An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

[TheCalvinator24]

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... 34971.html

I was wondering when you were going to post this. I've already Tweeted it and posted it to facebook.

This one is good, too.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... osols.html

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Oh what the heck, let's throw this one out there just in case anything comes of it.

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.

Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into "integrity issues." But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general's office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-arcti ... 17993.html

[Bob78164]

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... 34971.html

I think a little skepticism of an article that uses the phrase "alarmist computer models" is justified. Here's the link to the actual paper. Unfortunately, my attempts to use that link have timed out -- perhaps it's a bad link. --Bob

[Bob78164]

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... 34971.html

I think a little skepticism of an article that uses the phrase "alarmist computer models" is justified. Here's the link to the actual paper. Unfortunately, my attempts to use that link have timed out -- perhaps it's a bad link. --Bob

I find the comments at this link interesting. Apparently he was unable to get his work published in an established journal -- Remote Sensing appears to be more or less brand new. And according to the comments (particularly comment 16), Spencer has gotten his data wrong in the past. --Bob

[TheCalvinator24]

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... 34971.html

I think a little skepticism of an article that uses the phrase "alarmist computer models" is justified. Here's the link to the actual paper. Unfortunately, my attempts to use that link have timed out -- perhaps it's a bad link. --Bob

I find the comments at this link interesting. Apparently he was unable to get his work published in an established journal -- Remote Sensing appears to be more or less brand new. And according to the comments (particularly comment 16), Spencer has gotten his data wrong in the past. --Bob

It's no surprise that a study that shows weakness in the AGW claim would have difficulty getting published in a more established journal. Climategate revealed that there have been coordinated efforts to block any papers that do not subscribe to the "scientific consensus."

[Bob78164]

I think a little skepticism of an article that uses the phrase "alarmist computer models" is justified. Here's the link to the actual paper. Unfortunately, my attempts to use that link have timed out -- perhaps it's a bad link. --Bob

I find the comments at this link interesting. Apparently he was unable to get his work published in an established journal -- Remote Sensing appears to be more or less brand new. And according to the comments (particularly comment 16), Spencer has gotten his data wrong in the past. --Bob

It's no surprise that a study that shows weakness in the AGW claim would have difficulty getting published in a more established journal. Climategate revealed that there have been coordinated efforts to block any papers that do not subscribe to the "scientific consensus."

I call BS.

This is conspiracy theory at its finest. If it doesn't get published, it's not because the science is unsound, it's because there's a massive conspiracy to conceal the truth. The insidious thing about this argument is that there's no way for those who lack the scientific training to evaluate the paper (including the nuts and bolts of data gathering) to prove or disprove it.

I'll note, though, that the NASA link, which likewise suggests that current studies overestimate the effect of global warming, doesn't seem to have had any trouble getting published. --Bob

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

I call BS.

This is conspiracy theory at its finest. If it doesn't get published, it's not because the science is unsound, it's because there's a massive conspiracy to conceal the truth. The insidious thing about this argument is that there's no way for those who lack the scientific training to evaluate the paper (including the nuts and bolts of data gathering) to prove or disprove it.

I'll note, though, that the NASA link, which likewise suggests that current studies overestimate the effect of global warming, doesn't seem to have had any trouble getting published. --Bob

Would change your mind about the BS and proof, if say hypothetically there were leaked emails from say leading scientists in the field that said they were trying to do exactly that?

[Bob78164]

I call BS.

This is conspiracy theory at its finest. If it doesn't get published, it's not because the science is unsound, it's because there's a massive conspiracy to conceal the truth. The insidious thing about this argument is that there's no way for those who lack the scientific training to evaluate the paper (including the nuts and bolts of data gathering) to prove or disprove it.

I'll note, though, that the NASA link, which likewise suggests that current studies overestimate the effect of global warming, doesn't seem to have had any trouble getting published. --Bob

Would change your mind about the BS and proof, if say hypothetically there were leaked emails from say leading scientists in the field that said they were trying to do exactly that?

