Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-27-11, 07:55 AM   #51
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,002
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
The alarmist were ready with the Chinese sulfate explanation for the lack of warming. (See Post #8.) In a Climategate email of January 3, 2009 from Mike MacCracken to Phil Jones and Chris Folland, the explanations the alarmists had been giving for the lack of warming were being called into question and it was suggested that they investigate the sulfate explanation:

http://assassinationscience.com/clim...1231190304.txt (near bottom of page)


Now it does appear that MacCracken believes sulfates could be a legitimate explanation. But it has been pretty well refuted both in the present case and in the slight cooling period from the '40s to the '70s. But what is more significant is that the alarmists seem to know that there must be an explanation any time it isn't warming according to there predictions and models. It never enters their minds that the explanation could possibly be that CO2 is not such an all out villain and the explanation is solar cycles, ocean circulation cycles, cosmic rays etc. and that CO2 is just a bit player to begin with. No, they know the answer and if things don't seem to be going "right" there's another reason. Theirs is a conclusion in search of evidence rather than the other way around, i.e. the scientific method.

This is also consistent with my theory that the alarmists are always trying to plug the gaping holes in their CO2 theory and do so with poor research that is easily refuted. It's epicycles and epicycles on epicycles. Epicycles all the way down.
My theory is that the lack of warming is explained by a large cloud of bullshit from warmists. The bullshit is so thick it blocks the sun.
__________________
9/11/2001 - You have awakened a sleeping giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve. - paraphrased from Yamamoto
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-11, 11:29 AM   #52
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Yet one more peer reviewed paper that is a problem for CAGW:

Tree rings more affected by sheep than by temperature:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/2...n-temperature/
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-11, 11:47 AM   #53
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDude View Post
My theory is that the lack of warming is explained by a large cloud of bullshit from warmists. The bullshit is so thick it blocks the sun.
I defer to the distinguished engineer from Michigan.

But I do have this question: Is not the bullshit cloud offset by the hot air emitted by these individuals?
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-11, 08:13 AM   #54
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Top alarmist polar bear scientist being investigated for scientific misconduct.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/07/po...rence+frame%29

Quote:
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Main polar bear alarmist put on leave, investigated
Lubos Motl

Scientific misconduct almost certainly demonstrable

You may have forgotten about it but one of the early stimuli that energized the recent wave of hysteria about the so-called "global warming" was a claimed observation of four dead polar bears floating on the sea after a thunderstorm in September 2004 - exactly when TRF was getting started.

The main relevant articles ultimately appeared in 2005 and 2006:
Potential effects of diminished sea ice on open-water swimming, mortality, and distribution of polar bears during fall in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea (2005)

Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea (2006)
The authors of the 2006 article, Charles Monnett (lead author of both articles) and Jeffrey S. Gleason, have de facto claimed that 5/6 of a group of polar bears died in a 16-year period and it's surely due to global warming and it's gonna get worse.

As the media - see e.g. AP and CBS news - just figured out, Charles Monnett, employed by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, was put on leave until the verdict about the investigation of his "integrity issues". Obama administration officials are behind the investigation: they confiscated Monnett's hard drives and notebooks, among other possible proofs.

Gleason, the second author in both papers, has told the investigators that none of the polar bears in either article had anything real to do with global warming (and they haven't even mentioned the term global warming) and Monnett has added this spin to his interpretations (which has surely sweetened his life until 2011, I add).

As you may determine if you study some literature, Charles Monnett is the world's main scientist behind the idea that polar bears are increasingly drowning because of global warming - something that added a couple of scenes to Al Gore's movie (which was a part of the investigation as well), too. Until these days, he de facto controlled the U.S. Arctic Wildlife research and decided about $50 million of its funding (see the AP report).

He was told the charges. They are related to his polar bear research and chances are 50-50 that they can either demonstrate that this whole research has been fraudulent or the same thing holds for the "climate change" interpretations of it. See Where are all the drowning polar bears? at World Climate Report (2008) for more details why Monnett's results never looked right.

It seems increasingly likely that the research backing the global warming doctrine is corrupt at every conceivable level. We can't know what the final verdict of the investigation will be - but I am pleasantly surprised that the Obama administration dares to investigate at all when the target is a top doomsday-believing would-be defender of a climatic holy cow, I mean the holy polar bear.

Just a trivial point: many people, including myself, tended to think in the past that the polar bears live near the North Pole where the ice has been diminishing in recent 3 decades (and doing many other things before that) which would clearly affect them. If you have these tendencies, you should check the map of their habitat. Of course that the normal range is on the firm land, near the Arctic Circle, far enough from the pole, and the experienced animals probably know damn well that the pack ice and especially open sea increase the likelihood of drowning. Right now in the Summer, when the ice is still receding, they're probably careful not to get too far from the land. (The minimum ice is achieved around mid September.)

