Sign in to follow this  
AFTiger

Time Blocks Science from Publication

Recommended Posts

On 9/14/2019 at 8:55 AM, TitanTiger said:

If they were pressured into this by Obama, and now are not under that pressure (even perhaps pressured toward the opposite conclusion under Trump), then why would they continue to have this posted on their site?  Now that our hero Donald Trump has freed them from politically motivated biases on climate science, shouldn't NASA be joyfully and swiftly coming out and expressing their doubts?

I don't think President Trump has freed them from political pressure. When the pressure comes from him it will be to push in the opposite direction. Why this has yet to happen is anybody's guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




Is the science settled yet on how many genders there are? Is Time going to stop publishing info that contradicts the "settled" science on that? Just wondering? This seems to be a political issue and not a scientific one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Is the science settled yet on how many genders there are? Is Time going to stop publishing info that contradicts the "settled" science on that? Just wondering? This seems to be a political issue and not a scientific one.

AGW is settled scientifically.

What we do about it is political.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, AFTiger said:

Ah, once again, Homer attacks the author but not the content. The 97% consensus story has been debunked six ways from Sunday. Just as with Michael Mann's paper, you cling to false narratives to maintain you beliefs.

Fossil fuels are absolutely necessary for modern life, else we go back to pre-industrial life. Many studies indicate that CO2 is not the volume knob for climate warming. http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/.

 

Also https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1986049/Hurricanes-are-not-caused-by-global-warming.html.

 

There is always room for skepticism in science. Questioning "consensus" leads to breakthroughs. Try it sometime.

Consensus on Consensus - Cook et al. (2016)

Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi OreskesPeter DoranWilliam AndereggBart VerheggenEd MaibachJ. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

consensus studies

Expert consensus results on the question of human-caused global warming among the previous studies published by the co-authors of Cook et al. (2016). Illustration: John Cook.  Available on the SkS Graphics page

consensus vs expertise

Scientific consensus on human-caused global warming as compared to the expertise of the surveyed sample. There’s a strong correlation between consensus and climate science expertise. Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page

Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill. The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists. Crucially, as we note in our paper:

Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a gateway belief, affecting other climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support.

That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They’ve been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the “consensus gap.” Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%.

Lead author John Cook explaining the team’s 2016 consensus paper.

Skeptical Science's 2013 'The Consensus Project'

Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process.  A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.  In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers.  Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.


Oreskes 2004 and Peiser

A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes' survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

Doran 2009

Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.

poll_scientists.gif
Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

Anderegg 2010

This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.

Consensus_publications.gif
Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010).

Vision Prize

The Vision Prize is an online poll of scientists about climate risk.  It is an impartial and independent research platform for incentivized polling of experts on important scientific issues that are relevant to policymakers. In addition to assessing the views of scientists, Vision Prize asked its expert participants to predict the views of their scientific colleagues.  The participant affiliations and fields are illustrated in Figure 3.

vision prize participants

Figure 3: Vision Prize participant affiliations and fields

As this figure shows, the majority (~85%) of participants are academics, and approximately half of all participants are Earth Scientists.  Thus the average climate science expertise of the participants is quite good.

Approximately 90% of participants responded that human activity has had a primary influence over global temperatures over the past 250 years, with the other 10% answering that it has been a secondary cause, and none answering either that humans have had no influence or that temperatures have not increased.  Note also that the participants expected less than 80% to peg humans as the primary cause, and a few percent to say humans have no influence - the consensus was significantly better than the participants anticipated (Figure 4).

vision Q1

Figure 4: Vision Prize answers and expected distribution to the question "What influence has human activity had on global average ocean temperatures in the last 250 years?"

Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

The Academies of Science from 80 different countries all endorse the consensus.

