proponent of intelligent design.
His work has been largely criticized in the peer review literature.
The guy who wrote this article is a little biased. The original paper is available online for those who want to see what it really has to say.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
I thought the evidence was pretty clear that global temperatures are already rising significantly. This only seems to affect predictive models - global warming may not continue to increase as much as we previously thought, although temperatures are already pretty elevated.
"The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere is approximately 391 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of 2011.." https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere So does that mean that CO2 is .03% of our atmosphere (That is clost to 4 one-hundredths of one percent.)? While I agree that we should not be dumping crap into the atmosphere I still don't see how "doubling" this particular gas over the medium o long term should have any real noticeable effect on our climate.
Look more noise from Dr. Roy Spencer intelligent design proponent global warming denier. I would feel guilty if I was using this person's history on the subject and ignore the science but it looks again like he's ignoring the science to push an agenda. Who gave us this wonderful article? Why our own timothy, Slashdot's barely literate "editor". We need to buy him more paste to eat so he'll stop posting this bullshit.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
In other words, bullshit from a libertarian think-tank. Par for the course.
Why should they be conflicted?
http://www.wmich.edu/corekids/Climate-Change.htm
Any child in the audience for that webpage can take one look at the graph of temperature vs. CO2 and tell how well-correlated they are.
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical03.jsp
The same child can tell from this graph that CO2 began rising sharply at the beginning of the 1900s and was followed by a very well-correlated rise in temperature.
These aren't models, they're data. If modellers have any problems, it's with their ability to create a mathematical theory to predict temperature from CO2. The Earth does a rather fantastic job of it experimentally, and a non-formulaic, table-driven, statistical method of predicting temperature from CO2 falls out of the data. Using that, plus the rather easy deduction that fossil-fuel consumption created the rise in CO2 over the past century, anyone with any idea what science actually is can tell you that if we don't start to turn that curve flat or down, the temperature will continue to rise along with the CO2.
No conflict there at all, except one manufactured by an industry that pays scientists to pretend they're telling the truth when in fact they're working for the industry.
Anyone who is inclined to give a lot of weight to this "alarmist" press release should first read this, on a previous paper from Roy Spencer. Note this
what he gets through peer-review is far less threatening to the mainstream picture of anthropogenic global warming than you’d think from the spin he puts on it in press releases, presentations and the blogosphere.
Now, also read the paper, and note this
It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.
Hmm, doesn't sound like the press release or the Forbes article much, does it ?
Use the above and your judgement to figure out just how much weight to give the above.
So this is supposed to cast doubt on his credentials as a climate scientist... how, exactly?
Someone can give all the contrary (and unliked) opinions they want on subjects they have no credential or authority in. Hell, we do it all the time on ./
OTOH, the man had to have posted his hypotheses and proofs somewhere... why not attack those, instead of attacking him?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The author of this fine piece is a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank that seems to think global warming is some sort of fairy tale. This is the same group that worked with Phillip Morris to deny the link between second hand smoke and lung cancer. It would be fantastic for Forbes, Yahoo!, or maybe even Timothy make some effort to mention that this is essentially an OpEd posing as a news report. Instead we get this bullshit that's going to pull in the teenage libertarian "See global warming is made up!" short bus riders.
Slashdot: News for nerds, some of our editors are actually retarded.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Actually climatological modellers, the only people who can really speak authoritatively on the subject have been conflicted for a while. That's actually the best argument against global warming, but most deniers are so mindnumbingly stupid they miss that. Based on what I've read on the subject I am unconvinced of warming; but the risk is sufficiently high that the relatively low costs and side benefits of moving to alternative fuels and capping emissions is worth it.
The cost of capping carbon emissions is 'low' relative to what? You understand that carbon emissions are involved in EVERY act of production and distribution in the world. Just building a system to assess the appropriate fees is a huge expensive undertaking... and the frictional costs (it will surely be like a VAT)... and the fact that when everything is more expensive to make and use, we will make and use less of everything... and the corruption and distortions of giving regulators a new stranglehold on all economic activity... and the fact that alternative fuels are all much more expensive than the traditional choices*. THIS is what you call "relatively low cost"?!
