I almost feel sorry for global warming cultists. Almost.

Pay no attention to facts! The science is settled!

I mean, when one of the central tenets(1) of your faith is shown to be wholly, absolutely wrong and all you can do is stand there slack-jawed and watch like a Philistine as the temple comes crashing down around you, it can be a bit… disheartening.

Truth hurts, doesn’t it? (Emphases added)

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.

Yeah, you bet they will, if they hold up.(2) Key to the “science” of dangerous man-caused climate change is the idea that the carbon-dioxide man dumps into the atmosphere, rather than being beneficial to plants and otherwise harmless, throws the Earth’s thermostat off and causes dangerous levels of warming — seas rising, ice caps melting, deserts expanding, etc. But not because the CO2 directly warms the atmosphere, though it may do that a teensy bit, but because it traps heat indirectly that should otherwise radiate to space by causing an increase in humidity and cirrus clouds.

See where this is going?

By discovering that the Earth releases far more heat than the UN’s models and releases it far earlier in the process than assumed(3), the central driving mechanism of anthropogenic global warming is shown to be nothing more than a myth, a chimera.

It is shown to be wrong, and with it the whole structure of dangerous man-caused climate change collapses.

Not that this will end this nonsense overnight. Too many people, businesses, and governments have too much false pride, money, and political objectives staked on AGW being true. The British government is enthusiastically driving its economy back into the dark ages in the name of solving  a problem that does not exist. The Obama administration is grasping for control over the US economy via EPA regulations meant to control “carbon pollution.” Alarmist scientists are desperate to preserve their reputations and grant money, and companies like GE and BP are investing a lot to profit from the “green technology” that’s supposedly meant to save us from global warming — and in government mandates that force us to use that technology.

Then there’s the question of faith, coming back to the title of this post. For many, “Green” or “Gaea” is a religion, though most might deny it. Full of loathing for capitalism and seeing an out of control climate as fit punishment for what we’ve done to the Earth, it’s important to them that carbon dioxide really be a demon, rather than plant food. Living the “green life,” rather than simply being sensible stewardship of the environment and not fouling one’s own nest, becomes a quest for virtue and atonement. And, like any zealot, they have to make sure we live their faith, too, whether we want to or not.

Thus Spencer and Braswell’s findings have to be devastating to alarmists who stop to think about them, and I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.

Nah. Not even close.

LINKS: Spencer and Braswell’s article in Remote Sensing (PDF). More at Hot Air, Power Line, and Pirate’s Cove.

RELATED: Oh, my. Polar Bear-gate? Fraud in the Warmist community? Say it ain’t so! *cough*Climategate*cough* A caution.

Footnotes:
(1) Pet peeve: people who either misspell the word as “tenent” or misuse “tenant.”
(2) Yes, if. Science is about testable hypotheses, not consensus or settled science. Spencer and Braswell’s results have to be subjected to falsification.
(3) All the UN/IPCC computer models are based on boatloads of assumption, guesswork, and very little (and that often “adjusted”) empirical data, unlike the study at hand. That’s not science, that’s a rigged game.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

About these ads

21 Responses to I almost feel sorry for global warming cultists. Almost.

  1. Thomas Dillon says:

    Messrs. Spencer’s and Braswell’s article, “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” (retrieved at http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf) is simply bad science. Regardless of the merits of either scientific position (pro or contra global warming) Dr Spencer, in particular, has a sordid track record of allowing his prejudices to determine the outcomes of his “scientific” research (see, http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer, for a detailed discussion). Never mind that the article cited above was funded, at least in part, by Exxon-Mobile, never mind that Dr Spencer is a creationist and paid lackey of the fundamentalist right. These argumentum ad hominae are ultimately beside the point. The study now cited at Fox News, Forbes and other right-leaning news outlets, is fundamentally flawed as it simply ignores and thereby does not take into account all data and data sets that contradict Dr Spencer’s conclusion (see, see: Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, C. O’Dell, and T. Wong, 2010: Relationships between tropical sea surface temperatures and top-of-atmosphere radiation, retrieved at http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TFOW_LC_GRL2010_GL042314.pdf); see Barry Bickmore’s take down of Spencer’s junk science at http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/).