I'm reasonably familiar with Climategate. Those weren't the findings of any of the investigations (I think there were 4). --Bob

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

I call BS.

This is conspiracy theory at its finest. If it doesn't get published, it's not because the science is unsound, it's because there's a massive conspiracy to conceal the truth. The insidious thing about this argument is that there's no way for those who lack the scientific training to evaluate the paper (including the nuts and bolts of data gathering) to prove or disprove it.

I'll note, though, that the NASA link, which likewise suggests that current studies overestimate the effect of global warming, doesn't seem to have had any trouble getting published. --Bob

Would change your mind about the BS and proof, if say hypothetically there were leaked emails from say leading scientists in the field that said they were trying to do exactly that?

I'm reasonably familiar with Climategate. Those weren't the findings of any of the investigations (I think there were 4). --Bob

Nice evasion Bob, now would you like to answer my question?

[Bob78164]

Would change your mind about the BS and proof, if say hypothetically there were leaked emails from say leading scientists in the field that said they were trying to do exactly that?

I'm reasonably familiar with Climategate. Those weren't the findings of any of the investigations (I think there were 4). --Bob

Nice evasion Bob, now would you like to answer my question?

Since the premise is false, no. --Bob

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

I'm reasonably familiar with Climategate. Those weren't the findings of any of the investigations (I think there were 4). --Bob

Nice evasion Bob, now would you like to answer my question?

Since the premise is false, no. --Bob

Ooooh Double evasion, impressive!

[frogman042]

Would change your mind about the BS and proof, if say hypothetically there were leaked emails from say leading scientists in the field that said they were trying to do exactly that?

I'm reasonably familiar with Climategate. Those weren't the findings of any of the investigations (I think there were 4). --Bob

Nice evasion Bob, now would you like to answer my question?

Do me a favor and post the emails (or the links to them) that meet the criteria that:

Climategate revealed that there have been coordinated efforts to block any papers that do not subscribe to the "scientific consensus."

Now, if they emails say or imply that they opposed them because they were bad/unsound/improperly reviewed science or lack scientific merit - then that won't support your claim. They need to show that they were being excluded because they 'do not subscribe to the "scientific consensus."'.

I've read a number of the emails, mostly those that folks on the opposing side claimed were 'smoking guns' - and what I saw in them only confirmed that these folks (who cried CLIMATEGATE) don't want to do science but only care about winning over the public through the political process by spreading FUD.

But if you know of actual emails that can support Cal's claim. I would love to see them.

[TheCalvinator24]

I'm reasonably familiar with Climategate. Those weren't the findings of any of the investigations (I think there were 4). --Bob

Nice evasion Bob, now would you like to answer my question?

Do me a favor and post the emails (or the links to them) that meet the criteria that:

Climategate revealed that there have been coordinated efforts to block any papers that do not subscribe to the "scientific consensus."

Now, if they emails say or imply that they opposed them because they were bad/unsound/improperly reviewed science or lack scientific merit - then that won't support your claim. They need to show that they were being excluded because they 'do not subscribe to the "scientific consensus."'.

I've read a number of the emails, mostly those that folks on the opposing side claimed were 'smoking guns' - and what I saw in them only confirmed that these folks (who cried CLIMATEGATE) don't want to do science but only care about winning over the public through the political process by spreading FUD.

But if you know of actual emails that can support Cal's claim. I would love to see them.

You have seen them. You just interpret them differently.

Again, not surprising.

[frogman042]

Nice evasion Bob, now would you like to answer my question?

Do me a favor and post the emails (or the links to them) that meet the criteria that:

Climategate revealed that there have been coordinated efforts to block any papers that do not subscribe to the "scientific consensus."

Now, if they emails say or imply that they opposed them because they were bad/unsound/improperly reviewed science or lack scientific merit - then that won't support your claim. They need to show that they were being excluded because they 'do not subscribe to the "scientific consensus."'.

