Undermining climate science

[biffvernon]

And here's some recent news about ice melting:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... 20208.html

[Ludwig]

It looks like your adopting an 'anti-government' or 'anti-mainstream' position, despite the relative evidence for each position. I disagree with the government on peak oil, but largely agree with them on climate change. This should not be seen as an amazing position - the government (all government's around the world) aren't all fools!

But most of them are knaves.

Just to chip in, I'm still inclined to believe that AGW is happening... But I keep room in my mind for "what if?" scenarios.

My trust in anything governments say has dropped further and further over the past few years. I'm almost at the point of assuming that if the Government says something, the truth must be the opposite.

There is so much photographic evidence of melting ice sheets and glaciers that the possibility of a cover-up seems pretty difficult to accept. In addition, while I am not an expert on the science, a link between CO2 and rising temperatures has been established for over half a century. Now I don't rule out the possibility that it was a scam from the start, all in preparation for Peak Oil. Lies of a similar order, in my opinion, have become conventional wisdom. But the evidence for those lies is, for me, pretty compelling, whereas the evidence against AGW largely seems to be mostly negative, along the lines of "but we can't be sure". As there have been (sometimes short-lived) whistleblowers about other secret stuff, I would have expected some climate scientist, somewhere, to have followed their conscience and provided evidence for this most colossal of scientific conspiracies.

On the other hand, I have some opinions now that I would have thought totally wacko 5 years ago, so who knows.

[biffvernon]

Apparently the Government believes that the Earth is not flat. Time for re-appraisal?

[RenewableCandy]

Actually Biff, how do we know that HMG believes the world is round, or indeed, if it does believe so, formulates its policies and strategies accordingly?

[snow hope]

It looks like your adopting an 'anti-government' or 'anti-mainstream' position, despite the relative evidence for each position. I disagree with the government on peak oil, but largely agree with them on climate change. This should not be seen as an amazing position - the government (all government's around the world) aren't all fools!

Therein lies the problem. Governments aren't fools at all. But Governments tell lies and/or avoid telling the truth habitually. If you disagree with that, then you can call me anti-government!

You have to get away from the position of believing the GCMs and their predictions for global temps over the decades ahead. Its a load of uncorroborated nonsense that you and many others have been sucked into accepting.

Do a bit more reading of the sceptical side of the fence and I think you will get a more balanced view on the subject.

As Dr Roy Spencer blogged,
"The real scandal is that it took a private organization like Heartland to compile the hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific publications which suggest that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might not be a problem for humanity or the biosphere. This is what the IPCC should have done, if it had any scientific objectivity."

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/i-heart-heartland/

[clv101]

You have to get away from the position of believing the GCMs and their predictions for global temps over the decades ahead. Its a load of uncorroborated nonsense that you and many others have been sucked into accepting.

Wooh - slow down there! I'm as anti GCMs as they come. I think GCMs have been vastly overused, with conclusions drawn from them that they really aren't able to justify. GCMs aren't able to recreate any of the dramatic shifts we know happened in the past (link), between them they can't even agree on 20thC. surface temperatures (which is why we always see intra-model anomalies presented not inter-model absolutes).

I have not been sucked into accepting anything.

Anyway, GCMs don't make "predictions for global temps" they make projections based on a stack of assumptions. They are a tool to investigate the system - not a crystal ball trying to predict the future.

Thing is - an understanding of climate change is not dependent on these complex models. The evidence for greenhouse gases causing warming - on average is, scientifically undisputed. There's huge uncertainty on spatial and temporal distribution of change but the basic tenants are clear. Way way clearer than the case of peak oil having happened which you seem ready to accept!

Did you watch Iain Stewart's Climate Wars documentary on this?
Episode 1
Episode 2
Episode 3
It's a really good series, charting this history of climate change science - addressing in turn many of the criticisms that have emerged over the years.

[snow hope]

Thing is - an understanding of climate change is not dependent on these complex models. The evidence for greenhouse gases causing warming - on average is, scientifically undisputed. There's huge uncertainty on spatial and temporal distribution of change but the basic tenants are clear.

Chris, I am fully aware of the science behind GHGs and their IR Radiation absorption spectra. Indeed, I am aware that water vapor has a MUCH greater potential for absorbing infrared than does CO2. The fact that H2O has such a wide absorption spectra compared to the small range of CO2 and of course the fact that their is SO MUCH MORE H20 in the atmosphere than CO2, which is really very small in amount, seriously questions why CO2 is such a concern. Maybe you could adress this specific point for me?

Way way clearer than the case of peak oil having happened which you seem ready to accept!

Not only am I ready to accept it, I am fully recognisant of it and attempting to mitigate it in whatever ways I can - as I have stated many times over the last few years.

Maybe you should ask yourself why you seem to think I have this dichotomy? I think this would be worthy of some serious thought on your behalf.......

Did you watch Iain Stewart's Climate Wars documentary on this?
Episode 1
Episode 2
Episode 3
It's a really good series, charting this history of climate change science - addressing in turn many of the criticisms that have emerged over the years.

Yes, I did. Thanks for the links, as I will watch it again. I am always interested in the way folks portray information and come to the conclusions they do.