NAS consensus

13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

  • Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
  • Royal Society of Canada
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • Academie des Sciences (France)
  • Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
  • Indian National Science Academy
  • Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
  • Science Council of Japan
  • Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
  • Russian Academy of Sciences
  • Academy of Science of South Africa
  • Royal Society (United Kingdom)
  • National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

  • African Academy of Sciences
  • Cameroon Academy of Sciences
  • Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
  • Kenya National Academy of Sciences
  • Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
  • Nigerian Academy of Sciences
  • l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
  • Uganda National Academy of Sciences
  • Academy of Science of South Africa
  • Tanzania Academy of Sciences
  • Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
  • Zambia Academy of Sciences
  • Sudan Academy of Sciences

Other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:

Update January 28, 2017:
Some broken links were updated in the rebuttal. In addition, please check out the recent article Joint Statements on Climate Change from National Academies of Science Around the World published by Peter Gleick on his Significant Figures blog.

 

Last updated on 29 January 2017 by dana1981.

View Archives

Edited by homersapien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, AFTiger said:

Ah, once again, Homer attacks the author but not the content. The 97% consensus story has been debunked six ways from Sunday. Just as with Michael Mann's paper, you cling to false narratives to maintain you beliefs.

The author is a shill for special interests. He is not a scientist nor does he understand the science. And there was no content to debate - only opinion that is formed from the special interests he represents.

Quote

Fossil fuels are absolutely necessary for modern life, else we go back to pre-industrial life.

BS. 

At one point, draft animals were considered to be "absolutely necessary for modern life".  I suggest you read up on the potential of solar energy, not to mention nuclear energy.

And regardless of the "truth" of that statement, it has nothing to do with the reality of facing global warming.  It is an illogical non-sequitur. 

 

 

Edited by homersapien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, AFTiger said:
On 9/14/2019 at 12:04 PM, metafour said:

Spoken like someone who has no understanding of the pitfalls of the scientific process.

Scientists aren't immune to biases, and in fact, many of them suffer among the worst hubris imaginable.  The validity of the peer review process is highly debatable, and in highly theoretical fields like "climate change" the flaws are amplified.  Let me guess, you believe that "science" is a field of only truths and facts? That once something is "peer reviewed" it becomes dogma? Science is in fact littered with politics, egoism, and self-indulgence.  Read over your key line carefully: "97% of ACTIVELY PUBLISHING"...who is granted the right to actively publish? 97% of a sample agreeing on ANYTHING is highly dubious at best, and yet how can the agreement level be so high on something so vague and open ended as "climate change"? Do you honestly believe that "97% agree", or is it possible that "climate science" has become a field wherein only one opinion is permitted and as such only those that parrot said opinion are "peer reviewed" and published?

Also https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1986049/Hurricanes-are-not-caused-by-global-warming.html.

 

There is always room for skepticism in science. Questioning "consensus" leads to breakthroughs. Try it sometime.

Actually, 97% represents the finding of only four studies.  Results of all studies on the question found: consensus studies

   

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

And it is you who doesn't sound very familiar with how science works.  AGW is not "vague" or "open ended".  It's established fact.  The only thing vague or open ended about it is the ultimate extent of the effects it will have if ignored.

It's the sort of thing a person would say if they accepted the reality of AGW but feel there is nothing to be done about it.

That's not true.  It shows an ignorance of alternative energy sources, and a  lack of imagination.  It's pure defeatism.

Edited by homersapien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2019 at 9:28 AM, Mikey said:

I don't buy the 97% figure simply because I doubt the honesty of the source. NASA was heavily pressured by the Obama Administration to support global warming. Now I suppose the Trump Administration is doing the opposite. High level gov't employees don't have to agree with the administration, but they must support the administration's position if they want to keep their jobs.

NASA didn't conduct the studies examining scientific consensus on the matter.  They - being the good scientists they are - simply agree with them.

Sounds like you are really in the "Chinese Hoax" camp.  :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2019 at 10:28 AM, TexasTiger said:

Looked up one of those guys. Admits he doesn’t know much about the technical facts involved.

“Dyson's views on global warming have been criticized.[23] Climate scientist James Hansen said that Dyson "doesn't know what he's talking about.... If he's going to wander into something with major consequences for humanity and other life on the planet, then he should first do his homework—which he obviously has not done on global warming."[23]:140 Dyson replied that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it's rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."[62]

You can go down every single person on this list and uncover their mistaken beliefs and statements.