    Public Secrets, if you wish to change people’s minds rather than simply regurgitate what the right-wing media slops, I suggest you do a little homework first.

    At present, your website seems devoid of any original thinking or truly relevant post.

    I almost feel sorry for you. Almost.

    • You mean the same Kevin Trenberth who famously wrote that they couldn’t account for the lack of warming “at the moment” (really, the last decade) and that it was a “travesty,” after loudly and publicly proclaiming the “Earth has a fever?” Yeah, I’ll take him seriously. After all, he’s only a lead IPCC author, the reports from which have been renowned for their lack of bias and agenda. (Sarcasm, in case you didn’t notice.)

      These argumentum ad hominae are ultimately beside the point.

      Yet you made them, anyway. BTW, Spencer answers Schmidt, Trenberth, and Dessler’s “criticism” here.

      Oh, and if you’re going to be smug and condescending, at least get the Latin right: “ad hominem” (singular) or “ad homines” (plural).

  2. Thomas Dillon says:

    Thank you for your reply.

    I’ve now read Spencer’s answers to Schmidt, Trenberth and Dessler critique that you cite, but it does not seem even to scratch the surface of their criticism. Thus, I stand by my comments above.

    I am happy to review anything else you wish to cite that you believe goes into the substance of their critique. But so far Spencer’s response that you reference is simply base polemics without even reference to the particulars of the deficiencies raised.

    Am I missing something? If so, please do refer me to a more in-depth reply.

    Why do you disparage the IPCC? Does a mere reference to the organization suffice as an argument that it is unreliable? Perhaps in some circles where the actual science, and by that I mean the gritty, detailed complexity of the science, is of little or no interest.

    And, yes, I made the argumentum ad hominem as it is on point and, in this case at least, not a misuse of the form as it illustrates Dr Spencer’s bias.

    By the way, many thanks for the attempted lesson in Latin grammar. I say “attempted” since you ultimately did get it wrong. Nevertheless, it was a valiant try, and better than most. I did indeed misspell the latin terminus technicus (this by the way is German and not Latin) the second time I used it, as typos do happen. Unfortunately, I did not intend a plural usage as you seem to think. That would have been “argumenti ad hominem” and not “argumentum ad homines” as you suggest, which would translate as “argument against the persons”, and as we were speaking only of one person, Dr Spencer, and many arguments against him, the former and not your suggested formulation would be the correct one. In future, I suggest that it would be would prudent that you check both your Latin grammar and the sense of what is being said before trying to correct someone else’s.

    Why do you take issue with climate change? Every other civilized country has moved on. The debate is over, and organizations and companies are applying the science, which ultimately is the real test of its validity. In fact, these companies are profiting from it, while the US stays in its fantasy world. Even US companies such as GE recognize the validity of climate science and are profiting from it.

    Will you next be telling me that the universe is 6,000 years old, evolution is just a theory and quantum mechanics a simple hypothesis?

    • Actually, Tom old boy, I’m not a religious person, and I happen to think evolution is as solid and close to proven as any scientific theory can be. Unlike alarmists, I value the scientific method: falsifiable hypotheses tested by empirical observation. And, time and again, empirical observation shows no evidence of dangerous man-caused climate change, as opposed to normal cycles. That you can say “the debate is over” tells me all I need to know, so I’m done.

      One parting suggestion, though. Since you’re so sure of yourself and your intellectual superiority, why not post your arguments, including your ad hominem assaults on Spencer’s religion, in the comments section of his post at WUWT, if you haven’t already? Here’s the link, again. I’m sure you’ll find a ready audience.