I am not making any statement here about the reality of AGW. We ordinary citizens can't know that, at least not yet... but we already do know what is necessarily involved in a planetwide carbon tax. Your state is just epically wrong, so much so that I think you are practicing deception with an agenda.
*Yes yes I know about oil wars. I also know about wars over the next set of choke points: selenium, lithium, uranium, cadmium, etc.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
So this is supposed to cast doubt on his credentials as a climate scientist... how, exactly?
Someone can give all the contrary (and unliked) opinions they want on subjects they have no credential or authority in. Hell, we do it all the time on ./
OTOH, the man had to have posted his hypotheses and proofs somewhere... why not attack those, instead of attacking him?
I agree with you, the several postings criticizing him about intelligent design is like saying you can't agree with his opinions on good muffins because he eats steaks too.
I'm not looking at your data, just need to say that correlation does not mean causation.
I don't have the scientific background to assess his work on climate change.
But I do have the scientific background to assess his work on evolution, and from that I know he is some combination of a) a really crappy scientist, and/or b) someone willing to lie/misrepresent science to further their own beliefs.
Either criteria gives me ample reason to doubt any article he's published. If some qualified and credible scientists investigate and vouch for his paper than I may be willing to give it a second thought. But until then I'm not going to take the word of a known quack just because I'm not trained to disprove his particular brand of quackery.
I stole this Sig
Here is another article.
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
It must be the heat from the armies of the Dark Lord Sauron building their underground weapons factories.
Pay no attention to the droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and scorching summers the agency that couldn't plan a new heavy lift rocket program says everything is hinky dinky.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Certain denialist-friendly scientists from Alabama (Christie & Spencer) put out results which appeared to "deny" the mainstream results, claiming that the mismatch indicated that the ground measurements were contaminated by "heat islands".
The scientifically honest community found the problem, it was an error in processing the satellite calibration (orbital parameters), once corrected, the satellite data matched the ground data (which was not especially contaminated, this effect is well known and calibrated by normal scientists).
The same 3 or 4 denialist friendly scientists get more press than the thousands of anonymous and honest scientists whose results in aggregate fully support the fact of significant increase in greenhouse warming from human modification of the atmosphere.
It is strange that neo-cons are desperate to kill R&D on this, when in reality, most of the climatologist would love to DISPROVE GW. The reason is that they would be a HUGE name .
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"Satellite data" is always calibrated with ground data. That's how it works.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
So this is supposed to cast doubt on his credentials as a climate scientist... how, exactly?
It casts doubt on his ability to reason. We're not talking about some abstract religious notions, he's opposing what is globally accepted in the scientific community, and is backed up by countless, independent research initiatives. These days, it's on par with being geocentric.
I agree that the right thing to do is "attack" the research, and not the author, but in some cases it's relevant to be aware of where the data is coming from.
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
No, but his repeated ineptitude regarding his own work should cast a bit of doubt on what he says.
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
Even when looking at graphs that "any child" should be able to interpret, you've got it backwards. If you look critically, you'll find that CO2 increases trail temperature increases.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
We don't live in an ideal world where all scientists treat data objectively. We live in a world where some scientists have a religious and political agenda. In this real world, not all ad hominem arguments are ad hominem fallacies.
When someone has a history of publishing peer reviewed articles that do not make very bold or striking claims, and then making press releases that do make bold and unsubstantiated claims, it is necessary to point that history out, lest uninformed readers conclude that the unsubstantiated claims are what has been peer reviewed.
Any claim that CO2 is not causing global temperature increase is an unsubstantiated claim and is not what has been peer reviewed here.