For example, here's the background on the first person, David Bellamy (a botanist)

Views on global warming

In his foreword to the 1989 book The Greenhouse Effect,[19] Bellamy wrote:

The profligate demands of humankind are causing far reaching changes to the atmosphere of planet Earth, of this there is no doubt. Earth's temperature is showing an upward swing, the so-called greenhouse effect, now a subject of international concern. The greenhouse effect may melt the glaciers and ice caps of the world causing the sea to rise and flood many of our great cities and much of our best farmland.

Bellamy's later statements on global warming indicate that he subsequently changed his views completely. A letter he published on 16 April 2005 in New Scientist asserted that a large percentage (555 of 625) of the glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were advancing, not retreating.[20] George Monbiot of The Guardian tracked down Bellamy's original source for this information and found that it was from discredited data originally published by Fred Singer, who claimed to have obtained these figures from a 1989 article in the journal Science: however, Monbiot proved that this article had never existed.[21] Bellamy has since accepted that his figures on glaciers were wrong, and announced in a letter to The Sunday Times in 2005 that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming",[22] ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consensus from cherry picking isn't actual science, it is political science.

AGW isn't now, nor is it likely to be "settled science" in the near future, and it sure as heck isn't "established fact".  Claiming such is just another attempt at avoiding the actual scientific debates that should be taking place.  Huge difference between having some effect and driving the entire global climate. It requires a monumental leap of faith, which is apparently easy for the non-scientist types, with a heavy political lean and a side order of confirmation bias. Throw in some virtue signaling, reliance on emotional response, fear mongering, an affinity for the overly dramatic and a propensity for awarding yourselves the mantle of "saviors of humanity" and you have the absolute craziness that's been propagating from the progressives over the past several years.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, AFTiger said:

You need to study the 97% number more. There is plenty of information. The peer review system has been corrupted by the science community see Dr. Roy Spencer. But you are wedded to your version and vehemently reject the input of respected scientists. 

Ah yes, Dr. Roy Spencer. The deniers "go to" scientist, a paid shill for "The Heartland Institute". 

His claims have been debunked at length on previous threads concerning this topic.

His claim to fame was based on satellite data supposedly proving the earth was not getting warmer by measuring the temperature of upper levels of the atmosphere.  It was later proven false for several reasons, including the fact he didn't factor in orbital decay.  (Of course most of the additional heat from AGW is absorbed in the oceans.)

 

Edited by homersapien
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Consensus from cherry picking isn't actual science, it is political science.

AGW isn't now, nor is it likely to be "settled science" in the near future, and it sure as heck isn't "established fact".  Claiming such is just another attempt at avoiding the actual scientific debates that should be taking place.  Huge difference between having some effect and driving the entire global climate. It requires a monumental leap of faith, which is apparently easy for the non-scientist types, with a heavy political lean and a side order of confirmation bias. Throw in some virtue signaling, reliance on emotional response, fear mongering, an affinity for the overly dramatic and a propensity for awarding yourselves the mantle of "saviors of humanity" and you have the absolute craziness that's been propagating from the progressives over the past several years.  

This is just unadulterated, ignorant BS. 

BTW, what is your scientific background? 

(I have a BS and a MS and have published in peer-reviewed journals.  I spent about 15 years conducting applied research and hold 8 patents.)

The cross-disciplinary evidence for AGW is overwhelming, which is exactly why there is scientific consensus on the matter.  It is fact.

But you believe what you want. (And ironically, it is you who obviously relies on political motivation to underwrite those beliefs.)

Your political "beliefs" won't count for squat going against physics.

  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

BS and a MS

In what? 

I also hold a BS in Mechanical Engineering, am professionally licensed, and have over 25 years experience practicing in the field .  Similar to Bill Nye, but I am licensed and didn't cut my career short to become a comedian/children's show host/political activist.  If you need a clown to make balloon animals at a kids' party though, he's your guy.

However, working for the types of clients I have over the years, patents weren't necessarily a desired pursuit for the individual. My name is on a few, but that's never been a goal of mine.

Had I considered staying in academia, perhaps I'd be driven to research and publish in peer reviewed journals, but it's not something that's generally done in the industrial arena. My wife, and some of my coworkers/acquaintances are, and do. It's a different environment. 