  3. Thomas Dillon says:

    I’ve taken the liberty to read one or two other of your posts, in particular those on the Norwegian shootings, and they are, sad to say, completely in line with the hard-right talking points coming out of Limbaugh, Medved and Fox News.

    I live in Scandinavia, Denmark to be exact, and witness first hand the effects of climate change. Older Danes tell me about their childhood walks that they used to take from Copenhagen to Malmo, Sweden in the winter across the Baltic, about the then-need for a fleet of icebreakers for the winter months to keep the shipping lanes free, about the winter wonderland Scandinavia had been half a century ago.

    That has all changed. Denmark, rather than a fleet, keeps one icebreaker, just in case. It’s never needed. Those across-the-frozen-Baltic walks, a memory.

    When I say the debate is over, it is, but not because I say it is, and perhaps not even because the science proves it, but because the balance of opinion in the world has accepted this meme as fundamentally true. Now, you can make hay out of this last statement, or you may not, but it will not change the simple fact that the world has accepted climate change and moved on, and a group of people in the United States, whether a majority or a plurality, denies it is occurring.

    The fact that you “are done” tells me that you do not wish to delve into the actual science and the facts of the matter.

    That is too bad.

    It would be helpful to have people on the right to assist in moving the US forward on this point, as it is keeping the US, and much of the world, behind on switching to green tech. Considering America’s technological prowess and abilities at innovation, imagine just how much further and faster we might be able to go in renewable technology if the debate were settled there and the US would completely commit.

    Thank you for the suggestion on WUWT, but I am not interested in making “assaults” on anyone’s religion, whether it be Christianity or Islam (I note your statements in defense of the former and assaults on the latter with interest). And when it comes to pointing out Dr Spencer’s deficiencies on climate science, I believe that there has been enough written on that score as noted in my first post.

    What I was looking for from you since you support Dr Spencer and criticize the IPCC are the actual facts and scientific arguments to back up those criticisms.

    I had hoped that we might get beyond the headlines and have an actual debate about the substance and find not yet another simple regurgitation of the Republican-party talking points on the subject, but it seems that you are not interested in that.

    Or am I wrong?

    If so, rather than deferring to Dr Spencer and his website, let’s delve into the facts and science here and see who will “stand there slack-jawed and watch like a Philistine as the temple comes crashing down around” him.

  4. MadAlfred says:

    Sorry, Thomas, but you are as misguided as the rest of those who embrace the eco-religious aspects of global warming. Science is never settled because a number of state-funded researchers claim that their manipulation of data demonstrates it to be. Climate science is still in its infancy and theoretical models must continually be refined when observations do not match predicted outcomes.

    Now, if you want to cite anecdotal evidence from older Danes to support your claims that Global Warming is a fact, I can tell you as an older American that I believe the variability I have witnessed in my long years looks like nothing more than the variance to norm one would expect. Of recent, the summers where I live have trended towards cooler weather than a decade ago.

    On the other hand, I could point to the Medieval warming period in which the historical evidence seems to indicate an average temperature above what we are currently experiencing as well as the Little Ice Age which was much cooler than present. So, based on historical evidence, we are hardly experiencing a time of extreme weather.

    Now, I know that global warming enthusiasts like to place their faith that their views are correct and everyone with dissenting opinions are either inherently evil or misguided. I do get that. It’s not much different than the religious extremists that belittled by those who consider themselves as morally superior.

    One last thing, we Americans have always made our own way through life, dealing with whatever cards are dealt us. We don’t need to follow the examples of our betters in Europe.

  5. Thomas Dillon says:

    Madalfred,

    I repeat my invitation here to you, that rather than simply regurgitate the views of either side of the debate, let us delve into the actual science, the facts and arguments either here or through email correspondence (my email address is thomasdillon01@me.com).

    Phineas is “done,” he says, thus placing him squarely in my view in what you call an “eco-religious” group, albeit the religious group that denies that climate change is man made as he prefers to stay with the PR headlines and not dirty his hands with anything approaching honest intellectual discourse.

