Great, if you want to take Roy Spencer's word, that is or course fine. Spencer has dedicated himself to scrapping up whatever arguments he can make about how climate change is wrong. You can read the academic discourse on his paper on his very own website -- perhaps that will be illuminating =0.
I would hold that anybody not emotionally invested in one side being correct (tea partiers or hard-core environmentalists) will be able to easily come to a conclusion on what is happening in the climate science debate by:
Learning the history of how these types of debates occur
Reading the academic discourse on the topic
A very clear pattern emerges with remarkable speed.
You have a few dozen different ways to measure temperature and sensitivity, and either they fall into two categories: those that agree, and those that are known to be unreliable. Obviously denialists are going to harp on about the known unknowns, but that does not detract from the merits of well known temperature records.
Only one side is cherry-picking here, and it is simple to work this out for yourself. Just note that scientists respond to/all/ arguments in/detail/, and denialists skip and dance around, and never respond to criticisms of their own arguments..
You are correct that a nerve has been hit -- there is plain old bloody-mindedness at play. But your analysis is wrong. Read the book, and learn the history of how the politically savvy bully scientists who are generally just interested in the facts of their domain.
The argument of the relative middle ground is *precisely* how astro-turf organisations like Heartland and Marshall spread FUD. They take an extreme position, drum up a lot of noise, and then watch as "reasonable" people say "the truth must be somewhere in-between". This has been documented in history time and time again, and is orchestrated by the same people. It is really fascinating to learn about how this part of the public discourse works.
One of the interesting things about all of this is that key people, such as Frank Luntzfreely admit that they are manipulating the discourse on climate change, and it simply makes no difference.
(And very rarely does anyone say why a model is unrealistic or incorrect.)
On the contrary, climate scientists say *exactly* why the model is wrong. (Not that discussion is published on Roy Spencer's website.) Unfortunately the details don't fit between two commercials, and many simply don't want to hear it anyway.
I disagree with your premises. Why would we need any carbon tax if global warming is beneficial to the biosphere and humanity as a whole (see: Medieval Warm Period).
A carbon tax need not be revenue positive (like the proposed Australian model), and thus is not a way for the government to raise money, but rather to bias the economy towards new technology.
As for the medieval warm period, that is a well known debunked denialist canard, but for some reason it just keeps coming up over and over again, like someone isn't listening.
There is actually no known denialist argument that has not been resounded debunked, and we are talking about a/lot/ of arguments.
The libertarian position does not work in situations where there is going to be a tragedy of the commons -- such as climate change. Pure and simple.
There is another religion which says that the earth has endless resources, and that pollution and waste do not matter. We killed or the dodos, but who cares, right? There are/endless/ species of birds for us to kill, and land to ruin, and oceans to pollute.
Ideologies aside, there is a rational discussion about economic concerns, which is what adults are having on this issue.
It worries me how many legitimate articles on climate change may be hiding because they are against current predictions and models, and researchers are fearing public lynching . It's truly worrying.
There is no need to worry. Anti-consensus articles have no trouble seeing the light of day even when they are chock full of specious reasoning. Anti-consensus scientists have no trouble getting funding (e.g. Soon, Baliunas, Spencer, Chritie, McIntyre, McKitrick). These articles are thoroughly examined and debunked every time. (See here for an example of scientific discourse on these issues.)
You can verify all of this YOURSELF, with minimal effort.
The only people who receive death threats are legitimate climate scientists, such as Michael Mann.
There is no satellite equivalent to a thermometer reading. The extrapolation of temperature relies on complex poorly understood models. For that reason, the climate science community to not rely on it for anything, but instead try to improve the models to understand how microwaves leave the surface and clouds.
You, sir, are looking at a strawman if you think this has anything to do with the scientific consensus.
There is only one side to the science. The other side talk and don't listen. They are not scientists, except for a handful such as Roy Spencer. You can count them on one hand, and they publish peer reviewed work, and what they publish really has nothing to do with the spin that is put on it.
As for the paranoid/cynical content of your post -- go take some political studies courses at university. It is fascinating stuff, and the world is far more interesting then we could ever fantasize about. Nothing is what it seems in politics, but at a certain level, everything is as it seems. Politics is really complex and very interesting.