Five days ago, media highlighted the observations that polar bears may swim up to 700 km without a pause.

For many reasons, I don't really think that the polar bears are endangered or threatened. But if they were, I would be a support of actions to save them and my guess is that it couldn't cost more than a billion of dollars (a fancy Mercedes for each polar bear would cost just about that). At any rate, it's preposterous to use polar bears as an argument in the attempts to reduce the integrated GDP by trillions of dollars.
This is being reported by the MSM, most notably in an AP article that has been printed by many outlets. I used Motl's article because it's the most complete and includes background.

I will add that perhaps the top polar bear expert in the world is Mitchell Taylor who has been shunned for his realistic assessments that the bears are in no danger, which is consistent with the fact that the bears' population is 3-5 times what it was in the 1970s and is now stable overall. Also, the bears can deal with less ice much better than the alarmists claim. See this article about the way Taylor has been treated:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...-warmists.html

The polar bears "endangerment" has been a fraud from the start.

Edit: It should not be overlooked that Al Gore used Monnett's studies for his sci-fi movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and has cited them frequently.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 07-28-11 at 11:36 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-11, 08:31 AM   #55
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

New peer reviewed study says glaciers don't behave like the alarmists say. IPCC got it wrong (again).

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N30/C1.php

Quote:
Surface Melting and the Dynamics of the Greenland Ice Sheet Reference
Sundal, A.V., Shepherd, A., Nienow, P., Hanna, E., Palmer, S. and Huybrechts, P. 2011. Melt-induced speed-up of Greenland ice sheet offset by efficient subglacial drainage. Nature 469: 521-524.

Background

The authors write that "fluctuations in surface melting are known to affect the speed of glaciers and ice sheets," but they say that "their impact on the Greenland ice sheet in a warming climate remains uncertain," citing Meehl et al. (2007), while further noting, in this regard, that "although some studies suggest that greater melting produces greater ice-sheet acceleration (Zwally et al., 2002; Parizek and Alley, 2004)," others have identified a long-term decrease in Greenland's flow despite increased melting (van de Wal et al., 2008)."

What was done

In a study designed to further explore this important subject, and based on data for five different years (1993 and 1995-1998), Sundal et al. used "satellite observations of ice motion recorded in a land-terminating sector of southwest Greenland to investigate the manner in which ice flow develops during years of markedly different melting."

What was learned

The six scientists determined that "although peak rates of ice speed-up are positively correlated with the degree of melting, mean summer flow rates are not, because glacier slow-down occurs, on average, when a critical run-off threshold of about 1.4 centimeters a day is exceeded." Thus, and "in contrast to the first half of summer, when flow is similar in all years," they found that "speed-up during the latter half is 62 ± 16 per cent less in warmer years," so that "in warmer years, the period of fast ice flow is three times shorter and, overall, summer ice flow is slower." And so it can finally be understood how van de Wal et al. (2008) identified, in the words of Sundal et al., "a long-term (17-year) decrease in Greenland's flow during a period of increased melting."

What it means

Sundal et al. conclude that "simulations of the Greenland ice-sheet flow under climate warming scenarios should account for the dynamic evolution of subglacial drainage," because "a simple model of basal lubrication alone misses key aspects of the ice sheet's response to climate warming," which is something that was indeed missed in the IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report.
I'll add that this appears to be yet another one of those negative feedbacks so common in nature. Strangely, the alarmists only seem to see imaginary positive feedbacks, presumably because that makes all their claims more alarmist. The abundance of positive feedbacks seen by the alarmists is most unlikely because if they were true our planet would have accelerated off the rails many eons ago. Nature finds a balance and keeps it within bounds through negative feedbacks. Fortunately, Earth's balance, for many reasons, is livable for us. It's not impossible for "tipping points" and "rail jumping" to occur but it is highly unlikely once a fairly stable climate and ecosystem have been established. The sun going nova in 5 billion years would be an example. But it takes a lot and CO2 is no nova.

As I've said repeatedly, the alarmists have no sense of history and don't want to have one because it would undermine their arguments.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-11, 10:47 AM   #56
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Follow up to Post #47.

Ecoloon appeals.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...enson.html.csp

Quote:
DeChristopher laywers plan an appeal
By brandon loomis

The Salt Lake Tribune
First published Jul 27 2011 07:37PM

Convicted oil and gas lease auction saboteur Tim DeChristopher will appeal his conviction and two-year prison sentence, in part because he was prevented from arguing the environmental necessity of his actions at trial.

Defense attorney Pat Shea said his team will file documents Thursday notifying the court that DeChristopher plans to appeal.