    Phineas has accused me of being “smug and condescending”, and I take it from your tone that you too share this view, but I propose to you that I am not and challenge you to show me where it is that I am. If I were simply to defer to the “experts” only and not invite you into a substantive debate, then yes, this critique may suit. But it is to an actual substantive debate that I am inviting you and Phineas to participate. In my view there is no room in substantive debate for condescension or smugness. The facts should stand for themselves.

    My question to you is this: Do you also belong to an eco-religious group (either pro or contra), or are you one of those that actually will look at the evidence?

    Should you like Phineas refuse, then this act alone begs the question: which of us is ruled by prejudice, is smug and condescending and which of us is at least prima facie intellectually honest with regard to the climate change debate?

    My thesis is that most are ruled by prejudice on both sides and few if any non-experts have ever delved into the actual science. But I do believe that one side may be more justified in their prejudice than another. Those that defer to the scientific community that we trust to design anything from pharmaceuticals to airplanes, rockets and satellites may have more of a point for their “prejudice” than the luddites that defer to political pundits for their “scientific expertise” and, I believe, it is reasonable to place the burden of proof upon the latter for why we should discard the overwhelming scientific consensus on a particular matter.

    As to your other comments, I’d like to address them one by one.

    These are:

    Firstly, historical evidence of the Baltic Sea no longer freezing over in winter for several decades is mere “anecdotal” evidence of global warming or climate change.

    You raise in this regard as a counterpoint the “little ice age”. But the fact of the little ice age alone taken out of context of the scientific framework of climate research does not rise above anecdotal evidence without a discussion of that framework of the climate change debate and whether what is termed as the “overwhelming scientific consensus” in favor of man-made climate change is fundamentally flawed or not.

    Secondly, based on historical evidence we are hardly experiencing a period of extreme weather.

    Whether or not we are experiencing a period of extreme weather, again is an anecdotal-evidence argument and does not address the fundamental scientific inquiry and its framework and whether it is flawed or not. It smacks of a right-wing denial talking point, and while effective PR, it says nothing about the efficacy of the scientific discourse.

    Thirdly, Americans have always made their own way through life.

    This is patriotic, isolationist nonsense, and is not nor ever will be a valid argument with regard to the scientific basis of the climate-change debate, proper national or international scientific policy, proper national or international economic policy, proper business practices for national or international companies. This discussion, as far as I know, is at present between Americans, as I am one as well, being born and raised in Savannah, Georgia. I happen to live in Denmark at present as I am here professionally.

    Fourthly, you state that I am misguided because you imply that I adhere to or believe in “state-funded researchers” who manipulate the data, presumably in order to falsify conclusions that there is indeed man-made climate change.

    This point is one of the central features of the debate.

    Are the researchers from institutions such as MIT, Harvard, Stanford, NASA, NOAA, Victoria University, Bern University, etc, biased manipulators of data? The IPCC panel (see, http://baptistlife.com/flick/Globalwarming/IPCCleadauthors.htm for the primary contributors to the IPCC report) is listed here.

    Many of these same scientists lead teams for NOAA and NASA on such projects as satellite sensoring of earth’s atmosphere. Their scientific objectivity and professionalism has been called into question not originally by you, but by the right-wing propaganda machine in the United States and the UK. Insofar as you raising it here, you merely regurgitate it without, as far as I can determine, any original research, inquiry or thought whatsoever on your part.

    Thus, my call to you and Phineas for a substantive debate.

    So far, you and Phineas have deferred to the right-wing PR machine talking points, and refuse to take part in a substantive debate.

    Dr Spencer, on the other hand, who is a former NASA scientist, and his paper which is the catalyst of these posts, is allegedly a paid consultant to ExxonMobile, a company with a definitive interest in the denial of man-made climate change, and associated with and supporter of various traditional religious groups that deny a variety of well-documented scientific positions. These accusations, if true, legitimately call into question not only the motivation of his research, but, considering the lack of substantive response to the critiques against it, the conclusions as well.