I've read a number of the emails, mostly those that folks on the opposing side claimed were 'smoking guns' - and what I saw in them only confirmed that these folks (who cried CLIMATEGATE) don't want to do science but only care about winning over the public through the political process by spreading FUD.

But if you know of actual emails that can support Cal's claim. I would love to see them.

You have seen them. You just interpret them differently.

Again, not surprising.

Which emails do you think support your claim and that you find convincing?

You made a very strong statement, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask you to back it up with some actual evidence.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/ ... dix_b.html

[TheCalvinator24]

Do me a favor and post the emails (or the links to them) that meet the criteria that:

Now, if they emails say or imply that they opposed them because they were bad/unsound/improperly reviewed science or lack scientific merit - then that won't support your claim. They need to show that they were being excluded because they 'do not subscribe to the "scientific consensus."'.

I've read a number of the emails, mostly those that folks on the opposing side claimed were 'smoking guns' - and what I saw in them only confirmed that these folks (who cried CLIMATEGATE) don't want to do science but only care about winning over the public through the political process by spreading FUD.

But if you know of actual emails that can support Cal's claim. I would love to see them.

You have seen them. You just interpret them differently.

Again, not surprising.

Which emails do you think support your claim and that you find convincing?

You made a very strong statement, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask you to back it up with some actual evidence.

Just quit wasting your, my, and everybody's time with your request.

You know, and I know, that no matter what I post, you aren't going to agree with my interpretation, so your request is nothing but disingenuous.

You believe in AGW, and you won't accept anything that is contrary.

Because of what I have seen as corruption of the scientific process in this area, I won't accept anything that comes out touting the idea of AGW.

It's as simple as that.

[frogman042]

You have seen them. You just interpret them differently.

Again, not surprising.

What is simple is that you are wrong. First and foremost I don't "believe in AGW" nor will I not "accept anything that is contrary". Also, I asked which specific emails you found convincing that support your position - I'm guessing none since you won't reference any.

Here is what I do believe. If what the scientific consensus actual holds, then I fear it will have adverse effects on the lives of, if not my children, almost certainly the lives of my grandchildren and any children they may have. That I do care about.

Ever since I started seeing TMITSSS's anti-AGW posts, I would follow the links to see if there was anything there. What he has convinced me so far is that most of the articles he posts are flawed from what little science I know and they have lots of logical fallacies. I see a strong resemblance to the same methods that the anti-evolution folks use. I don't see very much in the way of doing the hard work that scientific acceptance requires. That is why I put very little faith in what they have to say. Does their incompetency mean that AGW is real? No, of course not. Is the evidence for AWG as good as they claim? To be honest, I don't know. I don't have the training or expertise in this area to evaluate it. But I have enough experience in the scientific arena to know that it is nearly impossible to pull off a conspiracy of the nature that the anti-side claims must happen. Bad science gets exposed because nature will not go along with conspiracies and will ultimately expose it as being false. There are too many people involved and science rewards those that can show the consensus is wrong - but it is not easy to do and you really have to have the data to back it up. This is why I doubt the doubters - they haven't put anything of value on the table.

Do I hope that AGW is not happening? Of course. If it is indeed happening do I hope that the consequences will not be what we are being warned about - absolutely. Unfortunately, as of yet I fear that is not the case. Mainly because those who are opposing it are doing such a piss-poor job.

So, if there was actually any real science that a) can explain the data that has been gathered that points to another explanation other than AGW, b) predict things that support its claims but would not be supported by AGW (and I hope you know that scientific predictions don't have to be future events), then yes I would seriously consider that AGW may not be occurring. To date, I have seen nothing even close to meeting either of these conditions and I have followed nearly every one of TMITSSS links.

Let me ask you, what evidence would convince you that AGW might actually be occurring and that something proactive should be done?