Regardless, the 'evidence' for AGW is neither 'overwhelming', nor is it 'fact', and your rather obvious political bias in the belief that the "Magic Molecule" that exists in .04% of the atmosphere, and of which only 1.4 molecules/10,000 is actually attributable to humans is driving the global climate,  also doesn't make it true. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When climate alarmists do climate studies, guess the result.

Unlike Homer, Spencer is a real climate scientist

Edited by AFTiger
  • Like 1
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

When climate alarmists do climate studies, guess the result.

Unlike Homer, Spencer is a real climate scientist

Kind of a scary era when scientific opinion becomes "settled" fact.  I suspect that vast majority of scientists offering their opinion have never closely examined the research nor done true research on their own.  Like Time Magazine, I suspect many of those questioned just accept what their hear or the summaries published on the subject.....and it is for certain that it is much easier to go along and get along if you are looking for grants.  

In the modern scientific world  the new scientific method seems involve establishing a hypothesis and then seeing if you can accumulate enough data to validate that pre-conceived thought. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Regardless, the 'evidence' for AGW is neither 'overwhelming', nor is it 'fact', and your rather obvious political bias in the belief that the "Magic Molecule" that exists in .04% of the atmosphere, and of which only 1.4 molecules/10,000 is actually attributable to humans is driving the global climate,  also doesn't make it true. 

 

In my experience, Engineers are not particularly proficient in science. 

This is an excellent example of why.

  • Thanks 1
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, AFTiger said:

When climate alarmists do climate studies, guess the result.

Unlike Homer, Spencer is a real climate scientist

Who is flat out wrong in his position on AGW.

(Not to mention his being paid for being wrong.)

 

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/roy-spencer/

Climate Asylum

A Republican Scientist Advocates Sane Energy Policies 

Roy Spencer is one of the few climate contrarians with real credentials.  That doesn’t stop him from propagating some real whoppers, however.  Here I’ve collected links to critiques of Roy’s work.  I’m starting with the posts I’ve made on my blog, including my 3-part review of his new book, The Great Global Warming Blunder:  How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists.

Christy and Spencer’s Satellite Temperature Record Mistake

1. Andy Revkin writes about the episode in the New York Times.

Dr. Spencer Goes to Salt Lake City

1. Politicizing Science.  Roy Spencer testified before a committee of the Utah House of Representatives.  Read all about what he said, and the response of local scientists and politicians.

The Great Global Warming Blunder

1. Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1.  In his latest book, The Great Global Warming Blunder, Roy Spencer lashes out at the rest of the climate science community for either ignoring or suppressing publication of his research.  This research, he claims, virtually proves that the climate models used by the IPCC respond much too sensitively to external “forcing” due to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, variations in solar radiation, and so on.  Instead, Spencer believes most climate change is caused by chaotic, natural variations in cloud cover.  He and a colleague published a peer-reviewed paper in which they used a simple climate model to show that these chaotic variations could cause patterns in satellite data that would lead climatologists to believe the climate is significantly more sensitive to external forcing than it really is.  Spencer admits, however, that his results may only apply to very short timescales.  Since the publication of his book, furthermore, other scientists (including one that initially gave Spencer’s paper a favorable review) have shown that Spencer was only able to obtain this result by assuming unrealistic values for various model parameters.

2. Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2.  Roy Spencer repeatedly claims that most of the rest of the climate science community deliberately ignores natural sources of climate variation, but then contradicts himself by launching an inept attack on the standard explanation for climate change during the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last million years (i.e., they are initiated by Milankovitch cycles).  The problems Spencer identifies are either red herrings or have been resolved, however, and he proposes no other explanation to take the place of the standard one.  In fact, climate scientists have used paleoclimate data such as that for the ice ages to show that climate sensitivity is likely to be close to the range the IPCC favors.  Therefore, it appears Roy Spencer is the one who wants to sweep established sources of natural climate variation under the rug.

3. Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3.  Roy Spencer posits that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is linked to chaotic variations in global cloud cover over multi-decadal timescales, and thus has been the major driver of climate change over the 20th century.  To test this hypothesis, he fit the output of a simple climate model, driven by the PDO, to temperature anomaly data for the 20th century.  He found he could obtain a reasonable fit, but to do so he had to use five (he says four) adjustable parameters.  The values he obtained for these parameters fit well with his overall hypothesis, but in fact, other values that are both more physically plausible and go against his hypothesis would give equally good results.  Spencer only reported the values that agreed with his hypothesis, however.  Roy Spencer has established a clear track record of throwing out acutely insufficient evidence for his ideas, and then complaining that his colleagues are intellectually lazy and biased when they are not immediately convinced.

Blog Posts

1. Roy Spencer’s Non-Response.  Many of Roy’s readers were asking him to respond to my 3-part review of The Great Global Warming Blunder, which Roy said he wrote because he couldn’t get some of his work published in the peer-reviewed literature.  (Due to foul play, naturally.)  Now he says he won’t waste time responding to blog critiques, because he’s too busy trying to get his work published in the peer-reviewed literature.

2. Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet.  Roy Spencer has come up with yet another “silver bullet” to show that climate sensitivity is lower than IPCC estimates.  I.e., he fits a simple 1-box climate model to the net flux of heat into the upper 700 m of the ocean, and infers a climate sensitivity of only about 1 °C (2x CO2).  There are several flaws in his methods–inconsistent  initial conditions, failure to use the appropriate data, and failure to account for ocean heating deeper than 700 m.  (He fixed the last one in an update.)  All of these flaws pushed his model to produce a lower climate sensitivity estimate.  When the flaws are corrected, the model estimates climate sensitivities of at least 3 °C, which is the IPCC’s central estimate.  In any case, a simple 1-box climate model does not appear to be adequate for this kind of analysis over only a few decades.  But while Spencer’s latest effort doesn’t really do any damage to the consensus position, it turns out that it does directly contradict the work he promoted in The Great Global Warming Blunder.

3. Just Put the Model Down, Roy.  Roy Spencer’s wild and crazy curve-fitting adventures never seem to end!  The following excerpt from my critique says it all.  “Well, give me more than 30 parameters, and I can fit a trans-dimensional lizard-goat and make rainbow monkeys shoot out its rear end.”

L’Affaire Spencer

1. Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback (RealClimate.org).  Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell published a paper in which they once again botched their statistics in an attempt to show that the climate sensitivities of standard climate models are too high.  This created a media bubble, with some media outlets claiming a “gaping hole” had been blown in global warming “alarmism”.  Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo took it apart on the RealClimate blog.

2. Remote Sensing Editor Resigns Over Spencer/Braswell Paper.  The editor of S&B’s paper figured out that the criticisms of the paper were devastating, and that S&B had ignored previously published research that they should have addressed in their paper.  Given the big media frenzy, the editor decided to resign (probably to save his journal from a reputation for publishing anything submitted.)

3. Roy Spencer Persecuted by Own Data.  Roy Spencer’s latest paper, published in Remote Sensing, supposedly “blew a gaping hole” in the standard theory of climate change.  A new paper by Andrew Dessler shows that this is just another in a long string of Roy’s faulty claims to prove that climate sensitivity is lower than previously thought.  The main problem in all of these attempts has been rampant abuse of statistics.  Typically, Roy would brush off such criticisms, relying on the statistical naïveté of his core audience and the media, and claim he is being persecuted by the “IPCC gatekeepers”.  In this case, one of Dessler’s figures shows very clearly how Spencer and his co-author Danny Braswell left out of their analysis all the data that didn’t fit with their hypothesis.  It’s so clear that even people who don’t know much about statistics can see the problem.  There is no running from this one–no claiming that Spencer is being persecuted–unless he wants us to believe he’s being persecuted by his own data.

4. Roy Spencer Responds With More Excuses.  Spencer responded to Dessler’s criticisms by misconstruing some of the arguments and sweeping away the statistical concept of “error bars” with a wave of his hand.  He also couldn’t understand why he needed to report all that missing data.