[Ludwig]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/i-heart-heartland/

I followed this link Snow. The man writes articulately, but as far as I can tell he doesn't present any evidence that is not speculative.

I would be certainly take notice if there was evidence of nonconformist climatologists being murdered. It's largely the inordinate number of dead scientists in other fields that have led to my scepticism surrounding the official accounts of those subjects.

[biffvernon]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/i-heart-heartland/

I followed this link Snow. The man writes articulately, but as far as I can tell he doesn't present any evidence that is not speculative.

Oh FFS! Roy Spencer is nuts! He's a creationist. Probably thinks the Earth's flat. Get real.

This weeks editorial in New Scientist is worth looking at:

THERE is a strong sense of déjà vu about what is emerging over leaked emails from the Heartland Institute. ...

There simply is no credible scientific alternative to the theory that humans are warming the atmosphere. In 2010, a survey of 1372 climate scientists found that 97 per cent of those who publish most frequently in the field were in no doubt. They agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that human activity had caused most of Earth's warming over the second half of the 20th century. By comparison with these scientists, the climate expertise of the small group of contrarians was substantially lower (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107).

In the face of such broad agreement, the leaked strategy smacks of tactics used by tobacco companies as the evidence linking smoking to fatal diseases continued to grow. They employed accusations of scientific conspiracy, selective use of evidence and dissenting scientists to contradict public health experts and confuse the public. Oil companies have already used such tactics in the climate change debate.

The approach is also strikingly similar to the "teach the controversy" campaign mounted by the Seattle-based think tank the Discovery Institute. A decade ago, it designed lesson plans for teachers that focused on weaknesses in evolutionary theory and presented "intelligent design" as a scientific alternative. ID proposes that facets of the living world were created by a supernatural "intelligent cause".

An attempt to introduce ID by the district school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, was thwarted in 2005 when a judge ruled that ID is not science but the "progeny of creationism". As an offshoot of religion, its teaching in public schools is unconstitutional....

And from Wikipedia on Roy Spenser:

Intelligent design

Spencer is a proponent of intelligent design as the mechanism for the origin of species.[31] On the subject, Spencer wrote in 2005, "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."[31] In The Evolution Crisis, a compilation of five scientists who reject evolution, Spencer states: "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

[Ludwig]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/i-heart-heartland/

I followed this link Snow. The man writes articulately, but as far as I can tell he doesn't present any evidence that is not speculative.

Oh FFS! Roy Spencer is nuts! He's a creationist. Probably thinks the Earth's flat. Get real.

There's nothing wrong in reading what Roy Spencer has to say, otherwise how does one make a decision as to whether it's rubbish or not?

Plenty of highly intelligent people are absolutely certain of things that I am 90% certain (I would never say absolutely certain) are wrong. If I'd listened to them, I wouldn't know some very interesting, and very important, things.

[biffvernon]

There's nothing wrong in reading what Roy Spencer has to say,

So long as you fully understand that the guy is bonkers and you do not expect him to say anything truthful about climate science.

[snow hope]

Oh FFS! Roy Spencer is nuts! He's a creationist. Probably thinks the Earth's flat. Get real.

So long as you fully understand that the guy is bonkers and you do not expect him to say anything truthful about climate science.

I have to say that I am appalled by these statements. You are incapable of discussing the subject and spend your time bad-mouthing other people, which I would say goes as far as bringing this site into disrepute, possibly to the point of litigation. Not for the first time either.

For the information of others,

"Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil."

I care not for what you think of people and although you may be very good at ad hominem attacks, you seem to lacking in common ettiquete. I would be concerned at posting any links regarding Dr John Christy because of the attack you might launch.

Meanwhile I'll try to get back to discussing the reasons why substantial numbers of climate scientists are raising concerns and doubts about aspects of AGW, which may quite rightly undermine the climate science of the AGW Theory which we are told is the concensus.

(edit to add in quote start and end points)

[snow hope]

[Wooh - slow down there! I'm as anti GCMs as they come. I think GCMs have been vastly overused, with conclusions drawn from them that they really aren't able to justify. GCMs aren't able to recreate any of the dramatic shifts we know happened in the past (link), between them they can't even agree on 20thC. surface temperatures (which is why we always see intra-model anomalies presented not inter-model absolutes).

I have not been sucked into accepting anything.

Glad to hear you say that Chris and I was obviously wrong about you being sucked in, so apologies.

The evidence for greenhouse gases causing warming - on average is, scientifically undisputed. There's huge uncertainty on spatial and temporal distribution of change but the basic tenants are clear.

I largely agree with that, but what I disagree with is the the extent of warming that increasing CO2 causes and the constant ignoring of natural climate change that seems to be the order of the day.

[biffvernon]

you seem to lacking in common ettiquette.

Yes, I've given up on etiquette when it comes to people like Roy Spencer. If only we had an internationally recognised crime of ecocide we could but the people who deliberately spread the myth that global warming is natural or isn't happening on trial. These are the people that make it more likely that we keep burning carbon and end up making countless species, including our own, go extinct.

Who's Dr John Christy? Never heard of him. Is he another one?

[biffvernon]

Oh that Dr John Christy. What was your point about him?