Someone can give all the contrary (and unliked) opinions they want on subjects they have no credential or authority in. Hell, we do it all the time on ./
Such a totally bogus opinion in any field does tend to cast suspicion on his ability to separate fact from his own fantasy. But then again, I once saw a man argue passionately that he had found the genetic basis for, the proof positive of, inferior intelligence of certain races. His argument was laughably bogus, even to me with my very thin background. Can't remember the guy's name, but he had won a Nobel prize for his work in chemistry...
Up till now, the data has suggested that global warming is very real.
Data can show anything you want, based on what you want to "prove". This is called Confirmation Bias ("a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true").
It's sorta like the parable about the blind men and the elephant:
More important than interpretation of the data we do have is finding ways to make data out of information that is currently unavailable. To my knowledge, there are currently no efforts being made to measure the cyclical nature of underwater volcanic activity.
How do changes in a subsurface volcanic activity influence temperatures on the surface of the ocean? The El Niño/La Niña temperature swing is currently unexplained ("Mechanisms that cause the oscillation remain under study")... Perhaps it's the volcanoes, but those are hard to measure.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Mendel didn't have the information we have now. Newton was a devout christian, but if he were born in the 20th century, his view of the world would likely have been different. We're not talking about believing in Ra in ancient egypt -- we're talking about not "believing" in logic in the 21st century.
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
I don't have the scientific credentials to question either. However, the article throws around statements like "warming caused by carbon dioxide (not much)" without any material backing it up. I find the average article about alien landings in National Enquirer more compelling. How does this guy rate a /. post?
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
Yes, GW evidence by itself is irrefutable. However, if carbon is much less of a factor than previously thought, then this would make human contribution less significant. Also, remember that we're talking about very complex systems here, with a lot of boundary conditions. It may be possible that e.g. previous estimates resulted in models with a positive feedback loop (warming leading to more warming), where in the new model there isn't one - which would significantly revise down the predicted long-term temperature increase.
Evolution is much more obvious than climate change. If he's a creationist, he's rejected overwhelming evidence in favor of his own beliefs. That does call into question his abilities to interpret data.
Evolution is the basis for all modern medical and biological science.
For some "scientist" to claim that Intelligent Design is a science (hint: it cannot be falsified so it is not) does call into question all their other "scientific" claims.
And before anyone goes into "religious beliefs" ... that's irrelevant. Even the Pope and the Catholic Church have accepted the evidence of evolution.
If the model is flawed, then one should show the flaw in the model... casting doubt on his ability to reason intelligently by referring to the man's beliefs, believing them to be those of a person not capable of clear and cogent thought, as a means of creating doubt for his presentation is not a genuinely valid logical refutation for his conclusions.
I'm not saying the guy's right... I'm just saying it's not a valid argument to attempt to discredit him by referring to his other beliefs. If he's wrong, then evidence should discredit his model... not him.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I'm guessing it ended up on slashdot because climate change deniers, like evolution deniers, throw a royal tantrum when they're "suppressed." Better to put their dribble up for public commentary, where it will take the beating it deserves.
Dr Roy Spencer is a legitimate scientist and also global warming critic. The stuff he publishes is based on real science and real data. Critics of any scientific hypothesis are important as they help refine or disprove the science which ultimately makes the result stronger.
People who try to discredit him by bringing up his views on evolution or his sources of funding are engaging in logical fallacies. The only legitimate arguments are to evaluate his ideas in a scientific context.
Are his ideas popular or mainstream? No they are not. Most climate scientists think there are alternative models and result that refute his work.
Unfortunately the Heartland Institute and similar organizations is use his work for political ends making it appear from time to time on internet fora.
Look closely Slashdot readers - the author of that FORBES article: "James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute. All you have to do is wiki 'The Heartland Institute.' and you'll see what a sham of an organization they are! By no means should this posting on /. give any credence to the debate!
In fact if this kind of posting continues, I'll have to conclude that our beloved /. has been overrun by the well-heeled unqualified purveyors of snake oil typically heard on conservative talk radio.
Now we don't want that to happen....RIGHT?