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.
Dr Roy Spencer is a legitimate scientist and also global warming critic.
Roy Spencer is an intelligent designer, and his views on climate science garner a similar amount of respect. He is entitled to his views, and his work is thoroughly checked and correct, but there is a disparity between what he publishes, and the spin he puts on it in his blog-o-sphere. And then denialists amp up the spin an order of magnitude.
There is nothing to see here, unless you are interested in the internal dynamics of the climate change "debate".
You are correct, there is only a tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. What is important is how much that CO2 warms the atmosphere. This is the sensitivity question, which is much discussed in literature.
Not every gas or molecule is the same. For example, you can inject teaspoon of water into your blood just fine, but a tiny fraction of that of most neuro-toxins will kill you.
If you look critically [wordpress.com], you'll find that CO2 increases trail temperature increases.
The temp-leads-co2 canard has been answered decades ago. It is not surprising that denialists keep bringing it up, because they never bother to learn what they are talking about.
You can learn why the graphs are the way they are here.
I agree that ad hominems are annoying. The point is, if Michael Mann was saying this, there would be some credibility to this claims. Roy Spencer has a history of specious claims and reasoning. His claims will be assess, as they always have been.
At odds 1000-1, I would say that this paper will quickly sink to oblivion in the scientific community because it has elementary mistakes in it. Denialists will use it as proof that they are right, ignore or never learn about any mistakes, and the paper will have its intended political effect. Roy Spencer will continue believing what he does, but not fix his unfixable mistakes because he cannot. Instead, he will seek a new angle to attack climate science.
I could be wrong, but my odds are 1000-1, because we've seen this happen so many times before.
Given Roy Spencer's history in this debate, there will be scathing rebuttal to this paper that points out elementary mistakes that Spencer never bothers to correct.
This is *exactly* how to spread doubt on the issue.
I too hope that the climate scientists are wrong, but Spencer has little credibility. Be that as it may, his arguments will be analysed, because real scientists examine and assess all arguments -- unlike denialists, who just talk.
The hold up is that someone needs to make an actual cogent argument. Nobody who knows anything about this topic has done that. Monckon et al. just spout nonsense, which is easy enough to see if you actually CHECK INTO HIS CLAIMS. You only need to check two or three, because his fidelity is about 90% wrong.
You think the scientists at the CRU had a legal responsibility to release the data? You're wrong.
LOL! Rotfl! The joke is on you pal. If you RTFA, you will see that they/still/ couldn't get permission to release all the data.
I suspect you are not one of those "information should just be free" FOSS people (maybe you are). More likely, you just want to hold scientists to irrational standards, because that is easier then educating yourself.
One common crooked arguing technique is to jump around from point to point, never stopping long enough to conceed that anything is wrong. Using this technique, a denialist can cover enough ground to make it/seem/ like that are correct, when in fact, almost everything they say is garbage.
Your comment is a perfect case in point. We were talking about UEA data not being what scientists say it is. Your proof? Something that you heard from Watts about/different/ data.
*Every* denialist argument has already been responded to -- many of the over a *decade* ago. But with ears fully shut, denialists just keep spinning new thoughts about how they are "correct". This is the natural human mechanisms of pathological denial.
I could show that you are wrong about the "single" yamal bristlecone canard, but the my understanding of the human condition is that that would be pointless.
As for James Speed an his Sheep hypothesis -- that was only just published, so I will be waiting to see how the story develops. Somehow I think you already have you mind made up -- you have found your silver bullet that destroys evidence in 1000s of papers.
There've been far too many outright lies not to mention people spouting off on things they know nothing about in this argument alone. Which is why I'd like a few more checks on funded research.
Not believing either side is what you tell yourself. Not believe anything that scientists say (without going the distance to actually dig into it) is what what you are actually doing.
Slashdot Mirror
I would hold that anybody not emotionally invested in one side being correct (tea partiers or hard-core environmentalists) will be able to easily come to a conclusion on what is happening in the climate science debate by:
A very clear pattern emerges with remarkable speed.