5. Remote Sensing Publishes Rebuttal.  Remote Sensing published a rebuttal to Spencer and Braswell’s paper.  The rebuttal, written by Kevin Trenberth, John Fasullo, and John Abraham, is mostly based on an earlier RealClimate post by Trenberth and Fasullo, but tidied up and updated for publication.

 

He also refutes the Theory of Evolution, which only forms the foundation of all biological and related sciences.  In short, he's a wacko who knows how to market his wackiness.

 
 
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing the Lord's Work' Heartland Institute Gathers Climate Deniers For America First Energy Conference

By Graham Readfearn • Monday, August 6, 2018

image.png

One of the world’s most notorious climate science denial groups — the Heartland Institute — will gather its supporters and fellow ideologues this week for a one-day energy conference in Louisiana.

Aside from the conference’s fanatical devotion to fossil fuels, the line-up includes the usual pushers of junk science who are sure that every major science academy in the world is wrong about the dangers of adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

Gathering at the conference will be “hundreds of state and national elected officials, think tank leaders, and policy analysts.”

Front and center in New Orleans will be Fred Palmer, a veteran coal industry lobbyist who was behind what was probably the very first fossil-fuel funded attacks on the science linking coal burning to dangerous climate change. 

After more than 30 years with the Western Fuels Association and then coal giant Peabody, Palmer now spends his time as a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute. 

Shortly after Donald Trump won the U.S. Presidency, Palmer told DeSmog that he would be “reaching out to the fossil fuel community” for cash to fund the institute. This would be added to the more than $5 million the institute has received from major Trump financial backer Robert Mercer, the hedge fund billionaire whose daughter Rebekah Mercer was a key member of the President’s transition team.

Given the backing of the Mercers, it’s perhaps not surprising that Heartland has borrowed the title of Trump’s energy policy in holding its “America First Energy Conference.”

A favorite talking point from climate science deniers around the world — including those at the Heartland Institute — is that governments and scientists around the world have adopted climate science as a new “green religion” and it’s this fanaticism that is clouding their judgment.

Heartland likes to pitch global warming as “facts vs faith,” as a “green religion,” and to tell its followers that environmentalism is like a church where climate change is the new religion.

This is a curious position to take, when you compare it to the beliefs of Fred Palmer and other speakers at the Heartland conference. Quite literally, they believe that coal was put there by a god for humans to use.

It’s hard not to concede that coal hasn’t been put on Earth and other fossil fuels as part of a divine plan,” Palmer has told DeSmog.

In July 2018, Palmer gave a speech to the Western Conservative Summit in Colorado. In audio obtained by DeSmog, Palmer says of Heartland’s efforts on climate change: “We are, I know, doing the Lord’s work.”

But this literal religious zeal is not restricted to Palmer at Heartland’s conference this week.

One session — titled Why CO2 Emissions are not a climate crisis — includes panelists Dr. Roy Spencer and Professor David Legates, who are both old hands at pushing back on all that green religion.

In 2015, Legates was featured in a series of videos attacking climate science and environmentalism produced by the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

There has to be a designer — a creator behind this to make something as complex as it is, yet as robust as it is,” says Legates.

To be a true Christian means you have to believe and understand what we are being taught through the Bible and through God’s word.”

Scheduled beside Legates on the Heartland Institute panel is Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville. 

Spencer once wrote that he had analyzed Biblical claims that “the universe and all life within it had been created by some greater intelligent Being, not by mere chance.”

His conclusion? The “theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution.”

There are many well-credentialed climate scientists who are also people of faith. 

But the argument from denialists that climate scientists are blinded by their own faith in a “climate change religion,” belies their own quite literal belief that they are doing the work of god.

As a presumably god-given debating tactic, it’s as flawed as their science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, homersapien said:

In my experience, Engineers are not particularly proficient in science. 

And it's my experience that scientists quickly acquire tunnel vision, become mired in theory and struggle with real world application. Engineers are at least held accountable for mistakes. 

Not to mention, the reliance on research funding and the pressure to publish have the tendency to drive conclusions. It's human nature.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

And it's my experience that scientists quickly acquire tunnel vision, become mired in theory and struggle with real world application. Engineers are at least held accountable for mistakes. 