Please have respect for people with different abilities, especially children.
the Tea Party is wrong
Yes.
the trillion of new debt spent on "stimulus" was actually very effective
It created millions of jobs, as intended. So yes. It just wasn't big enough to stem the rising tide of unemployment entirely.
the key to economic growth actually is to hugely increase deficit spending
Yup. The government can borrow at lower rates than the rest of us, and use the money to provide us with a safety net so that we can take risks in spending more, helping to break the self-sustaining cycle of a recession. Just look at how poorly austerity plans have worked out when used.
to raise the rate at which we tax the economy
Not until the recession is over, ideally, but yes. You need to raise money in the good times to pay for the bad times.
then this guy will also be wrong
He's a creationist (i.e. prone to believing what he wants to believe) and on the payroll of people who have a pre-existing interest in casting doubt on global warming. So yeah, he's probably wrong.
NASA's data will show the exact opposite of what he says it does
Quite possibly. We'll have to wait for other, more trustworthy scientists to evaluate it. But we'd be fools to take this guy at his word.
Remote Sensing (ISSN 2072-4292), an open access journal about the science and application of remote sensing technology, is published by MDPI online monthly.
Were the reviewers qualified to review this paper? I don't know.
Is this a high quality journal? I don't know.
Did he submit this to a zillion journals until he got lucky and one finally accepted it? I don't know.
What I do know is that if it is a crank paper, it wouldn't be the first one to get into a peer reviewed journal. Peer-review doesn't automatically make something "science", standing up to continued scrutiny by critical and qualified people makes something science. Peer-review is just one of many filters.
I stole this Sig
Given Newton's involvement in alchemy, I'm pretty sure if he were born in the late 20th century he'd be calling up J.Z. Knight and asking her to channel the ancient Atlantean warrior Ramtha to get his advice on things.
Seriously.
Newton was a fine mathematician, a fine physicist, and a grade-A first-class believer in all the woo-woo the 17th century had to offer him.
Made me laugh. Pielke is the guy who argues - essentially - that since the neighborhood is burning and that is a larger problem, you shouldn't do anything about the fact that your house is on fire. http://motherjones.com/environment/2008/10/qa-roger-pielke-sr
Very useful guy if you're making a fortune generating greenhouse gases...you can use him to argue that you should be left alone until such time as slash-and-burn agriculture is outlawed.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
The paper doesn't do anything close to what the summary suggests, nor what either story suggests. The submitter is basically trolling it up.
The paper is available for all to read here: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
Basically, they are talking about lack of model sensitivity for non-radiative feedback, which is something that was already known. The models on a MONTHLY basis don't go high enough on the maximums and don't go low enough on the minimums (and there is a lag). Or in other words, the models get the general predictions right (warmer temperatures) but don't capture shorter term variability as well (heat waves, cold snaps).
Of course, it's already well known that climate models don't capture short term variability very well. However, this paper helps quantify that and provides some insights on how to better improve that aspect of modeling.
Or if you don't want to read the whole paper just skip to the conclusions sections, which mention nothing about invalidating global warming or the science thereof.
How that gets translated into "New Study Trashes Global Warming" is beyond me.
~X~
And I did not say that it did.
Gregor Mendel was a monk in a monastery.
I wouldn't say "reduces".
If a scientist cannot tell that an unfalsifiable claim is not science then he is not to be trusted with any other "scientific claims" he makes.
I'm saying that both should be done.
His "science" should be dismissed because he's demonstrated that he either does not understand it or is willing to sell his "professional" claims.
And there is nothing wrong with any data being reviewed by any scientist at any time.
The problem with dealing with fake science is that it is useless. The practitioners keep "moving the goal posts" and will mis-quote anyone who critiques their work.
The Intelligent Design "debate" is a great example of that.
I thought I'd look into this journal to see its impact factor and other metrics that would let me know if it is a reputable source. It is not indexed by ISI/Web of Science, so it has no published impact factor. Google scholar only picks up a few articles from this journal, most of which have been cited 0 or 1 time only. While this doesn't automatically negate the authors' findings, it says to me that no reputable journal wanted to publish it.