That gives DeChristopher’s lawyers two weeks to craft their reasons for appealing both the conviction and the sentence. Those reasons, Shea said, will concentrate on U.S. District Judge Dee Benson’s decision not to let DeChristopher argue that he had to act to save future generations from climate change.

“We believe we should have been able to explain to the jury that they did have the right to decide guilt or innocence,” Shea said, “on the broader sense of justice.”

Benson declined to allow the so-called “necessity” defense at trial, which would have allowed DeChristopher’s attorneys to ask jurors to overlook any alleged crimes because they were needed both to prevent environmental harm and to stop an illegal auction.

The federal oil and gas lease auction DeChristopher disrupted came during the closing days of the Bush administration in December 2008. The leases didn’t stand: A federal judge issued a restraining order, and the Obama administration pulled the leases citing insufficient environmental reviews.

Benson, in explaining his sentence, made it clear that he believed it was not DeChristopher who set that questioning in motion, but a lawsuit filed by other environmentalists.

University of Utah law professor Daniel Medwed, a criminal law specialist, said it would be difficult to convince the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Benson’s rejection of the “necessity” — or “lesser-of-two-evils” — defense. That’s because a defendant must prove he or she prevented significant harm.
That "environmental necessity" defense (or, preventing greater harm in the future) was what got off those Brits who trespassed on and vandalized a power plant a few years ago. That judge allowed that argument. The judge in the present case properly and wisely did not allow that defense because it's, well, stupid, frivolous and silly. They talk about opening the floodgates, this would open a tsunami. What "preventing future harm" could not be argued for any act? Furthermore, there is no evidence our power creation and use causes net harm and all the evidence in the world that it is an overwhelmingly net benefit to humanity. And all the screams that we're causing CAGW or species extinction or all the other supposed environmental degradations are refuted time and time again.

De Christopher could have gotten ten years. I think that would have overly harsh but two years is just about right. De Christopher deserves it and it should act as a deterrent.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-11, 11:35 AM   #57
DVD Talk Legend
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 12,466
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

By James Taylor

Forbes

July 28, 2011

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.


The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-11, 11:46 AM   #58
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

For the hundredth time: coral reefs are not endangered from a little CO2 or slight temperature increases.

http://notrickszone.com/2011/07/28/t...ays-new-study/

Quote:
Threat To Coral Reefs Exaggerated, Says New Study
By P Gosselin on 28. Juli 2011

Some scientists and media have gotten much attention claiming that the world’s coral reefs could disappear in as little as 20 to 30 years – all because of humans consuming fossil fuels and whatever.

Now the Financial Times Germany reports on a study that claims this is all exaggerated.
The world’s largest coral reef off the east coast of Australia is not going to disappear as fast as once previously thought, according to a new study. Warnings that the Great Barrier Reef could die off due to climate change over the next 20 to 30 years are exaggerated says Sean Connolly of the James Cook University.”
This comes to no surprise for skeptics. How many millions of years and through what ranges of temperature swings have the coral reefs survived so far? Indeed a few tenths of a degree Celsius of change over decades will have no impact on the reefs. And I seriously doubt the reefs are going to do what the models tell them.

The James Cook University Press release here says:
…some current projections of global-scale collapse of reefs within the next few decades probably overestimate the rapidity and uniformity of the decline.”
Again, if the relatively sudden transition from ice age to optimum did not kill them, why would a few tenths of a degree over decades or centuries do it?

Wikipedia writes that coral reefs in the Persian Gulf have adapted to temperatures of 13 °C (55 °F) in winter and 38 °C (100 °F) in summer, i.e. 25°C change in 6 months. Like any species on the planet, reefs are always threatened by something. The press release writes:
However reefs are naturally highly diverse and resilient, and are likely to respond to the changed conditions in different ways and at varying rates.”
The James Cook press release, despite its obvious findings, still tries to convey an aura of alarm (for funding) yet admits that climate change is a natural process that has occurred time and again in the past.
Past extinction crises in coral reef ecosystems appear to coincide with episodes of rapid global warming and ocean acidification, they say. This has led some to predict rapid, dramatic, global-scale losses of coral reefs.”
The rapid changes they mention here were measured in degrees per decade and century, and not tenths of a degree as is the case with today’s relatively boring rate of change.
The coral scare is one of the most hyped and perhaps the most exaggerated and most refuted of all the scares in the alarmist arsenal (that's saying a lot). No matter how many studies blow it out of the water (no pun intended), it never seems to touch repetitions of this junk science. If the alarmists won't honestly acknowledge that this scare is bogus and back off on it why should we believe anything else they say?
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-11, 11:55 AM   #59
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by grundle View Post
I'll just point out this study was first pointed out in Post #46. That's why I didn't post your article although I thought about it.