You have a few dozen different ways to measure temperature and sensitivity, and either they fall into two categories: those that agree, and those that are known to be unreliable. Obviously denialists are going to harp on about the known unknowns, but that does not detract from the merits of well known temperature records.
/all/ arguments in /detail/, and denialists skip and dance around, and never respond to criticisms of their own arguments..
Only one side is cherry-picking here, and it is simple to work this out for yourself. Just note that scientists respond to
and by saying that it is not possible to track this function, this blows a hole in the previous theories.
Nobody uses the satellite temperature record for the very reasons that Roy Spencer talks about in his paper. Never have, and maybe never will.
You are correct that a nerve has been hit -- there is plain old bloody-mindedness at play. But your analysis is wrong. Read the book, and learn the history of how the politically savvy bully scientists who are generally just interested in the facts of their domain.
Both sides call each other names.
The argument of the relative middle ground is *precisely* how astro-turf organisations like Heartland and Marshall spread FUD. They take an extreme position, drum up a lot of noise, and then watch as "reasonable" people say "the truth must be somewhere in-between". This has been documented in history time and time again, and is orchestrated by the same people. It is really fascinating to learn about how this part of the public discourse works.
One of the interesting things about all of this is that key people, such as Frank Luntz freely admit that they are manipulating the discourse on climate change, and it simply makes no difference.
(And very rarely does anyone say why a model is unrealistic or incorrect.)
On the contrary, climate scientists say *exactly* why the model is wrong. (Not that discussion is published on Roy Spencer's website.) Unfortunately the details don't fit between two commercials, and many simply don't want to hear it anyway.
I disagree with your premises. Why would we need any carbon tax if global warming is beneficial to the biosphere and humanity as a whole (see: Medieval Warm Period).
A carbon tax need not be revenue positive (like the proposed Australian model), and thus is not a way for the government to raise money, but rather to bias the economy towards new technology.
/lot/ of arguments.
As for the medieval warm period, that is a well known debunked denialist canard, but for some reason it just keeps coming up over and over again, like someone isn't listening.
There is actually no known denialist argument that has not been resounded debunked, and we are talking about a
The libertarian position does not work in situations where there is going to be a tragedy of the commons -- such as climate change. Pure and simple.
There is another religion which says that the earth has endless resources, and that pollution and waste do not matter. We killed or the dodos, but who cares, right? There are /endless/ species of birds for us to kill, and land to ruin, and oceans to pollute.
Ideologies aside, there is a rational discussion about economic concerns, which is what adults are having on this issue.
It worries me how many legitimate articles on climate change may be hiding because they are against current predictions and models, and researchers are fearing public lynching . It's truly worrying.
There is no need to worry. Anti-consensus articles have no trouble seeing the light of day even when they are chock full of specious reasoning. Anti-consensus scientists have no trouble getting funding (e.g. Soon, Baliunas, Spencer, Chritie, McIntyre, McKitrick). These articles are thoroughly examined and debunked every time. (See here for an example of scientific discourse on these issues.)
You can verify all of this YOURSELF, with minimal effort.
The only people who receive death threats are legitimate climate scientists, such as Michael Mann.
I verified these things for myself, to my own satisfaction. (I have a background in the hard sciences, but not climate science.)
This 10 min clip speaks to that questions you bring up. I dare you to sit all the way through it.
There is no satellite equivalent to a thermometer reading. The extrapolation of temperature relies on complex poorly understood models. For that reason, the climate science community to not rely on it for anything, but instead try to improve the models to understand how microwaves leave the surface and clouds. You, sir, are looking at a strawman if you think this has anything to do with the scientific consensus.
I don't trust either side on the science
There is only one side to the science. The other side talk and don't listen. They are not scientists, except for a handful such as Roy Spencer. You can count them on one hand, and they publish peer reviewed work, and what they publish really has nothing to do with the spin that is put on it.
You can read about it in this book if you are really interested.
As for the paranoid/cynical content of your post -- go take some political studies courses at university. It is fascinating stuff, and the world is far more interesting then we could ever fantasize about. Nothing is what it seems in politics, but at a certain level, everything is as it seems. Politics is really complex and very interesting.
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.