Here's more: Climate Change Debunked? Not So Fast
Slashdot editors, please try to remember that a single paper normally doesn't overturn scientific understanding, and try to avoid habitual hype sources. Thanks.
mt
If this is truly the case you can pretty much just blame the skeptics for it. We could have reached this conclusion much earlier had they not been making jack asses of themselves and standing in the way of research.
Similar for stem cell research, putting up roadblocks to research doesn't change reality, it does however slow the process of determining the truth.
We'll see your climate model and raise you one. And while both sides are busy bluffing, maybe an actual useful model can be developed. In the mean time, its all a stalling tactic.
This is a serious issue about which we really haven't got much of a clue. There are those who don't want anything done. There are those who have invested in various investment scams and are waiting for them to begin paying off. And there are those who would like to get something locked down in law and treaty that we'll be stuck with for generations after we realize it was all based on bad, or poorly informed science.
The economic consequences of whatever we do will be major. So the last thing we need is to make irreversible laws based on incomplete science. On the other hand, we can take steps to evaluate some of the possible fixes now, keeping in mind that the work done might have to be thrown out if refined models suggest that we really need to regulate something else.
Have gnu, will travel.
If a scientist of any field rejects evolution and supports intelligent design then I will consider that scientist either wholly dishonest or a crank and I'll ignore all and any work by that scientist.
It's just a very simple and effective heuristic that weeds out many dishonest people and cranks without significant number of false positives. It is possible, like I assume you are suggesting, that some morsel of valid work might get left out, but that is the much more acceptable outcome. I can't even read everything that I know to be important, so I will not spend my time on works of liars and cranks.
Mark-t, rejecting evolution does and should discredit a scientist. Their work should be not used in the public arena and they should not have any effect on policies. This is not ad hominem attack nor is it faulty logic ("not a valid argument"). This about calling out bad faith actors: among scientists, only dishonest or crank scientists reject evolution.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
While I'm pretty certain that you are a troll that doesn't actually care about science that will contradict his world view. I'm going to post a citation for you anyway. I can't link to the article directly since it will be behind a paywall however it's not like you were going to read them anyway (and if you did you wouldn't understand it). You can find the abstract if you google for the article name for most of them (an abstract is a summary of what the article says) in case you're genuinely curious.
Pope, C Arden, Richard T Burnett, Michelle C Turner, Aaron J Cohen, Daniel Krewski, Michael Jerrett, Susan M Gapstur, and Michael J Thun. 2011. Lung Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality Associated with Ambient Air Pollution and Cigarette Smoke: Shape of the Exposure-Response Relationships. Environ Health Perspect. . (ISBN: 15529924)
Troll?
Here's a citation for my statement that there's a wide range of values believed possible for CO2 sensitivity:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-3.html
Researching someone before trusting them is inarguable basic critical thinking,
"Effective"? Really? 10% of US GDP went into stimulus for about 2.5 years. This has produced less than .5% drop in unemployment. Any organization which increases its costs by 10% a year with the effect of increasing its results by .5% must be said to be mismanaged. Any manager of such an organization would be removed from the leading position regardless of "how bad things were when he took over." It doesn't matter what he inherited. He asked for a chance to fix it. The resources have been spent. It's not fixed. Time's up.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
It is a valid argument. Intelligent Design is not purely a belief, it purports to be science. Creationists have conclusions, and they spend all their "scientific" efforts on trying to make data fit those conclusions. Anyone who doesn't understand that this is completely backwards, and is most emphatically not science, is not to be taken seriously as a scientist.
You might as well say that just because a person can't do basic arithmetic is no reason to be dismissive of the likely validity of their mathematical proofs.