No problem, your article does add more information and analysis.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-11, 12:43 PM   #60
DVD Talk Legend
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 12,466
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
I'll just point out this study was first pointed out in Post #46. That's why I didn't post your article although I thought about it.

No problem, your article does add more information and analysis.

Thanks for explaining that.

Anyone who is truly concerned about the environment will see this as good news.

Anyone who wants the environment to be messed up so they can have excuses to adopt totalitarian government will see this as bad news.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-11, 01:58 PM   #61
DVD Talk Legend
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 12,466
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

The link to the study seems to be overwhelmed, so here is the google cache of it:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...www.google.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-11, 07:55 PM   #62
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Stark raving mad.



What is wrong with these people? Are they really this fucking nuts?
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-11, 09:17 PM   #63
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: At the Local Police Department
Posts: 2,750
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

__________________
I am not a Best Buy employee. I am Spartacus.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-11, 03:07 AM   #64
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, US of A
Posts: 11,019
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by grundle View Post
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
Since global warming zealotry is sustained by blind religious fervor and politics I doubt this will have an effect on it's practitioners. As soon as the faithful began resorting to demagoguery, data fraud, and stupid statements like 'the debate is settled' you knew actual science and facts had become completely irrelevant to them.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-11, 06:42 AM   #65
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Follow up to Post #722, The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10, here:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-wo...l#post10802022

I received this email:

Quote:
Journalism beats censorship‏
July 29, 2011
5:03 AM
From: Ann & Phelim
To: movielib

Hello,

We wanted you to be the first to know that we have been victorious over the attempts to censor our journalism. As you know, Phelim's questioning of Josh Fox, the director of Gasland, was removed from YouTube after Fox used his expensive lawyers to make a false copyright claim.

Well, after a lengthy appeals process we have won and YouTube has restored our video which shows Fox being forced to admit that he behaved unethically and withheld important facts from viewers.

These facts would have completely undermined a central thesis of Gasland and, pushed into a corner, Phelim forced Fox to admit that he knew the facts but withheld them because "they were not relevant".

Well, Fox's admission of this unethical behavior was starting to go viral, with the exchange being covered by Fox Business, American Family Radio, G. Gordon Liddy and Big Hollywood among others. So Fox and his lawyers have it removed from YouTube. It seems that Josh Fox does not like criticism and dissent is not tolerated. We replied by setting up the Fight Gasland Censorship website whilst waiting for the YouTube appeals process to make a finding.

Well we have won this battle and you can now see Fox's dramatic admissions - here.

Please send the link to anyone you think might be interested in seeing how environmentalists simply ignore facts that contradict their ideology.

Also, Ann will be speaking at Republican Party Animals event this Saturday. It seems you can still buy tickets, so if you live near Hollywood and have no plans for the night, please join us!

Thanks for all your support

Ann & Phelim
As I said in my original post, the use of the short clip from the Gasland film was clearly fair use. You can once again see the film on YouTube at my original post or right here:



I didn't know they were appealing but it must be a difficult process considering what an open and shut case this was. Thanks Ann & Phelim for doing it and congrats for succeeding.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-11, 07:28 AM   #66
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Follow up to Post #54.

An interview by investigators into the actions of suspended and under investigation polar bear scientist, Charles Monnett, has been released. See excerpts from his interview here (long so I'll just link it):

http://neveryetmelted.com/categories/charles-monnett/

The conclusion by the writer, Steve Milloy:

Quote:
What is downright scary is the way these bozos think that dressing up wildly extravagant theories resting on baseless extrapolations of insignificant anecdotal-level observations with jargon and a few formulae in order to reach preconceived and intensely desired conclusions is perfectly legitimate scientific activity.

If anybody wonders how junk science can become established science and the accepted basis for fabulously costly governmental programs and polices, just look at the work of Dr. Charles Monnett and at PEER.
Remember, this is what fueled the "threatened" status for the polar bears and gave Al Gore's movie an emotional boost right into an Academy Award that helped lead to a Nobel Peace Prize.

__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 08-01-11 at 09:21 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-11, 01:21 PM   #67
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,771
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

[QUOTE=grundle;10870332]http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

Yes... but don't forget that Spencer isn't neutral on the subject as he's from the Heartland Institute. This guy is interpreting one data set from one satellite to confirm a belief he already has had for years. This not a study by NASA and this is not good science (not surprising the article author is creationist who does not believe in evolution so his science skills are a bit suspect). NASA has gone record as saying this study is worthless. But even if you ignore that, the article isn't doing what the title suggests, but rather only the difficulties in obtaining accurate data by measurements of radiation due to variances in natural cloud cover. That is it.