    I hate to put this bluntly, but at this point I find your responses very typical of the right. There is simply nothing in your discourse so far that even scratches the surface of actual scientific inquiry or debate.

    I am challenging you here to enter into this debate in order to determine whether you are intellectually honest or not.

    Either put up, or shut up.

  6. MadAlfred says:

    Thomas,

    Seems to be you are spouting as much nonsense as you accuse me and others who do not believe in “Man-Made” Global Warming of doing.

    Let me query you this: if you could do everything in your power to stop the man-made climate disaster as you consider the situation, what would be in end game? Do you believe that the average climate should be colder (and bring back the frozen Baltic)? Perhaps, more predictable and constant (without the seasonal norm) with average rainfall year in and year out?

    If I am typical Right, then you are also stereotypical Left. You equally dismiss evidence — historical or otherwise — when it suits you and call others who disagree intellectually dishonest?

    So, I’d like to hear what you think the climate should be if you are able to shut down “harmful” human activity. What do you think people should do without to achieve your idea state? What cost should our (collective Western) society — decrease in standard of living, for example — pay to achieve such ends? Or, do you believe that such sacrifice would actually enhance one’s standard of living?

    And in light of this sacrifice by the West, what would you to convince emerging economies to play?

    Or, are you one of those Leftists who believe that the West should commit cultural suicide to atone for past sins against other peoples?

    And if the science of Man-Made Global Warming is so solid, then why do proponents in NASA and the University of East Anglia feel the need to falsify data? Moreover, why would IPCC feel the need to reset their climatic predictions whenever such affects do not become reality in the time-frame they set?

    So, in the interest of intellectual discourse, I am looking forward to your response.

    Now it may take me a while to respond as I am heading off to GenCon US tomorrow morning. If you don’t do so already, may I suggest you take up Call of Cthulhu roleplay as a hobby.

  7. Thomas Dillon says:

    Madalfred,

    Many thanks for your reply and your suggestion re hobby. I’ve taken a look at the website for Gencon and it seems to be quite popular indeed.

    Now to the intellectual discourse.

    I have taken the liberty of categorizing and distilling your questions and comments into three basic types for the sake of efficiency and clarity and I limit myself to your latest post.

    They are as follows:

    1. Political-polemical arguments-statements

    > the left v. right statement, that I, as a liberal, dismiss evidence
    when it suits
    > I am spouting the same nonsense as you

    – I believe the West should commit political suicide to save the
    planet
    – I believe the West should . . . to atone for past sins against the
    world
    (both of these latter are polemical and need not be addressed
    at this time)

    2. Questions of Policy

    > How should the climate be?
    > How much should it cost?
    > What role should emerging economies play? (latter two
    polemics raised here)

    3. Actual Scientific questions, issues

    > If man-made climate change science is so solid, why do
    scientists keep changing their models?

    Now to the individual points.

    1. Polemical-Political

    At the outset with regard to these arguments-statements, I have used the term “polemics” not in the classical but more modern sense of a political or rhetorical form of argument in its most aggressive form. I believe that this form of argument has limited value in the present context, but can be quite effective in the realm of PR and politics to “rally the troops” so to speak. In this regard, the right-wing PR machine employs the technique masterfully, but rarely, if ever goes beyond it.

    I use the technique myself when it is warranted, id est at the close of an argument once the factual parameters have been established and debated.

    Now to the substance of your polemical arguments. First, you state that I am a liberal and that I dismiss evidence when it does not suit.

    There are a number of problems with this assertion at this stage of the debate. What is the basis for your assumption that I am a liberal, and where in our discourse have I dismissed the evidence when it did not suit me? These are assumptions that you are making about liberals in general without any reference to facts to back up your position.

    Based upon my reading of the record of our discussions, we have not yet begun to discuss the evidence. It is this very lack of dearth in the discussion of the actual facts and science that I have decried from the beginning and have been requesting that we address.

