Climate Change? Of course. Which way?

BUBS, you remind me of your picture. Ever the tough guy, with the pointless, factless, insults of the vastly ignorant GW cult..

Phuk, we can have a civil debate if you'd just calm down and stop with the personal attacks and post some links to peer review
and not articles. Make a point and post the link to your science.

Heisenberg said:

Heh, you call someone on ad hominem and then poison the well
.

The point is that what you are doing is not debating as accepted by academic standards, and that is why academics refuse to debate you. This is how most reasonable people eventually respond to conspiracy theorists. You use debate as an excuse to go into your song and dance, and it never changes.

Click to expand...

We established the snobbery. I suppose these, "accepted by academic standards" and "reasonable people" comments you make are NOT designed to be insulting and bullying? And I suppose the "standards" you attest to, alllow you to call people Deniers, nay sayers, or worse, the similar, but more base venacular of BUDS.

Sounds like the cult of snobbery to me. cn asked for papers about Cloud Effect. What say you, oh Holy High Priest of Real Science?

Doer said:

"You are the only shrill commenter I have seen."

That, sir, is ad hominem. And though Mr. H "likes" your comment, he's well aware of how these attacks begin. I decided long ago to just fight this passive aggressive with aggressive. Make the PA types very nervous. And cn, you didn't notice where the personal attacks began?

Look through my exchange with H. also, on the other Thread. I notice he, too, is silent about Cloud Effect. So loud before.

The PA/PC approach is how the GW cult wants us personally insulted, if we don't agree. It's Thuggery. Tyranny. As soon as I was a lost in the article war trying to figure out what the Phuck he was talking about, I was called the lie, twice.

Re-read, cn. You set the tone but now you're changing stripes?

Most of it was a simple mis-understanding about which part of which article he means with his brief, un-explained approach of just posting links and snips.

Then he smears about me not reading it when he posted reference, only, to the article that YOU objected to. But, throws in a link and snip, un-referenced.

YOU wanted just the science posted, YOU acted strictly neutral, but never said a word about the Cloud Effect research I dug up for YOU.

Seems funny now that you want step in to scold me and not object to the no science /no peer review, Cheering Section articles of someone else. Foul. And, somehow, you don't seem so neutral now.

Phuck, if you would knock off the PA/PC you would be a better debater. H, same for you. Bullying is not debating.

Click to expand...

Two questions for you, Doer.
1) How is my description of your style as shrill an "ad hominem" attack? "Argumentum ad hominem" has a precise definition, and I don't see how I've done that.

2) What is PA/PC? And how is that important to the discussion?

And an observation. The article you linked does not discuss the cloud effect in any general way ... it seems to be about atmospheric sulfur. About the cloud effect in general, more data suggest it goes the wrong way to support your initial argument (slight positive cooperativity) than the way you imply (strong negative cooperativity). So afaik invoking the cloud effect neither kills nor advances the core discussion. cn

Originally Posted by Brick Top

If you honestly believe that 97% consensus crap this is your lucky day! I happen to own a really nice bridge that connects two boroughs of New York, those being Manhattan and Brooklyn. I'm getting older and I don't get many chances to go up there and enjoy it anymore so I have been considering selling it and I will sell it to you for a very reasonable price. I like to call it the Brooklyn Bridge but once yours you could of course rename it anything you would like. After all, it would be yours so you would have that right so you could rename it after yourself! If interested be sure to PM me.

Have you not heard about Climategate and now the sequel, Climategate 2? Recently another 5,000 emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University​—​ground zero of “Climategate I” in 2009 were released​. They have been even more damning than the originals.


Here is a little bit that touches on the consensus lie.

One thing that emerges from the new emails is that, while a large number of scientists are working on separate, detailed nodes of climate-related issues (the reason for dozens of authors for every IPCC report chapter), the circle of scientists who control the syntheses that go into IPCC reports and the national climate reports that the U.S. and other governments occasionally produce is quite small and partial to particular outcomes of these periodic assessments. The way the process works in practice casts a shadow over one of the favorite claims of the climate campaign​—​namely, that there exists a firm “consensus” about catastrophic future warming among thousands of scientists. This so-called consensus reflects only the views of a much smaller subset of gatekeepers.


In the editing process before the IPCC’s 2001 third assessment report, Timothy Carter of the Finnish Environmental Institute wrote in 2000 to three chapter authors with the observation, “It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.” In this case, decisions at the highest levels of what specific figures and conclusions were to appear in the short “summary for policy makers”​—​usually the only part of the IPCC’s multivolume reports that the media and politicians read​—​required changing what appeared in individual chapters, a case of the conclusions driving the findings in the detailed chapters instead of the other way around. This has been a frequent complaint of scientists participating in the IPCC process since the beginning, and the new emails show that even scientists within the “consensus” recognize the problem. Comments such as one from Jonathan Overpeck, writing in 2004 about how to summarize some ocean data in a half-page, reinforce the impression that politics drives the process: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”



Wake up and smell the Mango Haze, dude! Man made or man driven global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the citizens of this rock we all live on.

Click to expand...

*BUDS said:

Nothing but a true right wing cocksucker this guy.Crap invented by republicans and you believe it. Your posts are always full of shit old man.

Click to expand...

No, you are wrong. This old man tells nothing but the truth, unlike you and Al Gore and your ilk.

The drowning polar bear story was a lie. Polar ice caps and on Greenland are expanding and getting thicker. The temperature rise of the planet ended in 1998 and since 2003 the temperature has been dropping.

The religious cult of man-made global warming is dead. It's high priests have been caught in numerous lies, found to have withheld data, found to have manipulated data, found to have misrepresented data, known to have lied about there being a consensus. The vanishing Himalayan Glaciers story was a total fabrication. The claim about there being larger numbers of and more powerful hurricanes and typhoons and tornadoes was a complete lie.

NASA blew massive holes in the religious cult of man-made global warming with their research. 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.



The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960's and 70's were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people's lives and for financial gain. There are not many individuals, groups, or organizations willing to stand up against this fraud that is being perpetuated for fear of being persecuted, harassed, and ostracized by those who support global warming within the scientific and other communities. But fortunately, a few have decided to do the right thing and take a stand against this evil, proving just how unscientifically founded global warming is and exposing those who are behind it.

Here are some of the email exchanges found in Climategate 2: The Lies of Liberals:

And here's our friend Phil Jones, apparently trying to stuff the IPCC working groups with scientists favourable to his cause, while shutting out dissenting voices.

Here is what looks like an outrageous case of government – the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – actually putting pressure on climate "scientists" to talk up their message of doom and gloom in order to help the government justify its swingeing climate policies:
Here is a gloriously revealing string of emails in which activists and global warming research groups discuss how best to manipulate reality so that climate change looks more scary and dangerous than it really is:

Right there in the words of the peudo-scientists who are doing their damndest to perpitrate this hoax on mankind you see then dreaming up schemes and ways to distort information, to hide information, to embellish information to make it scare people, trying to dream up some far fetched scenario where a single weather event could be portrayed as what will be normal weather in the future.

In Al Gores video, Climate 101, it shows how to do a “simple experiment” at home to prove carbon dioxide causes global warming. But if you watch closely, you’ll see an “inconvenient truth” of the worst kind. Watch the portion of the video that begins at 1:00 and ends at 1:20. You see, he faked not only the experiment but also the results with video editing tricks. Video analysis proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.


You cannot believe anything that comes from the chicken little - the sky is falling religious cult of man-made global warming alarmists. Time and time again they have been caught in lies, trickery and deceptions. They have never been honest, not once from day one. Anyone who is stupid enough to believe them has to have an IQ that is pretty much the same as the coldest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica, that being −129.3 °F.

First off cn, you didn't say that. The guy you defended said that. You accused me of starting the personal attacks. I say you didn't read it closely. I quoted
the attack on me. I don't make personal attacks unitl I get them. I'm AA not PA. I don't have a need to call names. But AA trumps PA at all times, in my experience.

PA is for cowards. Passive Agressive. Politically Correct. It has everything to do with this.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[SUP][1][/SUP] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy

So, MPf, made the attack, I responded and you chastied me. Capice?

So, the Forbes article, you rejected. Fine, I moved to peer review, again, because you asked. I have no interest in the "Pearls before Swine" type debates I see here.

Mr H and the snobbery, calling me a Deiner and a faker, is what pushed me to begin this thread. Still P before S. But, you seemed interested/neutral enough so I pressed on with gathering research. BTW, you still haven't comment on that. So, what did you want? Just more PbS, debate? Are you neutral as you said?

Cloud Effect is the core issue. If we don't know the whats about the atmosphere, how can we know the whys?

...is the atmosphere just a 'blanket' for thought projection? Like...salt?

Doer said:

So, MPf, made the attack, I responded and you chastied me. Capice?

Click to expand...

I attacked you? Please. You dismissed every post I made because I linked to what you call 'cheering sections' when realclimate.org and skepticalscience.com not only have links to the peer review studies but some actual climate scientists are active members on those sites.
So first you dismiss the posts with evidence with a hand wave as not worthy - ad hominem.
Then you call out anyone that accepts the AGW model as shrill, leftists, etc. - ad hominem, poisoning the well
Then you claim I made a personal attack against you? Grow up. You say you want to discuss this as civil adults but you are the one that is keeping that from happening.

Nothing there is personal. When you say, I'm the only Shrill one. That's personal. ie, ad hominem. Don't listen, he is shrill.

I do note that I'm the only one that has posted any science, any peer review that points to the still un-knowns or knowns of Cloud Effect. Those that wish to dismss my science, and not post any science to counter it and can add only the cheering section blurbs are not at the forefront of the debate. Those that wish to bully me, dismiss and dis-credit me personally can kiss my ass. The entire GW movement is PA/PC. Don't go there with me. I'm AA aserbic.

Those that want to shape the debate into their comfort zone, some unstated academic standard, well, I would like to see science not snobbery.

One can see the difference. If someone tars themselves and takes it personal, fine, their problem. But, you attack me personally, I attack back.

Let's go back to when you said, what kind of idiot needs more that these, (what I call Cheering section) links?

An Idiot? I didn't take that personal as you stopped short of calling me an idiot. See the difference?

I apologize for the "attitude sucks" comment. Can we move on?

Doer said:

Nothing there is personal. When you say, I'm the only Shrill one. That's personal. ie, ad hominem. Don't listen, he is shrill.

Click to expand...

That's not ad hominem. Ad hominem must be part of an argument. As to you being shrill, that wasn't even an attack, it was an observation based on how you are dismissing everyone before they even post and whining and complaining about your supposed adversaries, virtually the very first post. I normally wouldn't use the term shrill but since you invoked it to describe the scientists, and virtually anyone that accepts AGW, I figure it was appropriate as I was only using your definition. You can't start calling people names and then complain when it is turned around on you.

I do note that I'm the only one that has posted any science, any peer review that points to the still un-knowns or knowns of Cloud Effect. Those that wish to dismss my science, and not post any science to counter it and can add only the cheering section blurbs are not at the forefront of the debate. Those that wish to bully me, dismiss and dis-credit me personally can kiss my ass. The entire GW movement is PA/PC. Don't go there with me. I'm AA aserbic.

Click to expand...

I guess my links don't contain any science? This is why I will not continue to discuss this with you. My first link had no less than 4 peer-reviewed studies discussing how clouds are at most a small negative FB in some situations but overall a positive one and will not stop warming. My second link was even more detailed and provided more substantiation for a positive FB of clouds.

Those that want to shape the debate into their comfort zone, some unstated academic standard, well, I would like to see science not snobbery.

Click to expand...

More personal attacks?

One can see the difference. If someone tars themselves and takes it personal, fine, their problem. But, you attack me personally, I attack back.

Click to expand...

“The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.” - Carl Sagan.
I would add, not attacking back. Personal attacks, regardless of who initiated them are not good for debate. Best to ignore the attacks and destroy your adversary with logic and reason.

Let's go back to when you said, what kind of idiot needs more that these, (what I call Cheering section) links?

An Idiot? I didn't take that personal as you stopped short of calling me an idiot. See the difference?

Click to expand...

Let's go back and see how you took this out of context as some kind of insult against you.
You said, " Those are general, wave the flag sites.
I don't think cn is claiming this level of ignorance....but he can say for himself, I guess."
I replied, "What level of ignorance does one need to go to realclimate.org where actual climate scientists are available to explain and debunk the noise from the deniers?"
We were discussing whether cn was too ignorant for my links. I said NOTHING about you or you being an idiot. You imagined an attack from me that never occurred and you wonder why I am already tired of this thread?

I apologize for the "attitude sucks" comment. Can we move on?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm willing to move on. I gave you links to sketpicalscience.com and realclimate.org where there are real scientists countering the GW denier's claims. Unless you are willing to actually look at those articles without the hand-waving bias claiming them to be cheering sections, I'm not sure it's worth continuing. Discrediting the source is a typical tactic of the conspiracy theorist. Some sources are not credible and should be viewed with skepticism. You have taken it further and discredited sources without even examining them.

Doer said:

Nothing there is personal. When you say, I'm the only Shrill one. That's personal. ie, ad hominem. Don't listen, he is shrill.

Click to expand...

That's not ad hominem. Ad hominem must be part of an argument. As to you being shrill, that wasn't even an attack, it was an observation based on how you are dismissing everyone before they even post and whining and complaining about your supposed adversaries, virtually the very first post. I normally wouldn't use the term shrill but since you invoked it to describe the scientists, and virtually anyone that accepts AGW, I figure it was appropriate as I was only using your definition. You can't start calling people names and then complain when it is turned around on you.

I do note that I'm the only one that has posted any science, any peer review that points to the still un-knowns or knowns of Cloud Effect. Those that wish to dismss my science, and not post any science to counter it and can add only the cheering section blurbs are not at the forefront of the debate. Those that wish to bully me, dismiss and dis-credit me personally can kiss my ass. The entire GW movement is PA/PC. Don't go there with me. I'm AA aserbic.

Click to expand...

I guess my links don't contain any science? This is why I will not continue to discuss this with you. My first link had no less than 4 peer-reviewed studies discussing how clouds are at most a small negative FB in some situations but overall a positive one and will not stop warming. My second link was even more detailed and provided more substantiation for a positive FB of clouds.

Those that want to shape the debate into their comfort zone, some unstated academic standard, well, I would like to see science not snobbery.

Click to expand...

More personal attacks?

One can see the difference. If someone tars themselves and takes it personal, fine, their problem. But, you attack me personally, I attack back.

Click to expand...

Let's go back to when you said, what kind of idiot needs more that these, (what I call Cheering section) links?

An Idiot? I didn't take that personal as you stopped short of calling me an idiot. See the difference?

Click to expand...

Let's go back and see how you took this out of context as some kind of insult against you.
You said, " Those are general, wave the flag sites.
I don't think cn is claiming this level of ignorance....but he can say for himself, I guess."
I replied, "What level of ignorance does one need to go to realclimate.org where actual climate scientists are available to explain and debunk the noise from the deniers?"
We were discussing whether cn was too ignorant for my links. I said NOTHING about you or you being an idiot. You imagined an attack from me that never occurred and you wonder why I am already tired of this thread?

I apologize for the "attitude sucks" comment. Can we move on?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm willing to move on. I gave you links to sketpicalscience.com and realclimate.org where there are real scientists countering the GW denier's claims. Unless you are willing to actually look at those articles without the hand-waving bias claiming them to be cheering sections, I'm not sure it's worth continuing. Discrediting the source is a typical tactic of the conspiracy theorist. Some sources are not credible and should be viewed with skepticism. You have taken it further and discredited sources without even examining them.

OK, kiss my ass and don't move on. fuck you with peel it all apart, insist you are right with your silly websites. Now I'm being personal, asshole. See the diff?
Post some science directly and don't just try a supercillious broad brush off. That's GW CULT. If you act it, you are it.

You don't want the apology, don't want to discuss the issues, but just throw up garbage from the cheering section. Argue line by line, post by post about nothing
Don't move on, snotty. Go fuck yourself.

You can't show a 2011 peer reviewed report on Cloud Effectr that proves anything, so you don't. That's my point.

The problem is that I have posted science and you still discount it as garbage. Tell me why I should continue?

Here's an example of the links you couldn't be bothered to click.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460.abstract
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3666.1
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf

Doer said:

First off cn, you didn't say that. The guy you defended said that. You accused me of starting the personal attacks. I say you didn't read it closely. I quoted
the attack on me. I don't make personal attacks unitl I get them. I'm AA not PA. I don't have a need to call names. But AA trumps PA at all times, in my experience.

PA is for cowards. Passive Agressive. Politically Correct. It has everything to do with this.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[SUP][1][/SUP] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy

So, MPf, made the attack, I responded and you chastied me. Capice?

So, the Forbes article, you rejected. Fine, I moved to peer review, again, because you asked. I have no interest in the "Pearls before Swine" type debates I see here.

Mr H and the snobbery, calling me a Deiner and a faker, is what pushed me to begin this thread. Still P before S. But, you seemed interested/neutral enough so I pressed on with gathering research. BTW, you still haven't comment on that. So, what did you want? Just more PbS, debate? Are you neutral as you said?

Cloud Effect is the core issue. If we don't know the whats about the atmosphere, how can we know the whys?

Click to expand...

I'm guessing it's a matter of perspective, Doer. I looked at your post#3 in which you stated that *BUDS was pottymouthing and bullying".
To my eye, these are attacks by you at him, and I don't see that they were warranted.
In my opinion you have used a confrontational tone right from post #1 with your intonations of "brown shirts" and "the way of the gun" among other fightin' words ... interesting metaphors but I can't determine their relevance ... but i don't need to be a specialist to see that they are good (and intended to be good) at pre-empting, placing anyone who disagrees with you on the defensive. I would frown on anyone who speaks so and still claims to be interested in fair debate. It seems to me, irreducibly, like unfair presumption. That is my perception/opinion regarding that.

In re the cloud effect, my readings have led me to two conclusions ... both quite tentative since the (easily accessible) published science is thin on the ground and by no means uniform in its conclusions.
1) The data are too noisy to reach a conclusion even about the direction of the cloud effect.
2) I have read from your posts (and correct me if I am wrong) that you are stating that the cloud effect has negative cooperativity, i'e' it works against the likely CO2-promoted warming trend. However the current consensus, weak as it is, assigns a weak positive cooperativity to the cloud/temp function. That is to say, if those folks are right, then cloud trends make things slightly worse, not better.

Finally, ad hominem attacks.
You introduced the term on this thread with post #15, in which you responded to Heisenberg's assembly of counterfacts. I see his post as being strictly ad rem and not ad hominem. Imo you are accusing Heisenberg of something he did not do. I have been given to understand that you got into a scrape with Heis on another thread, but would it not be best to leave that outside this one? It only makes it difficult when boundaries and compartments for discourse are necessary but not observed.

If you are willing, and can do so from a source neither side in this debate has reason to reject out of hand (what you call a cheering section), I would be interested in an overview of current thought in re a cloud effect. I won't insist on it being a peer-reviewed source, because most first-run work does not come easily or in a timely way to the free 'Net. In my old field (chemistry) all the good stuff was behind the must-pay firewalls of professional associations. cn

[h=2]Why Most Published Research Findings are False[/h] January 3rd, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.


Those aren’t my words — it’s the title of a 2005 article, brought to my attention by Cal Beisner, which uses probability theory to “prove” that “…most claimed research findings are false”. While the article comes from the medical research field, it is sufficiently general that some of what it discusses can be applied to global warming research as well.


I would argue that the situation is even worse for what I consider to the central theory of the climate change debate: that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere causes significant warming of the climate system. Two corollaries of that theory are that (1) the warming we have seen in recent decades is human-caused, and (2) significant warming will continue into the future as we keep using fossil fuels.


The first problem I see with scientifically determining whether the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is likely to be true is that it is a one-of-a-kind event. This immediately reduces our scientific confidence in pinpointing the cause of warming. The following proxy reconstruction of temperature variations over the last 2,000 years suggests global warming (and cooling), are the rule, not the exception, and so greenhouse gas increases in the last 100 years occurring during warming might be largely a coincidence.

Twice I have testified in congress that unbiased funding on the subject of the causes of warming would be much closer to a reality if 50% of that money was devoted to finding natural reasons for climate change. Currently, that kind of research is almost non-existent.


A second, related problem is that we cannot put the Earth in the laboratory to run controlled experiments on. Now, we CAN determine in the laboratory that certain atmospheric constituents (water vapor, water droplets, carbon dioxide, methane) absorb and emit infrared energy…the physical basis for the so-called greenhouse effect. But the ultimate uncertainty over atmospheric feedbacks — e.g. determining whether cloud changes with warming reduce or amplify that warming — cannot be tested with any controlled experiment.


A third problem is the difficulty in separating cause from effect. Determining whether atmospheric feedbacks are positive or negative requires analysis of entire, quasi-global atmospheric circulation systems. Just noticing that more clouds tend to form over warm regions does not tell you anything useful about whether cloud feedbacks are positive or negative. Atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems involve all kinds of interrelated processes in which cause and effect must surely be operating. But separating cause from effect is something else entirely.


For example, just establishing that years experiencing global warmth have less cloud cover letting more sunlight in does not prove positive cloud feedback…simply because the warming could have been the result of — rather than the cause of — fewer clouds. This is the subject that Andy Dessler and I have been debating recently, and I consider it to be the Achilles heel of AGW theory.


After all, it is not the average role of clouds in the climate system that is being debated — we already know it is a cooling effect. It’s instead how clouds will change as a result of warming that we are interested in. Maybe they are the same thing (which is what I’m betting)…but so far, no one has found a way to prove or disprove it. And I believe cause-versus-effect is at the heart of that uncertainty.


A fourth problem with determining whether AGW theory is true or not is closely related to a similar problem medical research has — the source of funding. This has got to be one of the least appreciated sources of bias in global warming research. In pharmaceutical research, experimentally demonstrating the efficacy of some new drug might be influenced by the fact that the money for the research came from the company that developed the drug in the first place. This is partly why double-blind studies involving many participants (we have only one: Earth) were developed.


But in global warming research, there is a popular misconception that oil industry-funded climate research actually exists, and has skewed the science. I can’t think of a single scientific study that has been funded by an oil or coal company.


But what DOES exist is a large organization that has a virtual monopoly on global warming research in the U.S., and that has a vested interest in AGW theory being true: the U.S. Government. The idea that government-funded climate research is unbiased is laughable. The push for ever increasing levels of government regulation and legislation, the desire of government managers to grow their programs, the dependence of congressional funding of a problem on the existence of a “problem” to begin with, and the U.N.’s desire to find reasons to move toward global governance, all lead to inherent bias in climate research.

At least with medical research, there will always be funding because disease will always exist.

But human-caused warming could end up to be little more than a false alarm…as well as a black eye for the climate research community. And lest we forget, possibly the biggest funding-related source of bias in climate research is that research community of scientists. Everyone knows that if the AGW “problem” is no longer a problem, their source of research funding will disappear.


Sometimes I get accused of being a conspiracy nut for believing these things. Well, whoever accuses me of that has obviously not worked in government or spent much time dealing with program managers in Washington. There is no conspiracy, because these things are not done in secret. The U.N.’s Agenda 21 is there for all to read.


The bottom line is that there could scarcely be a more ill-posed scientific question than whether global warming is human-caused: a one of a kind event, the Earth can’t be put into a laboratory to study, cause and effect are intermingled, and the political and financial sources of bias in the resulting research are everywhere.


So, when some scientist says we “know” that warming is human-caused, I cringe at the embarrassing abundance of scientific ignorance on display. No wonder the public doesn’t trust scientific predictions — just as suggested by the 2005 study I mentioned at the outset, those predictions have almost always been wrong!



http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/why-most-published-research-findings-are-false/

Yea, sure, I'm gonna trust Roy Spencer on scientific matters when he ascribes to intelligent design and his biggest argument against AGW is because god wouldn't let it happen.

"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."

It is clear he is not above going out and trying to make the science fit his belief, which must be unchanging and unchallenged because it's religious, rather than follow the evidence regardless of where it leads.

Brick Top said:

Why Most Published Research Findings are False

January 3rd, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.


Those aren’t my words — it’s the title of a 2005 article, brought to my attention by Cal Beisner, which uses probability theory to “prove” that “…most claimed research findings are false”. While the article comes from the medical research field, it is sufficiently general that some of what it discusses can be applied to global warming research as well.


I would argue that the situation is even worse for what I consider to the central theory of the climate change debate: that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere causes significant warming of the climate system. Two corollaries of that theory are that (1) the warming we have seen in recent decades is human-caused, and (2) significant warming will continue into the future as we keep using fossil fuels.


The first problem I see with scientifically determining whether the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is likely to be true is that it is a one-of-a-kind event. This immediately reduces our scientific confidence in pinpointing the cause of warming. The following proxy reconstruction of temperature variations over the last 2,000 years suggests global warming (and cooling), are the rule, not the exception, and so greenhouse gas increases in the last 100 years occurring during warming might be largely a coincidence.

Twice I have testified in congress that unbiased funding on the subject of the causes of warming would be much closer to a reality if 50% of that money was devoted to finding natural reasons for climate change. Currently, that kind of research is almost non-existent.


A second, related problem is that we cannot put the Earth in the laboratory to run controlled experiments on. Now, we CAN determine in the laboratory that certain atmospheric constituents (water vapor, water droplets, carbon dioxide, methane) absorb and emit infrared energy…the physical basis for the so-called greenhouse effect. But the ultimate uncertainty over atmospheric feedbacks — e.g. determining whether cloud changes with warming reduce or amplify that warming — cannot be tested with any controlled experiment.


A third problem is the difficulty in separating cause from effect. Determining whether atmospheric feedbacks are positive or negative requires analysis of entire, quasi-global atmospheric circulation systems. Just noticing that more clouds tend to form over warm regions does not tell you anything useful about whether cloud feedbacks are positive or negative. Atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems involve all kinds of interrelated processes in which cause and effect must surely be operating. But separating cause from effect is something else entirely.


For example, just establishing that years experiencing global warmth have less cloud cover letting more sunlight in does not prove positive cloud feedback…simply because the warming could have been the result of — rather than the cause of — fewer clouds. This is the subject that Andy Dessler and I have been debating recently, and I consider it to be the Achilles heel of AGW theory.


After all, it is not the average role of clouds in the climate system that is being debated — we already know it is a cooling effect. It’s instead how clouds will change as a result of warming that we are interested in. Maybe they are the same thing (which is what I’m betting)…but so far, no one has found a way to prove or disprove it. And I believe cause-versus-effect is at the heart of that uncertainty.


A fourth problem with determining whether AGW theory is true or not is closely related to a similar problem medical research has — the source of funding. This has got to be one of the least appreciated sources of bias in global warming research. In pharmaceutical research, experimentally demonstrating the efficacy of some new drug might be influenced by the fact that the money for the research came from the company that developed the drug in the first place. This is partly why double-blind studies involving many participants (we have only one: Earth) were developed.


But in global warming research, there is a popular misconception that oil industry-funded climate research actually exists, and has skewed the science. I can’t think of a single scientific study that has been funded by an oil or coal company.


But what DOES exist is a large organization that has a virtual monopoly on global warming research in the U.S., and that has a vested interest in AGW theory being true: the U.S. Government. The idea that government-funded climate research is unbiased is laughable. The push for ever increasing levels of government regulation and legislation, the desire of government managers to grow their programs, the dependence of congressional funding of a problem on the existence of a “problem” to begin with, and the U.N.’s desire to find reasons to move toward global governance, all lead to inherent bias in climate research.

At least with medical research, there will always be funding because disease will always exist.

But human-caused warming could end up to be little more than a false alarm…as well as a black eye for the climate research community. And lest we forget, possibly the biggest funding-related source of bias in climate research is that research community of scientists. Everyone knows that if the AGW “problem” is no longer a problem, their source of research funding will disappear.


Sometimes I get accused of being a conspiracy nut for believing these things. Well, whoever accuses me of that has obviously not worked in government or spent much time dealing with program managers in Washington. There is no conspiracy, because these things are not done in secret. The U.N.’s Agenda 21 is there for all to read.


The bottom line is that there could scarcely be a more ill-posed scientific question than whether global warming is human-caused: a one of a kind event, the Earth can’t be put into a laboratory to study, cause and effect are intermingled, and the political and financial sources of bias in the resulting research are everywhere.


So, when some scientist says we “know” that warming is human-caused, I cringe at the embarrassing abundance of scientific ignorance on display. No wonder the public doesn’t trust scientific predictions — just as suggested by the 2005 study I mentioned at the outset, those predictions have almost always been wrong!



http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/why-most-published-research-findings-are-false/

Click to expand...

Did you actually read through this? Nearly every paragraph is easily refutable with just basic understanding of science. The article smacks of someone who talking about a fantastic caricature of science they hold in thier head, instead of real world scientific examination.

Climate change is a one of a kind event? He seems awful sure of this considering how much time he spends telling us we don't know anything, not even cause and effect. He doesn't seem to understand how the scientific method is carried out, and mentions nothing about peer review. He then switches gears and accepts a conspiracy with only the weakest of evidence and supports it with the notion "whoever accuses me of that has obviously not worked in government or spent much time dealing with program managers in Washington". Again, not a very scientific explanation. Especially when you consider that this is a globally held scientific consensus, and goes far beyond Washington. What makes it a conspiracy is not secrecy or lack of, but the fact that any evidence supporting global warming gets turned into to support for the conspiracy, via the conspiracy. Most scientist say global warming is real? Well that just shows how big the conspiracy is. <-- classic conspiracy nut logic. This alone suggests the author is incapable of correctly evaluating evidence. Not to mention the use of appeals to popularity and ignorance, and strawmen. (no one is saying we "know" global warming is man made, they say the evidence suggests it)

It seems from the tone of the article that he is not making these statements out of data interpretation, but simply out of wanting to be critical of the cause. None of his criticism makes any sense, is not supported by facts, and has all the earmarks of conspiracy and misunderstanding of how science works.

Heisenberg said:

Did you actually read through this? Nearly every paragraph is easily refutable with just basic understanding of science.

Click to expand...

Sure I read it. But I would say that given the fact that the author holds a PhD, is a climatologist and NASA scientist that rather than write something that only people with his level of intelligence, knowledge and experience could understand he wrote it so the masses could grasp the key points.

Given his credentials I am sure he could write something that would leave you, me and most other people scratching our heads and wondering what the heck he just said.

The article smacks of someone who talking about a fantastic caricature of science they hold in thier head, instead of real world scientific examination.

Click to expand...

That was a perfect description of the pseudo-scientist alarmists who have been trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people for so long now with their lies supported by manipulated data, falsified data and withheld data that they conspired between them to spread.

Heisenberg said:

Did you actually read through this? Nearly every paragraph is easily refutable with just basic understanding of science. The article smacks of someone who talking about a fantastic caricature of science they hold in thier head, instead of real world scientific examination.

Climate change is a one of a kind event? He seems awful sure of this considering how much time he spends telling us we don't know anything, not even cause and effect. He doesn't seem to understand how the scientific method is carried out, and mentions nothing about peer review. He then switches gears and accepts a conspiracy with only the weakest of evidence and supports it with the notion "whoever accuses me of that has obviously not worked in government or spent much time dealing with program managers in Washington". Again, not a very scientific explanation. Especially when you consider that this is a globally held scientific consensus, and goes far beyond Washington. What makes it a conspiracy is not secrecy or lack of, but the fact that any evidence supporting global warming gets turned into to support for the conspiracy, via the conspiracy. Most scientist say global warming is real? Well that just shows how big the conspiracy is. <-- classic conspiracy nut logic. This alone suggests the author is incapable of correctly evaluating evidence. Not to mention the use of appeals to popularity and ignorance, and strawmen. (no one is saying we "know" global warming is man made, they say the evidence suggests it)

It seems from the tone of the article that he is not making these statements out of data interpretation, but simply out of wanting to be critical of the cause. None of his criticism makes any sense, is not supported by facts, and has all the earmarks of conspiracy and misunderstanding of how science works.

Click to expand...

The article does bring up at least one valid point; "A second, related problem is that we cannot put the Earth in the laboratory to run controlled experiments on." Scientifically speaking, this is a huge problem. Without a control group and so many variables, a lot of assumptions must be made. I have no idea if climate change is anthropogenic or not, but my take on it is if there is even the slightest chance of it being true we should probably do something about it.

doc111 said:

The article does bring up at least one valid point; "A second, related problem is that we cannot put the Earth in the laboratory to run controlled experiments on." Scientifically speaking, this is a huge problem. Without a control group and so many variables, a lot of assumptions must be made. I have no idea if climate change is anthropogenic or not, but my take on it is if there is even the slightest chance of it being true we should probably do something about it.

Click to expand...

It is a bit of indirection imo. Astrophysicists cannot put a star in a laboratory either ... but through the intelligent, layered use of induction and small-scale corollary experiment, we have a pretty good understanding of the hydrodynamics of collapsing stellar cores.
Just because we cannot build a physical model at the requisite scale does not mean we cannot do relevant and predictive science. cn

Lay people seem to have a misunderstanding of what scientific controls mean. It does NOT mean that we have to have laboratory conditions where every single variable is controlled, i.e. experimental controls, but merely that we attempt to eliminate confounding variables. This erroneous idea that unless the science is conducted in a laboratory that it is problematic is a perpetuating myth that needs to be eliminated from the public understanding of science.

cannabineer said:

It is a bit of indirection imo. Astrophysicists cannot put a star in a laboratory either ... but through the intelligent, layered use of induction and small-scale corollary experiment, we have a pretty good understanding of the hydrodynamics of collapsing stellar cores.
Just because we cannot build a physical model at the requisite scale does not mean we cannot do relevant and predictive science. cn

Click to expand...

This is true, but a star and a complex ecosystem are 2 entirely different things. Not to mention our understanding of these things is constantly changing.

mindphuk said:

Lay people seem to have a misunderstanding of what scientific controls mean. It does NOT mean that we have to have laboratory conditions where every single variable is controlled, i.e. experimental controls, but merely that we attempt to eliminate confounding variables. This erroneous idea that unless the science is conducted in a laboratory that it is problematic is a perpetuating myth that needs to be eliminated from the public understanding of science.

Click to expand...

lol! I would hardly consider myself a lay person. I understand what you're saying, but there is a reason why this debate continues. What do you think is the reason for differing opinions amongst the scientific community? Could it be that there are things which science has barely scratched the surface of understanding? Could it be that the earth is an enormously complex system with an enormous amount of variables. I'm not saying one way or the other. I think the most plausible scenario is that we are having an impact. To say that we aren't is, IMO, ludicrous. The question remains, what level of impact are we having? We know that climate is constantly changing. Many scientists believe we are in period of warming, (coinciding with AGW) which may explain the dramatic effect we seem to be seeing. I'm no climatologist, so for me to argue one way or the other is sort of foolish IMO.