The report states that "there are a variety of parameters other than feedback affecting the lag regression statistics which make accurate feedback diagnosis difficult. These include the amount of non-radiative versus radiative forcing, how periodic the temperature and radiative balance variations are, the depth of the mixed layer, etc., all of which preclude any quantitative estimate of how large the feedback difference is"

What we are likely seeing is data observing the heat-sink caused by our oceans because, as he notes himself, there is a discrepancy between the data set and the predicted forecasts over the oceans.

LiveScience has posted a good read on this crap.

http://news.yahoo.com/climate-change...234403696.html
__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-11, 01:34 PM   #68
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,771
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
Remember, this is what fueled the "threatened" status for the polar bears and gave Al Gore's movie an emotional boost right into an Academy Award that helped lead to a Nobel Peace Prize.
I'm never surprised by how easily public policy is based on crap. Politicians, and the people who push for policy, have little science background. That's why we invest federal research money into army acupuncturists for guys wounded in combat and vaccine courts to pay out cash who got Autism from vaccines.

As a whole, we are a nation of idiots.
__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-11, 03:14 PM   #69
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by grundle View Post
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
Yes... but don't forget that Spencer isn't neutral on the subject as he's from the Heartland Institute. This guy is interpreting one data set from one satellite to confirm a belief he already has had for years. This not a study by NASA and this is not good science (not surprising the article author is creationist who does not believe in evolution so his science skills are a bit suspect). NASA has gone record as saying this study is worthless. But even if you ignore that, the article isn't doing what the title suggests, but rather only the difficulties in obtaining accurate data by measurements of radiation due to variances in natural cloud cover. That is it.

The report states that "there are a variety of parameters other than feedback affecting the lag regression statistics which make accurate feedback diagnosis difficult. These include the amount of non-radiative versus radiative forcing, how periodic the temperature and radiative balance variations are, the depth of the mixed layer, etc., all of which preclude any quantitative estimate of how large the feedback difference is"

What we are likely seeing is data observing the heat-sink caused by our oceans because, as he notes himself, there is a discrepancy between the data set and the predicted forecasts over the oceans.

LiveScience has posted a good read on this crap.

http://news.yahoo.com/climate-change...234403696.html
Many scientists disagree with you. Live Science says no scientist they contacted agrees with this. They then cite Trenberth and Dessler, two of the most rabid supporters of CAGW. If Spencer is not neutral on the subject (and he isn't), neither are Trenberth and Dessler.

As far as Spencer being a creationist, so what? I 100% disagree with him on that but one thing has nothing to do with the other. I have never seen Spencer's creationist or any other of his religious beliefs intrude anywhere in his specialty which is climate science. He is a former NASA scientist who has (with John Christy) for years overseen one of the two satellite temperature monitoring services, known as UAH, at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, using NASA satellites. He received the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for that work. He is rock solid in his specialty and his religious beliefs are completely irrelevant in this case.

He is also criticized for voicing his caveats and uncertainties. But that is exactly what a good scientist does. Too bad we don't see more of that from the CAGWers. And if you don't think the CAGWers are always interpreting things to confirm beliefs they've held for years, I've got a bridge for sale.

You can put Spencer's work and credentials up against any CAGW scientist such as the most cited like James Hansen, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt or Phil Jones.

And Spencer isn't "from" the Heartland Institute. He's "from" the University of Alabama at Huntsville, via NASA, via the universities of Michigan (BS) and Wisconsin-Madison MS and PhD). He has spoken at Heartland events and has written articles for them at times.

He may or may not be right in his skeptical beliefs but there is no way in hell his work is as suspect as Mann's Hockey Stick or Hansen's NASA GISS temperature adjustments or wild predictions. Or the IPCC's repeated reliance on and citing of junk from advocacy groups like Greenpeace or the WWF.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-11, 03:39 PM   #70
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

The huge funding bias in global warming research.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/cli...a+%28JoNova%29

Quote:
We need a free market in climate science
Climate change suspect must be given a fair trial
Joanne Nova
July 29, 2011

GOVERNMENTS across the world have paid billions to find links between carbon dioxide and the climate, but very little to find the opposite, and that’s a problem.

Teams of professionals have searched high and low for any possible hint that CO2 poses a threat, and that is all very well, but no one has been paid to find otherwise. CO2 has been convicted without a defence lawyer.

It is self-evident that any expert in a field will reap more rewards, fame and fortune if their field is critically important. Why would anyone expect such experts to go out of their way to hunt down evidence that might suggest their field ought not be the centre of a global economic transformation?

When results come in that conflict with catastrophic model predictions, hordes of researchers scour every nook and cranny to find early warm biases, or recent cold biases, and they may legitimately find some. But no one is paid to hunt down the errors or biases leading the other way. The vacuum sucks.