    In fact, it seems that you have either intentionally or perhaps unwittingly employed one of the most aggressive forms of polemical debate; to whit, accuse your opponent of the very deficiency you yourself are guilty.

    A very effective polemical approach, but one that ultimately generates more heat than light, especially in a discussion that has as its end the determination of what is actually true and accurate.

    Your second statement in this section is that you accuse me of spouting the same nonsense as you. This statement is perhaps more telling than the first, but says more about your belief in your position than it does about me in mine.

    Therefore, and if you agree, I suggest that we put aside polemics and politics at this stage and focus solely on the science and the evidence. In my view science is neither liberal nor conservative by nature. It is the pursuit of fact and truth, something that politics has very oft has very little in common.

    2. Questions of Policy

    These are exactly the correct questions and are at the heart of the response to the conclusions of the debate, no matter which conclusion is found.

    However, to discuss them before we have established a conclusion, e.g. is there or is there not man-made climate change, we risk falling into the polemical-political trap again and move no further forward.

    Thus I suggest, if you agree, that we begin with the scientific questions.

    3. Scientific Questions, Issues

    Here you have asked, quite reasonably, why do the scientists change their models? It is an excellent question.
    Well, first, I would respond by pointing out that scientists are changing, rearranging and remodeling all of the time.

    A case in point in this regard is the Theory of Relativity, the single most successful theory on how it is we understand the macro-universe. To date, there is a major discrepancy in that theory that we have, as yet, been completely unable to explain. That discrepancy has to do with the mass of the known universe. To date we can through our actual observations of the universe only account for a very small fraction of its mass, approximately 5% to be exact of the actual mass of the universe is attributable to things that we can see, solar systems, stars, nebulae, dust, etc. The vast majority, because as yet we have not found it, we attribute to dark matter (about 23%) and dark energy (the rest).

    That’s a big hole! But, and this is a big caveat on trying to take down the Theory of Relativity as junk science, it works, and works exceedingly well. Not only are we able to make accurate predictions about how the universe and things within it behave based on this theory, without it, any, and I mean all, scientific endeavor in space (Apollo missions, Space Shuttle, Space Station, Satellites, rovers on Mars, etc.) would have been impossible without it.

    A second case in point is the other most successful theory with regard to the micro-universe, Quantum Mechanics. Without it we would not have almost every achievement in computers, nuclear physics, telecommunications, etc. But, again there is a big problem, the two most successful theories of the universe, macro and micro, are completely incompatible with one another! But they both work, insofar as they help us describe, predict and manipulate the universe, to make ever faster computer chips and ever smaller data storage devices, to build quantum computers.

    And we are changing, refining these models all of the time. Refinement of a model does not mean that it is junk, it simply means we are attempting to improve it to make it more consistent with reality as we discover more about it.

    What makes man-made climate-change science the ugly, abused step child of science? Why do we treat it differently? I think the answer is obvious, and it has nothing to do with liberals and conservatives (that’s just where the battle lines have been arbitrarily drawn) but let’s leave that to our further debate.

    Now, I would like to propose a thesis in the debate and let us see whether we can agree on it as the first substantive scientific take-off point for the debate.

    That thesis is as follows:

    Our first thesis for debate that I propose is that if the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community makes a determination on an issue, the burden of proof on whether that consensus is wrong should shift to those who oppose that determination.

    This principle position should hold true both within the scientific community for those who employ the scientific method (the single most successful method that has been devised in order to determine what actually works and is true about the physical universe), as well as for for those pundits, politicians, bloggers, business people and ordinary citizens who wish to disparage a widely-held scientific position.

    If you disagree with this assessment of the scientific method and hold that there is a more reliable way of determining the truth about the universe, what, why and how things actually work in the physical world or do not, I propose for your consideration airplanes, cars, trains (or for that matter any mode of modern transportation including the bicycle), as well rockets and satellites to telecommunications devices such as mobile phones and the internet and not least modern medicine as examples of what the scientific method has produced.