Dr Roy Spencer is a legitimate scientist and also global warming critic.
Roy Spencer is an intelligent designer, and his views on climate science garner a similar amount of respect. He is entitled to his views, and his work is thoroughly checked and correct, but there is a disparity between what he publishes, and the spin he puts on it in his blog-o-sphere. And then denialists amp up the spin an order of magnitude.
There is nothing to see here, unless you are interested in the internal dynamics of the climate change "debate".
Not just the model, but the data too.
You are correct, there is only a tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. What is important is how much that CO2 warms the atmosphere. This is the sensitivity question, which is much discussed in literature.
Not every gas or molecule is the same. For example, you can inject teaspoon of water into your blood just fine, but a tiny fraction of that of most neuro-toxins will kill you.
You can learn more about it here.
If you look critically [wordpress.com], you'll find that CO2 increases trail temperature increases.
The temp-leads-co2 canard has been answered decades ago. It is not surprising that denialists keep bringing it up, because they never bother to learn what they are talking about.
You can learn why the graphs are the way they are here.
I agree that ad hominems are annoying. The point is, if Michael Mann was saying this, there would be some credibility to this claims. Roy Spencer has a history of specious claims and reasoning. His claims will be assess, as they always have been.
At odds 1000-1, I would say that this paper will quickly sink to oblivion in the scientific community because it has elementary mistakes in it. Denialists will use it as proof that they are right, ignore or never learn about any mistakes, and the paper will have its intended political effect. Roy Spencer will continue believing what he does, but not fix his unfixable mistakes because he cannot. Instead, he will seek a new angle to attack climate science.
I could be wrong, but my odds are 1000-1, because we've seen this happen so many times before.
Given Roy Spencer's history in this debate, there will be scathing rebuttal to this paper that points out elementary mistakes that Spencer never bothers to correct.
This is *exactly* how to spread doubt on the issue.
I too hope that the climate scientists are wrong, but Spencer has little credibility. Be that as it may, his arguments will be analysed, because real scientists examine and assess all arguments -- unlike denialists, who just talk.
So what's the hold up?
The hold up is that someone needs to make an actual cogent argument. Nobody who knows anything about this topic has done that. Monckon et al. just spout nonsense, which is easy enough to see if you actually CHECK INTO HIS CLAIMS. You only need to check two or three, because his fidelity is about 90% wrong.
You think the scientists at the CRU had a legal responsibility to release the data? You're wrong.
LOL! Rotfl! The joke is on you pal. If you RTFA, you will see that they /still/ couldn't get permission to release all the data.
I suspect you are not one of those "information should just be free" FOSS people (maybe you are). More likely, you just want to hold scientists to irrational standards, because that is easier then educating yourself.
One common crooked arguing technique is to jump around from point to point, never stopping long enough to conceed that anything is wrong. Using this technique, a denialist can cover enough ground to make it /seem/ like that are correct, when in fact, almost everything they say is garbage.
/different/ data.
Your comment is a perfect case in point. We were talking about UEA data not being what scientists say it is. Your proof? Something that you heard from Watts about
*Every* denialist argument has already been responded to -- many of the over a *decade* ago. But with ears fully shut, denialists just keep spinning new thoughts about how they are "correct". This is the natural human mechanisms of pathological denial.
I could show that you are wrong about the "single" yamal bristlecone canard, but the my understanding of the human condition is that that would be pointless.
As for James Speed an his Sheep hypothesis -- that was only just published, so I will be waiting to see how the story develops. Somehow I think you already have you mind made up -- you have found your silver bullet that destroys evidence in 1000s of papers.
This is simply not true. There was some media panic over a good story, but not in the scientific community. You can learn about the history here.
There've been far too many outright lies not to mention people spouting off on things they know nothing about in this argument alone. Which is why I'd like a few more checks on funded research.
Not believing either side is what you tell yourself. Not believe anything that scientists say (without going the distance to actually dig into it) is what what you are actually doing.
Here is a short 10min clip on what we know about climate science. And then there's the oodles of public information freely available on the well-oiled denial machine.
We're seeing otherwise...
Is that your paranoid imagination, or do you have something to back that up. Didn't think so.