Did anyone really expect that teams of volunteers without offices, budgets, access to data or PR writers would spontaneously arise and point out any flaws? Would people with the right training choose to forgo Sunday golf in order to download Hadley radiosonde data and shoot holes in the national temperature record? Actually, they would and they have, but it’s taken years to build, and it’s a silly way to run the country. This was always a loophole begging to be exploited.

We wouldn’t let a company issue a prospectus without being audited. But we’ll transform the national economy based on a report issued by a foreign committee that no one has been paid to criticise. There are no audits on the science from institutions like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA or the CSIRO. No due diligence study has been done. Hallowed peer review amounts to unpaid anonymous reviewers, often picked from a pool of people who agree.

Where is the Institute of Natural Climate Forces, or the International Bureau of Solar Science? Where are the researchers whose reputations and grants rise in value if they find holes in the theory of man-made global warming?

If, hypothetically, there are scientific gaps in the theory of man-made global warming, for the most part we are leaving it up to volunteers to find them. It’s as if the government has funded a team of QCs for the prosecution, but spent nothing on legal aid for the defence.

Between 1989 and 2009, the US government paid over $30 billion towards “climate change”. And don’t be fooled by the meaning of “climate change”, which ought to encompass all the factors that change the climate. The inherent bias in the system is so strong that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change actually defines “climate change” as being “man-made”. I kid you not.
“Climate change” means a change of climate, which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods."
The IPCC was originally established to investigate things “relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change”. That was their mandate. They would have no reason to exist if there’s no disaster, and they were never going to announce that they studied it all and golly, but it’s all OK Chipper, and we’re headed home. Thanks for the funding!

What committee ever voted for its own extinction?

When the very term “climate change” means man-made, the mindset is biased. It’s a one-way road to an endless circle of confirmation bias. The Orwellian overtones are extreme: How do you ask “what causes climate change?” and get any answer other than “man-made”?

Where are the programs to find out if man-made emissions didn’t cause global warming?

Exxon was a rare funder of climate skeptics but with a contribution of $23 million over a decade, it barely paid 1 part in 3500 of what the US government did.

When people ask “how can thousands of scientists be wrong?” they forget that a consensus on a highly complex, immature subject can be purchased, or unwittingly created. If a government spent $30bn to find better uses for carrots, there would be carrot appreciation societies, carrot conventions, 400 patents on carrot-based wing-nuts, tents, and textiles, and 4000 peer-reviewed references on worrying declines in carrot hue, nutrients, fertility and genetic diversity, not to mention gender inequality in dietary carrot content.

That’s not to say that excessive one-sided funding proves anything about the climate, but nor does the existence of a consensus of government-paid climate scientists.

We’ve paid to find a crisis, and what-do-you-know, we “found” one. (Yes. It’s true, we got what we paid for.) Hundreds of scientists have been doing their jobs, most diligently, turning over every stone labelled “CO2″. But no one has been paid to turn over the other stones.

When politicians and journalists say they can’t find a credible voice of dissent, it’s only because they define “credible” as someone holding a government-funded position — and by definition, there are no government-funded sceptics.

US president Dwight Eisenhower warned against government domination of science in his farewell speech in 1961:
“In this [technological] revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalised, complex and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the federal government.”

"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.

"The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present."
The so-called “free market” leaders of the world missed the need for healthy competition in science. Their big mistake on climate policy was failing to see the effect of monopoly science. They could have set up institutes and research centres whose aim was to find non-man-made causes of climate change.

These alternate institutes and conventions would compete with the usual grant applicants for research, and it would be in their interest to find reasons the climate was changed by the sun, or geomagnetic effects or orbital changes, or who knows? Through natural competition (and may the best argument win) we’d have learned more about our climate, and we’d prevent a climate monopoly from potentially skewing the research.

As with all unbalanced systems, people are rushing to fill the vacuum. The volunteers are coming. Never before in science have so many unpaid people used their expertise to become whistleblowers.

As Eisenhower feared, government has come to dominate science. We need organisations that are timeless centres of excellence, rather than crisis-response teams. Groups of scientists need to compete to make the best, most accurate predictions, not the most alarming ones.

One thing is for sure, the mess of climate science needs to be cleaned up and we need to find ways to fund science that don’t pre-empt the answers, or stifle competition.
Ironically, some studies funded to find CAGW do not find it or even contradict it. These studies are generally ignored by the CAGWers and the MSM. The honest scientists report these even when they go against CAGW (although they nearly always include a disclaimer that it doesn't mean there is no CAGW; don't want to burn those funding bridges). One wonders how many contrary studies are just buried.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-11, 05:09 PM   #71
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,771
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
As far as Spencer being a creationist, so what? I 100% disagree with him on that but one thing has nothing to do with the other. I have never seen Spencer's creationist or any other of his religious beliefs intrude anywhere in his specialty which is climate science. He is a former NASA scientist who has (with John Christy) for years overseen one of the two satellite temperature monitoring services, known as UAH, at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, using NASA satellites. He received the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for that work. He is rock solid in his specialty and his religious beliefs are completely irrelevant in this case.
I don't mean to be using this as an ad hominem attack, but his scientific cognitive thinking is seriously out of touch with reality; when you attach faith to science you end up with crap.