Spencer is a crank. And I've found Forbes very uneven. Some Forbes articles are pretty good, and some are okay. But a few are real stinkers, and this is one of them. Forbes is too easily gulled by right wing crackpots, and prints trash embarrassingly often. They do it about every other issue, and I can't recall any other mainstream magazine approaching anything close to that frequency of crap.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
So this is supposed to cast doubt on his credentials as a climate scientist... how, exactly?
His views on Intelligent Design don't cast doubt on his credentials as a climate scientist. It's mostly just an interesting talking point.
What does cast doubt on his views as a climate scientist is the fact that he signed the Cornwall Alliance Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming. This declaration basically states that the signers believe that God created a planet far too resilient for mere mortals to possibly mess it up, and that we must continue our reliance on fossil fuels. So, essentially, it doesn't matter what the data says, Dr. Spencer's faith will always trump the science. He's convinced that God would never allow AGW to occur.
Dr. Spencer is a true Denier. Nothing you can show him will shake his absolute conviction that AGW can't happen. All the data in the world will not change his mind. That is why he's not credible.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
A did you read the link?
Yes I did. And I know from experience I don't have the expertise to separate the BS from the facts when given a source like that.
And B."If some qualified and credible scientists investigate and vouch for his paper than I may be willing to give it a second thought. "
Well again if you had read the link with an open mind.
In the first paragraph ", reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. " A peer reviewed journal means that the paper was reviewed by a panel of qualified and credible scientists!
As I noted in another comment there's plenty of crank papers that have made it into peer reviewed journals, the question is how its received once it's given a wider exposure.
I really think that the term alarmist should be be used because it is an un needed and dismissive term that shows a bias. It is almost as bad as your personal attack on the author and the use of the term Quack and other personal attacks because you have "faith" in the global warming caused by increased man made CO2.
Let me make this one thing clear. Any personal attacks on the author completely blows any creditability you have as a so called "rational" thinker. Being a true rational thinker means just looking at the data in a scientific way.
If I attacked the author because he liked to dance around in pink women's undergarments that would be poor thinking.
But if I attack the author because he has a proven record of pushing bad science when it comes to evolution that's just common sense. If you disagree with me than go hire Bernie Madoff as your accountant, I'm sure he can give you a very convincing argument of why he's a good hire.
Rational thinking doesn't mean doing a complete and rigorous study of ever single question you encounter. It means making the best use of the information you have. And in this case I have more than enough data to suggest I can write this paper off as a crank until I see evidence from people qualified to review it that it's not BS. Spending the months/years of research required to definitively tell if the paper was good on my own would be frankly insane.
Sorry to be blunt but "I don't know enough to question this but I will dismiss this study because the author believes this unrelated thing" is just wrong. Just read the meat of article and toss out the journalistic "spice" and you may actually find it interesting.
Did you read the guys raving about ID? Imagine you don't know anything about evolution or biology. Would you really be able to call out all the BS in that?
You KNOW he distorts scientific facts, you KNOW he comes to bad conclusions. Do you really think you have the knowledge and training to read his paper and identify which statements are BS? Unless you already have some expertise in that field, or are looking to develop some, reading that paper is just a waste of time.
I stole this Sig
This is simply not true.
It is obvious
Did Roy Spencer get no funding? Christie? Soon and Baloonis?
It is easier to get funding if you are against the consensus on climate change, because institutions like the heartland institute will throw money at the most remotely implausible weak arguments of the aforementioned published authors.
If there was a grain of truth in what these guys said, then they would be rock stars in the scientific community. But science relies on cogent arguments, and not political sides.
What you said is self-evidently not true.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Wait -- our leaders are taking the problem of global warming seriously and are tackling solving the problem?
Could have fooled me. I thought they were ignoring global warming and arguing about an arbitrary self-imposed debt limit in an attempt to gain political points while not actually addressing the root issue in any meaningful way.
when the press release would have done quite nicely.
That is the problem with climate "journalism", the truth is not enough, it has to be tweaked by an agenda, just a little. Then the next "Journalist" picks up the story, and tweaks it a little more. In the end it's picked up by a Murdoch paper in an illegal phone tab, and once it hits Fox news, it's a whole new story.