    No one is questioning whether we can or ought to fly, drive, communicate over vast distances or go to the doctor, or at least no reasonable people are asking these questions.

    So, why is it, with regard to the science of man-made climate change, we are making an exception to this rule? Because it affects our wallets? Because the oil companies are particularly good at PR and muddying the waters in the political sphere?

    These are indeed important considerations, but if we are attempting to have an honest intellectual discourse, they are ultimately at most secondary inquiries and most likely completely irrelevant.

  8. Thomas Dillon says:

    It’s been three weeks, gentlemen. Do you wish to engage on the science and the facts or continue in ignorant demagoguery?

  9. MadAlfred says:

    As you say, let’s go with the Scientific method. I think it is an excellent place to start. I would also propose that we take at face value, that climate change has been with us since well before the coming of man.

    So, what evidence is there that the climate in recent decades have been dramatically different than what we have in the historical record and, if indeed it is different than previous periods of human existence, what evidence is such a difference the result of human activity?

    And in the course of this dialogue, we should consider all research and not exclude that which might have been sponsored by evil oil companies or rabid environmentalists or people heavily invested in the outcome of their research. If we start excluding the research of one person or the other due to political or religious bias, we will have nothing left to discuss. Would you not agree?

  10. Ludwig Von Friedman says:

    Do you almost feel sorry for yourself now? Bwahahahah!!! You corrupt pussies can’t lie if your next paycheck depended on it. Resigning and admitting you all lied and failed. BWAH-AHAHAHAH!
    Read it and weep, bootlicking fools!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574

    • Somehow, I don’t get the feeling you’re interested in a genuine discussion, but, just in case, you can start with replies from Spencer and Pielke. You’re welcome back if you learned not to act like a coprolalia poster child by that time.

  11. Thomas Dillon says:

    As to Madalfred’s comment above, I think that in a scientific discussion bias of any stripe should be given no quarter. The immediate post above is an example of why this should be so.

    It seems that Dr Spencer’s article and his choice of publication was nothing more than a mischievous prank, to put it kindly. Apparently, he gamed the system by targeting an off-topic publication so that his less-than-stellar product could get published at all.

    Also, I think it wise to leave juvenile, end-zone-style celebrations out of it as well, as exemplified by the original title of this article above and by the immediate post above by “von Friedman”.

    Let’s get to the science, people!

  12. MadAlfred says:

    Thomas,

    If you demand that we forgo all scientific studies that have any bias, then we pretty much have little to discuss. Even those studies by the IPCC (a number of whom have invested heavily in green energy and carbon credits) and East Anglia University have been shown to have bias and selective data collection.

    Other than Dr. Spencer’s work, there have been many other studies — as well as empirical data — that have refuted a number of the claims made by the IPCC studies. I have yet to see the man-made global warming advocates put forward a coherent counter-argument to many of the recent findings. In fact, the only argument I keep hearing is that it is a “settled science.”

    If one wants to discuss the science, then one must discuss the studies from all sides of the argument, not just the one side that supports the thesis of man-made global warming. If you believe that only these AGW advocates are pure of heart and the other side is only corrupted by big oil and politics, then let’s stop wasting each other’s time. From my view, you are not really interested in any objective discussion of the scientific studies, only pushing forward your own limited view.

  13. Thomas Dillon says:

    MadAlfred,

    It’s sad to say, but you and Phineas are not up to the task. You have checked your brains at the door of wing-nuttery. You have “drunk the cool aid”.

    You wish to use biased research to discuss a scientific issue. You claim the science on the side of man-made climate change is biased.

    Despite several invitations to a non-biased, fact-based debate on the science, you have both declined.

    That rejection speaks for itself.

    I do hope that you and Phineas do not represent the quality and quantity of intellectual curiosity on the right. If so, then, considering the direction that US politics is taking these days, we may be in for many more years of ignorance from policy makers.