"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."

and

"I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world... Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."

And then for a particular case where his belief in ID may influence his scientific theory that the world's temperature increase is cloud coverage that is natural, normal and ultimately self correcting; the following is a creed he swore to at the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming." (Note how the entire group is a mixtures of ID and climate science).

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

As for the study itself... it is getting torn to shreds.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ming-alarmism/

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/...e-roy-spencer/
__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-11, 07:01 PM   #72
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
I don't mean to be using this as an ad hominem attack, but his scientific cognitive thinking is seriously out of touch with reality; when you attach faith to science you end up with crap.

"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."

and

"I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world... Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."

And then for a particular case where his belief in ID may influence his scientific theory that the world's temperature increase is cloud coverage that is natural, normal and ultimately self correcting; the following is a creed he swore to at the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming." (Note how the entire group is a mixtures of ID and climate science).

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

As for the study itself... it is getting torn to shreds.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ming-alarmism/

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/...e-roy-spencer/
I don't mean to be using this as an ad hominem attack either but "being torn to shreds" by Discover Magazine which has been in the tank for CAGW for years or to an even greater extent by Think Progress which is an alarmist site funded by George Soros impresses me zero.

And I really don't care what you come up with on Spencer's religion. As I said, I have never seen it come into his climate work. He happens to be the only skeptical climate scientist I know of who is a creationist and yet many other scientists highly respect his work and agree with him to a high degree. Richard Lindzen, who is one of the most prominent and respected of all climate scientists (except by alarmists who think he must be crazy just because he's a skeptic) has been doing work parallel to Spencer's for years.

I trust you know I'm one of the most outspoken atheists on this Forum and I have argued for evolution many times here. I don't bring any of that into climate discussions (except now) because it's irrelevant. So is Spencer's religion.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-11, 07:28 PM   #73
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,771
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

But he's part of a group that mixes climate science with evangelical christian ID. Regardless if you "see it" in his work, he's still coming from the view-point that God balances the weather. From there, he uses science to illustrate that point. It's like a racist using a biology study to prove African Americans are less attractive then other races. Ideology is good, but when it colors your studies you must look at things a bit more skeptically.

This is especially true when your findings are going against the scientific consensus... your burden of proof becomes all that much higher. Wait, is NASA alarmist, because they're ashamed that their name is being dragged into this study.
__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-11, 08:07 PM   #74
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
But he's part of a group that mixes climate science with evangelical christian ID. Regardless if you "see it" in his work, he's still coming from the view-point that God balances the weather. From there, he uses science to illustrate that point. It's like a racist using a biology study to prove African Americans are less attractive then other races. Ideology is good, but when it colors your studies you must look at things a bit more skeptically.

This is especially true when your findings are going against the scientific consensus... your burden of proof becomes all that much higher. Wait, is NASA alarmist, because they're ashamed that their name is being dragged into this study.
Virtually everyone is at least somewhat influenced by their religion (or lack thereof) or political ideology. It's not a coincidence that most alarmists are liberals and most skeptics are conservatives. In my view, the skeptics, while hardly perfect, are miles ahead of the alarmists such as Mann, Hansen et al. What matters is the actual science.

It's not the skeptics who refuse to release their background work and codes, it's the alarmists. That happens time and time again. It's not the skeptics who plot together to stop alarmists from publishing, it's the alarmists who do this to the skeptics (just read the Climategate emails). Hansen, who is in charge of the NASA/GISS temperature record is constantly "adjusting." Strangely, older temperatures almost always get "adjusted" down, later temperatures almost always get "adjusted" up. (Sometimes there are valid reasons for adjustments but Hansen's are patently absurd.) Spencer and Christy, who are in charge of the UAH temperature record, don't do this. Even in places seemingly as trivial as the climate blogs, skeptical blogs link to both sides, alarmists only to their own. Skeptical blogs allow open discussion, alarmist blogs are notorious for their blocking the posts from the other side. When crap like that is going on, and it has been for more than two decades (the blogs for around 6-8 years), maybe there's a reason.