No one bothers to go back and check the sources any more.
It is sad that truth have to take a back seat to sensationalism. If the truth is even allowed in at all.
So this is supposed to cast doubt on his credentials as a climate scientist... how, exactly?
Someone can give all the contrary (and unliked) opinions they want on subjects they have no credential or authority in. Hell, we do it all the time on ./
OTOH, the man had to have posted his hypotheses and proofs somewhere... why not attack those, instead of attacking him?
The ad hominem attack can in fact be logically correct, if the "attack on the person" casts doubt as to that person's ability to reason. For instance, if I said that scientist A recently argued that he sees little fairies and he can prove it, or that he has consistently lied and falsified data on previous papers, then I would say that this casts doubt on the credibility of scientist A. It does not prove his hypotheses wrong, but it does cast doubt on them.
Contrast this with a real ad hominem attack: imagine a nazi rejects the findings of scientist B because, and only because the scientist is Jewish. Being Jewish would seem to have no effect on a person's ability to reason, nor would it cast doubt on the person's credibility. The nazi has demonstrated a logical fallacy.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Oh good grief, did you read the references on the site you linked to? You're still talking about "Mike's Nature trick" as if it meant something. Here's a hint: "Nature" is a respected scientific journal. If "Mike's Nature Trick" was any sort of foul play, the journal would have retracted his paper. It didn't. I wonder why?
Here's what "Mike's Nature Trick" really is: since the 1960s, some tree ring data does not match instrumental temperature records. For reasons we don't understand, the tree ring data shows a significant decline in surface temperatures. This does not mean that there was a real decline in surface temperatures, because we have actual instrumental measurements for those years.
What you are saying is, literally, "Throw out the actual measurements of temperature and replace them with a known-to-be incorrect proxy for measurements of temperature". You're saying "throw out all that data gathered by people with actual thermometers, and instead use data based on the width of tree rings. The only criteria for this is because I like the trees better, even though they currently disagree with almost every other direct measurement or proxy measurement."
Well actually no, you're not saying that - you're just endorsing a website that says that. I can only hope that you, yourself, would not say something so stupid.
NASA or the Syfy channel?
So where's the beating? I haven't yet seen a refutation of the data in the study. Just a bunch of lame terminology like "climate change deniers."
There are tons of flaws in today's global warming models, which is obvious if you actually read the reports. Several scientists even admit they are inaccurate. Unfortunately, tons of urban hippies have hijacked the movement and turned it into the same old religious belief that seems to be ingrained in human beings--a pristine Eden (nature) that was corrupted by sin (technology) which must be purged 'lest we face a Judgement Day (global warming and all the kooky things it's claimed to cause by outspoken liberals, from poverty to racism to wars). If it's not Christianity, it's environmentalism.
The article in Forbes is written by a fellow for the Heartland Institute, one of the numerous front organizations for the coal and oil industries alongside other such groups as "CO2 is Green". The study is not peer reviewed, it has been published *for* peer review, there is a dramatic difference between the two. Beyond that, you have the issue that the study argues 180 degrees opposite to the articles claims. In short, the article is complete bunk, written by a fraud with an attempt to reinforce the positions of those who wish to kill scientific progress and research.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
In the link the article quotes Dr. Spencer as saying "“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show." The question I would ask him is "Do they show there is much less energy lost to space during and after cooling than the climate models show?" Is there a balance between the two situations? How well do climate models simulate the long term balance?
"inarguable" - I disagree :)
It's good to know whether you should take what someone says with a grain of salt, I'll give you that. But for a true debate, it's logical fallacy.
If one were to argue that the guy is biased to the degree that he'd be willing to proffer fraudulent data, his background and motives are fair game - I don't see anyone making this point though, so the data itself should be taken at face value.
Real scientists are contrite enough to reevaluate their hypotheses in light of inconsistent data, regardless of the source.