Not to mention, the reliance on research funding and the pressure to publish have the tendency to drive conclusions. It's human nature.

AGW is observable. It's not just theory.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2019 at 11:35 AM, homersapien said:

AGW is settled scientifically.

What we do about it is political.

Only in your world Homer. Not settled for anyone with a brain not polluted with politics. 

  • Like 3
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, homersapien said:

AGW is observable. It's not just theory.

CO2 emissions having "some" effect is observable as is urban heat island effect, but that is a light year away from driving the entire global climate.  Unverifiable claims, biased computer model output and conjecture are made however to affect global economic restructuring. Now that, is the political science part.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

CO2 emissions having "some" effect is observable as is urban heat island effect, but that is a light year away from driving the entire global climate.  Unverifiable claims, biased computer model output and conjecture are made however to affect global economic restructuring. Now that, is the political science part.

You know, a good engineer would see real opportunity in our need to shift our paradigms regarding energy use.  Instead, you stick your head in the sand.

You believe what you want to believe.  We'll see how things play out over the next few decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the hottest summer on record for the Northern Hemisphere

Hot enough for you?

The Northern Hemisphere just sweltered through its hottest summer on record, scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Monday.

A whopping 90% of the population of the Earth lives in the Northern Hemisphere, where all five of its warmest summers have occurred in the past five years.

For the planet as a whole, the three months were the second-hottest on record. (June-August is winter in the Southern Hemisphere). Only 2016 was warmer, NOAA said. The overall trend is one of heat: Nine of the 10 highest June-August global surface temperatures have occurred since 2009.

Records go back to 1880.

"Record-warm temperatures during the three-month period were present across parts of the western coast of Alaska, Mexico, western and southern Africa, South America, Europe and Asia," NOAA said in a statement. "Africa had its warmest June-August on record." 

In Europe, Austria had its second-warmest summer on record, while Germany and France had their third-warmest summers. 

No land or ocean areas had a record-cold June-August temperature.

Record-shattering heat wave: 'It's scary. This isn't the way it's supposed to be.'

It was the second-hottest August on record for the planet, as Arctic sea ice melted to its second-smallest August area, NOAA said.

When asked about the record summer warmth, University of Georgia meteorologist Marshall Shepherd said that it's "more of the same. Sadly, this is not breaking news anymore but a new reality punctuated by deadly heatwaves through Europe, the U.S. and even the Arctic."

To date, 2019 is the third-warmest year on record, trailing only 2016 and 2017.  "It is virtually certain that 2019 will end among the top five warm years and will most likely finish among the 2nd, 3rd or 4th warmest year on record," NOAA said.

Weather Underground meteorologist Jeff Masters said the "near-record global warmth in 2019 is all the more remarkable since it is occurring during the minimum of the weakest solar cycle in 100+ years, and during a year when a strong El Niño has not been present."

El Niño is a natural warming of seawater in the tropical Pacific Ocean.

"Record-warm global temperatures typically occur during strong El Niño events, and when the solar cycle is near its maximum," Masters said. "The near-record warmth of 2019 is thus a testament to how greatly human-caused global warming is impacting the planet."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You know, a good engineer would see real opportunity in our need to shift our paradigms regarding energy use.  Instead, you stick your head in the sand.

You believe what you want to believe.  We'll see how things play out over the next few decades.

I never said I didn't think we should continue to develop more efficient fuels, energy sources, recycling programs, cleaner air/water, etc...All good things.

Installing inefficient solar arrays and wind farms all over the landscape (that also require energy to manufacture, and use less than desirable materials in the process, and required continual maintenance) which cannot sustain dense power grids,  and drive skyrocketing energy prices to the point many cannot afford to heat or cool their homes in the event of extreme weather, under the guise of CAGW may not be the best use of our time or resources.  Scaring kids with alarmist BS, allowing them to skip school for extended periods of time, and using them as puppets/mascots for political purposes probably not the best approach either.  I'd add, that ships of fools getting caught in the arctic ice every year or two, or gluing yourselves to the tarmac in desperation might also not be the wisest of choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this