And there is not, and never has been, a "scientific consensus" on CAGW. And anyone who proposes a theory, such as the CAGW theory, has the burden of proof. Proclaiming you are right and there is a consensus doesn't cut it. Particularly when almost all they have to go on are climate models for which there are huge gaps in knowledge in how parameters should be set and for which they can tweak those parameters any way they want to. Likewise, someone such as Henrik Svensmark, who has proposed his cosmic ray theory, has the burden of proof on him. The difference is that Svensmark has relied much more on actual data and observations and has run actual experiments (including the CERN experiments which he has wisely stayed out of to assure their independence from any influence he might have tried to assert). Personally, I think there's more promise in Svensmark than in Spencer or Lindzen for explaining the biggest factors behind climate change (which has been going on for 4.5 billion years).
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-11, 08:15 PM   #75
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Roy Spencer defends himself:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/...-strikes-back/

Quote:
Fallout from Our Paper: The Empire Strikes Back
July 29th, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

UPDATE: Due to the many questions I have received over the last 24 hours about the way in which our paper was characterized in the original Forbes article, please see the new discussion that follows the main post, below.

LiveScience.com posted an article yesterday where the usual IPCC suspects (Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, and Andy Dessler) dissed our recent paper in in the journal Remote Sensing.

Given their comments, I doubt any of them could actually state what the major conclusion of our paper was.

For example, Andy Dessler told LiveScience:

“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct…”

Well, apparently Andy did not notice that those were OBSERVATIONS that disagreed with the IPCC climate models. And our model can quantitatively explain the disagreement.

Besides, is Andy implying the IPCC models he is so fond of DON’T have THEIR results tweaked to match the observations? Yeah, right.

Kevin Trenberth’s response to our paper, rather predictably, was:

“I cannot believe it got published”

Which when translated from IPCC-speak actually means, “Why didn’t I get the chance to deep-six Spencer’s paper, just like I’ve done with his other papers?”

Finally Gavin Schmidt claims that it’s the paleoclimate record that tells us how sensitive the climate system is, not the current satellite data. Oh, really? Then why have so many papers been published over the years trying to figure out how sensitive today’s climate system is? When scientists appeal to unfalsifiable theories of ancient events which we have virtually do data on, and ignore many years of detailed global satellite observations of today’s climate system, *I* think they are giving science a bad name.

COMMENTS ON THE FORBES ARTICLE BY JAMES TAYLOR

I have received literally dozens of phone calls and e-mails asking basically the same question: did James Taylor’s Forbes article really represent what we published in our Remote Sensing journal article this week?

Several of those people, including AP science reporter Seth Borenstein, actually read our article and said that there seemed to be a disconnect.

The short answer is that, while the title of the Forbes article (New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism) is a little over the top (as are most mainstream media articles about global warming science), the body of his article is — upon my re-reading of it — actually pretty good.

About the only disconnect I can see is we state in our paper that, while the discrepancy between the satellite observations were in the direction of the models producing too much global warming, it is really not possible to say by how much. Taylor’s article makes it sound much more certain that we have shown that the models produce too much warming in the long term. (Which I think is true…we just did not actually ‘prove’ it.)

But how is this any different than the reporting we see on the other side of the issue? Heck, how different is it than the misrepresentation of the certainty of the science in the IPCC’s own summaries for policymakers, versus what the scientists write in the body of those IPCC reports?

I am quite frankly getting tired of the climate ‘alarmists’ demanding that we ’skeptics’ be held a higher standard than they are held to. They claim our results don’t prove their models are wrong in their predictions of strong future warming, yet fail to mention they have no good, independent evidence their models are right.

For example….

…while our detractors correctly point out that the feedbacks we see in short term (year-to-year) climate variability might not indicate what the long-term feedbacks are in response to increasing CO2, the IPCC still uses short-term variability in their models to compare to satellite observations to then support the claimed realism of the long-term behavior of those models.

Well, they can’t have it both ways.

If they are going to validate their models with short term variability as some sort of indication that their models can be believed for long-term global warming, then they are going to HAVE to explain why there is such a huge discrepancy (see Fig. 3 in our paper) between the models and the satellite observations in what is the most fundamental issue: How fast do the models lose excess radiant energy in response to warming?

That is essentially the definition of “feedback”, and feedbacks determine climate sensitivity.

I’m sorry, but if this is the best they can do in the way of rebuttal to our study, they are going to have to become a little more creative.
Edit:

I find it interesting that alarmist Kerry Emanuel says:

http://www.newser.com/article/d9opje...cientists.html

Quote:
Kerry Emanuel of MIT, one of two scientists who said the study was good, said bloggers and others are misstating what Spencer found. Emanuel said this work was cautious and limited mostly to pointing out problems with forecasting heat feedback. He said what's being written about Spencer's study by nonscientists "has no basis in reality."
Emanuel might just as well have added that alarmist scientists have been just as bad since they are saying the same things as the nonscientists. In fact, where does he think the nonscientists have been getting their stuff from?

I also will add that some skeptics have been guilty of exaggerating the results of Spencer's study, something he has not at all done himself.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 07-30-11 at 09:01 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:58 PM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0