    If that is so, it will be bad for America and bad for the world.

    I wish you and Phineas all the best,

    Thomas Dillon

  14. MadAlfred says:

    You know, Thomas, you reminded me of all the high-minded, though intellectually challenged, people out in the world who believe themselves to be superior to all others about them. The problem is that you cannot see the same faults in yourself as you see in others. Rather than discuss scientific research in opposition to your own beliefs, you would rather attack the researchers instead of engaging in an honest discussion about their methodology, data, or findings.

    Even if one does not want to discuss Dr. Spencer’s work, there are a host of others who recent research calls into question whether Humanity has the influence on climate that other research claim. The fact that you want to discuss only research that supports Man-Made Global Warming calls into question your intellectual curiosity and that of the Left.

    I gladly join the growing number of Americans who recognize the fraud among the Man-made Global Warming advocates. The fact that people such as yourself cannot recognize the growing evidence suggesting the IPCC and East Anglia models are fraught with inaccuracies is something with which you need to come to terms if you want to be taken seriously.

    Climate change has been with Humanity since the rise of the Egyptians and Sumerians, if not in our prehistory. There is no evidence that today’s temperatures are higher than the warmest of the periods in history nor lower than the coldest.

    If you cannot come to grips with the fact that we live within the normal variance of climate, then you have no place to be lecturing others.

  15. Thomas Dillon says:

    MadAlfred,

    Your post is illuminating.

    It demonstrates

    1) you have not read my posts, or in the alternative, have willfully misunderstood them,

    2) you are interested in polemics and not actual debate,

    3) you are partisan and smug.

    That is a shame.

    There are far too many with this attitude on both sides of every issue facing us in these challenging times.

    I was hoping to break through the polemics and reflexiveness to bring about a substantive debate sans politics and bias. You offered only a politically-based and biased “scientific” discussion.

    You say you recognize the “fraud among Man-made Global Warming advocates”.

    I say that you do not even have the means as yet to make any judgement as you are caught in a right-wing echo chamber on the subject, as I suspect you are on many other issues.

    Therefore, discussion with you is fruitless and will never get beyond playground-style name calling.

    What we truly need is a meeting of the minds on the substance of all of these protracted problems and not self-righteous chest thumping.

    Again, I wish you all the best,

    Thomas Dillon

  16. MadAlfred says:

    Thomas,

    You really should stop trying to cast yourself as an objective observer willing to consider the facts in a scientific debate when you attack individuals’ work based on their religious beliefs. Many good and conscientious scientists actually do believe in God, just as there are those who do not.

    [For the record, I do not believe in God, but am not in any shape what one would consider religious].

    All I am merely pointing out is that you exhibit the same kind of behavior and attitude that you so readily apply to myself and anyone else who disagrees with the man-made aspect of climate change. I just find it amazing that you cannot see in yourself what you so readily see in others.

    Perhaps as you grow older, you will gain the wisdom to see that you are not so much different than those you disparage.

    Cheers.

  17. Thomas Dillon says:

    MadAlfred,

    This will be my last posting here, so feel free to have the last word.

    My intention, regardless of the actual result, is not to disparage anyone, but to strive for mutual understanding, common ground.

    Unfortunately, the discourse on this and so many issues is so emotionally charged to make that nearly, inevitably impossible.

    As to the critique of Dr Spencer, which you style as an “attack”, it should be noted that an author’s bias as his or her motivation is fair game in public debate, as are methods and research. I believe that that line of approach was fully justified, as demonstrated by later revelations, particularly in the instant case.

    You accuse me of naiveté, or being sophomoric, being the same as those I disparage. Do I detect an admission in this statement?

    Well, we will have to leave it there as life is too short, it seems, to let the facts get in the way of a good debate!

    I wish you, Pubsecrets and Phineas much success and long life.

    Thomas

  18. MadAlfred says:

    Take care, Thomas

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,562 other followers

%d bloggers like this: