[DrCaleb]

$1:

I received a few emails, tweets, and comments on the blog yesterday asking about an Op/Ed article in Forbes magazine that claims that new NASA data will "blow [a] gaping hole in global warming alarmism".

Except, as it turns out, not so much. The article is just so much hot air (see what I did there?) and climate scientists say the paper on which it’s based is fundamentally flawed and flat-out wrong.

It’s clear after reading just a few words that this article is hugely biased.

$1:

I did some poking around on the web, and sure enough a lot of far-right blogs are diving on this red meat, simply repeating the claims of the Forbes article. I wonder how many of them actually read the paper or sought outside opinions?

And in this case, those outside opinions are very important. Why? Because of Dr. Spencer’s background: you may find this discussion of him interesting. He is an author for the über-conservative Heartland Institute (as is James Taylor, the author of the Forbes article), which receives substantial funding from — can you guess? — ExxonMobil. He is also affiliated with two other think tanks funded by ExxonMobil. Seriously, read that link to get quite a bit of background on Dr. Spencer.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... -alarmism/

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

It is interesting (in the article you printed) that more heat is escaping to space than is predicted by models.

Logically, the models are thus wrong. The way you write it one would conclude that you assume the models are correct and it's some anomaly occuring here.

I don't think so at all. Wht I think is that the climate models are biased and therefore flawed and that the actual facts of the climate and etc. do not correspond to the models is a flaw inherent in both the models and in the assumptions and biases that they were based upon.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

$1:

(edited for space)

Dr. C, I agree that some folks are probably going to take this for something it's not. However, one cannot look at things like this and not see a pattern here.

The UEA email scandal showed there's AGW proponents covering up evidence that their assumptions are wrong.

NASA and James Hansen got caught by a Canadian cooking the books on their 'adjustments'.

Numerous incidents of the raw data for weather stations being destroyed have occured.

And now the guy who was saying the poor polar bears were all going to die soon has been found to have been involved in cooking his data.

Really, if AGW were true then there'd be nothing to cover up, adjust, delete, or etc. as the simple facts would bear out the hypothesis.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

$1:

(edited for space)

Dr. C, I agree that some folks are probably going to take this for something it's not. However, one cannot look at things like this and not see a pattern here.

The UEA email scandal showed there's AGW proponents covering up evidence that their assumptions are wrong.

NASA and James Hansen got caught by a Canadian cooking the books on their 'adjustments'.

Numerous incidents of the raw data for weather stations being destroyed have occured.

And now the guy who was saying the poor polar bears were all going to die soon has been found to have been involved in cooking his data.

Really, if AGW were true then there'd be nothing to cover up, adjust, delete, or etc. as the simple facts would bear out the hypothesis.

The UAE was shown to have no cover up. We've gone over that already. As for polar bears, nothing has been discredited yet. All of those other things however boil down to ad hominem. None of them have footing in Science.

If you look at the publication that started this thing ; http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf - even they say they are full of it.

$1:

Our preliminary work on this issue suggests no simple answer to the question. We conclude that the fundamental obstacle to feedback diagnosis remains the same, no matter what time lag is addressed: without knowledge of time-varying radiative forcing components in the satellite radiative flux measurements, feedback cannot be accurately diagnosed from the co-variations between radiative flux and temperature.

So, the whole time they are trying to discredit the models, they come back and say 'we don't know what the actual numbers should be'.

[DrCaleb]

I've never claimed that global warming is man made, I just hate seeing science politicised.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I've never claimed that global warming is man made, I just hate seeing science politicised.

Me, too. And the whole AGW thing got very politicized when Algore tried to justify becoming President based on his assertions in his Oscar © Award Winning movie An Inconvenient Truth.

[sandorski]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I've never claimed that global warming is man made, I just hate seeing science politicised.

Me, too. And the whole AGW thing got very politicized when Algore tried to justify becoming President based on his assertions in his Oscar © Award Winning movie An Inconvenient Truth.

lol, it was politicized long time before that.

[BartSimpson]

I agree that it was politicized, true, but when Algore tried to become the Climate Savior of the USA with a work of fiction then that was when things got worse.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Logically, the models are thus wrong. The way you write it one would conclude that you assume the models are correct and it's some anomaly occuring here.

I don't think so at all. Wht I think is that the climate models are biased and therefore flawed and that the actual facts of the climate and etc. do not correspond to the models is a flaw inherent in both the models and in the assumptions and biases that they were based upon.

There's no doubt the models are wrong. Models are only approximations. And even if the models are excellent (which, in the case of GCMs, they are far from), the model output is only as good as the data input.

Researcher bias is also an issue, wich is a shame. Good scientists should be able to put their biases aside. That hasn't always been the case with climate change, unfortunately.

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I've never claimed that global warming is man made, I just hate seeing science politicised.

Me too.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Logically, the models are thus wrong. The way you write it one would conclude that you assume the models are correct and it's some anomaly occuring here.

I don't think so at all. Wht I think is that the climate models are biased and therefore flawed and that the actual facts of the climate and etc. do not correspond to the models is a flaw inherent in both the models and in the assumptions and biases that they were based upon.

There's no doubt the models are wrong. Models are only approximations. And even if the models are excellent (which, in the case of GCMs, they are far from), the model output is only as good as the data input.

Researcher bias is also an issue, wich is a shame. Good scientists should be able to put their biases aside. That hasn't always been the case with climate change, unfortunately.

Very fair and intellectually honest. I'd + you on that if I could.

[BartSimpson]

More on this same topic.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45447

So the four polar bears that "drowned"? Yeah, seems there was zero forensic evidence to back up the claim that they had drowned.

[DanSC]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

So the four polar bears that "drowned"? Yeah, seems there was zero forensic evidence to back up the claim that they had drowned.

Polar bears are still legally hunted, so I don't think people are that worried about their numbers.

[PluggyRug]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Which when you think about it, makes total sense.

Most of the Earth's landmass is in the Northern Hemisphere, as are most of the industrialized nations on Earth. So it stands to reason that our hemisphere should be warming faster than the less developed south with less landmass.

More like "Chandlers Wobble"

Here's a doom and gloom article....


http://www.cdapress.com/columns/cliff_h ... 39975.html

[eureka]

I don't know where the justification for the claims that the models are wrong comes from. There are no reputable dissenters from the models that I am aware of.

Further, projections made in models of the past thirty years are now being confirmed by observation.

The modelling has been extremely accurate.

Then, the ad hominems to Al Gore are complete fabrications. The Inconvenient Truth is correct in almost every detail. Gore was the messenger of science and portrayed it faithfully with a few inconsequential blips.