[TheCalvinator24]

Let me ask you, what evidence would convince you that AGW might actually be occurring and that something proactive should be done?

At this point, I am pretty jaded, so there probably isn't any.

[frogman042]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/ ... dix_b.html

Thanks for the link. It is really long and I only read about the first half or so. Nothing in there seems to support Cal's claim (one that I'm assumin you agree with). Lots seem to confirm the claim that they thought the paper was bad science, though.

Below is some excerpts which seems to me to support the position that they opposed it because it was flawed (I'm not saying they are correct and that it is flawed, I'm saying that the emails state that their reasons for opposing it is because they think it is flawed/bad science). Of course, they could be lying and use these reasons as bogus arguments - but they seem to do a good job hiding that sentiment if that was true. Also note that the paper was indeed published - I thought one of the claims were that contrary papers would never be allowed to be published.

So could you point to me the section that seems to support your position?

Here are some excerpts that I noticed:

From: Dec 4 2009 [1196795844]
"To me, the fundamental error is 2.3.1 [Note a]
Does IJC publish comments?"

....
It sure does! Have read briefly - the surface arguments are wrong. I know editors have difficulty finding reviewers, but letting this one pass is awful - and IJC was improving

6 Dec 2007 [1196956362]
No, this would not be dire. What is dire is Douglass et al.'s willful
neglect of any observational datasets that do not support their
arguments.

10 Dec 2008 [1197325034]
I think the scientific fraud committed by Douglass needs to be exposed. His co-authors may be innocent bystanders, but I doubt it.In normal circumstances, what Douglass has done would cause him to lose his job -- a parallel is the South Korean cloning fraud case. I have suggested that someone like Chris Mooney should be told about this.

12 Dec 2008 [1197507092]
The Douglass et al. paper was rejected twice before it was finally accepted by IJC [Note a]. I think this paper is a real embarrassment for the IJC. It has serious scientific flaws. I'm already working on a response.
Phil can tell you about some of the other sordid details of Douglass et al. These guys ignored information from radiosonde datasets that did not support their "models are wrong" argument (even though they had these datasets in their possession)[Note b]. Pretty deplorable behaviour...Douglass is the guy who famously concluded (after examining the temperature response to Pinatubo) that the climate system has negative sensitivity. Amazingly, he managed to publish that crap in GRL.

10 Jan 2008 13:00 [1199988028]
Quick publication of a response to Douglass et al. in IJC would go some way towards setting the record straight. I am troubled, however, by the very real possibility that Douglass et al. will have the last word on this subject. If IJC are interested in publishing our contribution, I believe it's fair to ask for the following:

1) Our paper should be regarded as an independent contribution, not as a
comment on Douglass et al. ...
2) If IJC agrees to 1), then Douglass et al. should have the opportunity
to respond to our contribution, and we should be given the chance to
reply. Any response and reply should be published side-by-side, in the
same issue of IJC.

[frogman042]

Let me ask you, what evidence would convince you that AGW might actually be occurring and that something proactive should be done?

At this point, I am pretty jaded, so there probably isn't any.

I guess life is easier if you don't let reality intrude into what you know has to be the truth.

What a cowardly and shameful position to take.

[TheCalvinator24]

Let me ask you, what evidence would convince you that AGW might actually be occurring and that something proactive should be done?

At this point, I am pretty jaded, so there probably isn't any.

I guess life is easier if you don't let reality intrude into what you know has to be the truth.

What a cowardly and shameful position to take.

I appreciate the ad hominem as well as the complete mischaracterization of what I said.

[Beebs52]

At this point, I am pretty jaded, so there probably isn't any.

I guess life is easier if you don't let reality intrude into what you know has to be the truth.

What a cowardly and shameful position to take.

I appreciate the ad hominem as well as the complete mischaracterization of what I said.

Isn't some of the problem in agreeing that it may not necessarily be AGW? Just GW? In which case, so what? It happens. It has happened. It will happen. Along with global cooling. Cluster fucking abounds. Oh, and heat indexing. But, that's a whole other fun thing to discuss!

[mrkelley23]

You have seen them. You just interpret them differently.

Again, not surprising.

Which emails do you think support your claim and that you find convincing?

You made a very strong statement, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask you to back it up with some actual evidence.

Just quit wasting your, my, and everybody's time with your request.

You know, and I know, that no matter what I post, you aren't going to agree with my interpretation, so your request is nothing but disingenuous.

You believe in AGW, and you won't accept anything that is contrary.

Because of what I have seen as corruption of the scientific process in this area, I won't accept anything that comes out touting the idea of AGW.

It's as simple as that.

This cracks me up. Cal's response to this post is substantially identical to the most "damning" of the e-mails that were stolen. Because scientists were fed up with useless data requests from some people, they said basically the same thing Cal's saying here. Self-referential irony is just the bestest thing ever!

[Beebs52]

Which emails do you think support your claim and that you find convincing?

You made a very strong statement, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask you to back it up with some actual evidence.

Just quit wasting your, my, and everybody's time with your request.

You know, and I know, that no matter what I post, you aren't going to agree with my interpretation, so your request is nothing but disingenuous.

You believe in AGW, and you won't accept anything that is contrary.

Because of what I have seen as corruption of the scientific process in this area, I won't accept anything that comes out touting the idea of AGW.

It's as simple as that.

This cracks me up. Cal's response to this post is substantially identical to the most "damning" of the e-mails that were stolen. Because scientists were fed up with useless data requests from some people, they said basically the same thing Cal's saying here. Self-referential irony is just the bestest thing ever!

Enlighten me (I need it, always). I'm not sure this is self-referential irony. The emails and data requests were targets of FOIA requests. Something with which I'm familiar. It doesn't matter if they're annoying or piss one off or one thinks they're stupid. You have to answer them truthfully with documents you've actually produced and if you've altered or deleted them, in the absence of records retention guidelines, that's just the way it is. So, I don't understand how what Cal said equates to "scientists" being all too busy or disagreeable about answering FOIA requests. Oh, it's called the Texas Public Information Act here and we get requests all the time. For many years.

[Bob78164]

Just quit wasting your, my, and everybody's time with your request.

You know, and I know, that no matter what I post, you aren't going to agree with my interpretation, so your request is nothing but disingenuous.

You believe in AGW, and you won't accept anything that is contrary.

Because of what I have seen as corruption of the scientific process in this area, I won't accept anything that comes out touting the idea of AGW.

It's as simple as that.

This cracks me up. Cal's response to this post is substantially identical to the most "damning" of the e-mails that were stolen. Because scientists were fed up with useless data requests from some people, they said basically the same thing Cal's saying here. Self-referential irony is just the bestest thing ever!

Enlighten me (I need it, always). I'm not sure this is self-referential irony. The emails and data requests were targets of FOIA requests. Something with which I'm familiar. It doesn't matter if they're annoying or piss one off or one thinks they're stupid. You have to answer them truthfully with documents you've actually produced and if you've altered or deleted them, in the absence of records retention guidelines, that's just the way it is. So, I don't understand how what Cal said equates to "scientists" being all too busy or disagreeable about answering FOIA requests. Oh, it's called the Texas Public Information Act here and we get requests all the time. For many years.

I'm not sure that the law is the same in England, which is where this occurred, nor am I sure that the applicable act has no protections against duplicative and harassing requests.

But Cal is claiming that the scientists' attitude (frustration with requests they view as pointless, burdensome, and harassing) is evidence that they are uninterested in the truth if it conflicts with their preconceived conclusions, yet he is evincing precisely the same attitude. Of course, I view one of Cal's posts in this thread as an explicit concession that he's uninterested in the truth if it conflicts with his preconceived notions. --Bob