But those assertions have not been proven. The email controversy from late 2009 termed "Climategate" roused sharp criticism from opponents, but investigations cleared the scientists involved and didn't diminish the scientific underpinnings of climate change.
"There is no scientific body of national or international standing that rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate," Peter Gleick, a scientist and president of the Pacific Institute, an environmental group, said on a conference call on Wednesday. "There's plenty of science to do, but the fundamentals are very strong."
The conference was attended by dedicated listeners, some of whom scratched notes on pads, took pictures of presentation slides, and nodded in agreement.
George Mears, a former navy flier who tracked hurricanes, believes scientists are manipulating the temperature record by using data from weather stations near "heat sinks" like parking lots, buildings and other infrastructure.
"The bias is just so extreme that it makes you angry," said Mears, who believes it's up to scientists to set the record straight for politicians, who are "basically dumb."
He's politically active in the Norfolk, Va., area, where he promotes limited government and fiscal restraint. He opposes things like light rail and all the "green crap."
Skeptic: Let's talk in 30 years
While debate flared around what to do about climate change, the notion that the earth is warming might be more widely accepted.
The main event yesterday was a lunchtime debate between two scientists. But their positions varied by the degree to which the temperatures on Earth might rise.
Roy Spencer, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama who argued from the skeptical side, agrees that human contributed carbon dioxide lessens the planet's ability to shed heat, meaning that warming is likely.
"For the most part I agree with the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some warming," Spencer said, adding that the temperature rise will be much less than the panel predicts.
The odds of him changing his mind to promote aggressive steps to stanch emissions is unlikely to occur anytime soon.
He'll believe in the brand of climate change that mainstream scientists warn of if temperatures rapidly rise for another 30 years, he said.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
57 Comments
Add CommentOh - you mean the same Roy Spencer of the Heartland Institute? The conservative group that gets funding from ExxonMobil?... And George Mears? I just can't find ANYTHING that he published. The only George Mears I can find is an oil man from O'Brien Energy Co... But that's probably not him...Hmmmm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"For Geofrey Greenleaf, the Heartland Institute's conference is an opportunity to gather compelling details to be used against climate change believers during political discussions in the Cleveland area, where he works as an investment adviser."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPretty much says it all. Denialism is not about the science, it's all about the politics. If you can't refute the science, discredit it instead. If the Deniers have a scientifically valid alternate climate model that explains the data than they should put up or shut up.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
LOL... Yes. Hmmm is right!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgreed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe argument opposing AGW are spreading and growing. Get used to it. Abusing those who don't toe the line is pointless and counterproductive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost opponents of the AGW mantra understand perfectly well the natural warming and cooling episodes that are occurring and have occurred over millions of years. This is not the battle ground.
The battle ground is the contribution being made by man himself.
The "cyclone of self-promotion, driven by the pressure to validate past findings and to receive federal grants" is right on the money and accusations against opponents for taking money from the Oil Industry does nothing to anyone's reputation. The fact is that 90% of the scientists pushing AGW are taking money from the world wide Green Industry and the UN, all major backers of AGW.
It is naive to try to hide the fact that there are billions of dollars at stake in this world wide campaign to accelerate Green Development.
As long as scientific research is being manipulated by the AGW campaign and peer review is the pawn of the same establishment figures who lied about their emails, there will be sufficient opposition to stall and delay and castrate the efforts to change the world's economic system to benefit the Green Movement.
Today the opponents of AGW also won a major victory in forcing the University of East Anglia to release the data that it has been trying to keep secret for years. This University and the AGW scientists working with it have fought tooth and nail all these years to keep their data secret. It's no wonder the world is so sceptical about their integrity and hidden agendas.
As a scientist who sees the competition for research funding played out year in, year out, I can pretty confidently assert that the proportion of research that is published validating and enhancing our understanding of climate change is not funded by "Green Industry" nor the UN. Neither of those entities has enough money to firmly establish their own ends, let alone toss money for research programs to prop up their assertions. Unless you can prove otherwise, this is just another red herring clouding up the argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe world wide Green industry is worth hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Any research into the development of the World Wide Green Industry will teach you that - though it may be inconvenient for you to acknowledge it because it destroys the AGW's favourite bogey man, the Oil Industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can start here:http://www.lohas.de/content/view/1279/195/
"Green industries currently account for a 15% share (approx. USD 430 billion) of the world's economic stimulus packages."
"In absolute terms, China is spending most (in the context of economic stimulus) to protect the environment and the climate: more than USD 220 billion – twice as much as the USA. As early as 2013, the market for environmental technologies including renewable energy should be worth USD 1 trillion in the People's Republic."
Hundreds of millions of dollars are being funnelled from Government and the Green Industry into producing a "Conspiracy of Convenience" to persuade us of AGW. The Green Industry doesn't really care about how accurate the AGW people are - what they care about is scaring the crap out of as many people as possible so that they will spend more and more and more on their agenda.
You are aware that most research into green energy is private industry, with engineers working to develop new technologies, correct? Climate science and energy engineering are two entirely different disciplines. Conflating them just makes you look foolish. Either operates perfectly independently of the other. Unless you can PROVE there's a conspiracy being orchestrated by Green Industry/the UN/what have you, there's not much you're adding to this discussion. Monetary links between the most vocal of climate denialist scientists and think-tanks can be demonstrated between corporations with vested interest against altering the status quo. Since YOU are the one claiming there's a similar conspiracy on the opposite side, the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that you're correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese arguments always remind me of this comic from a few years ago: http://www.flickr.com/photos/monkchips/4254681996/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOddly this is the same pseudo/junk science, tactics and funding sources that the "green" movement uses in its Big Oil sponsored war against nuclear energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo kidding. It's sad to see new and potentially game-changing reactor designs get shuttered and ignored because of all the groups like Green Peace out there that have an agenda but don't want to look at all the viable options on the table.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight, Howard, and the OIL and COAL industries? Oh, heck, they aren't worth squat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeriously, what cave are you living in?
It isn't as simple as that. There are people making all kinds of crazy statements on all sides of every one of these debates. Is nuclear a better option than fossil fuels? Probably so. Is it the most sensible and economic response? That is very much less clear, despite seth's enthusiasm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately what I think we're going to find in 10 years is that had we listened to the science back in the 80's when we could have done something about with fairly modest investment things would have been fine, but trying to start mitigation in 2020 is just not going to work. The punishing cost of mitigation piled on top of the already punishing costs of our foolishness will simply leave ANY solution out of the bounds of reality.
This sadly is what the deniers lead us to. Yeah, 10 or 20 years from now they'll admit they were horribly wrong, after it is too late. Then we get to see what is on the other side of this rabbit hole.
Which is why I was responding to the accusations against Anti-AGW scientists for taking money from the Oil industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe onus here is on the AGW group to support their assertions. As Carl Sagan said, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. Yet AGW produces dodgy evidence, secret data, knobbles opponents, lies about secret emails, tries to pass off massive extrapolations as convincing direct evidence.
The enormous power of the AGW 'industry' which is has now become has completely drowned out the whole scientific discussion. Opponents cannot questions the AGW without being attacked and abused. Scientists who want to work in the area but who don't buy into the AGW belief system cannot get funding.
Is it any wonder that the whole AGW band wagon generates so much scepticism.
ZSylvain's naivete is not convincing. He is actually trying to put forward a view that the hundreds of billions of dollars in spending each year in the Green Industry, with hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake, is not driving enormous political manipulation in favour of the AGW band wagon ? that this enormous industry is not pushing organisations across the world to pour hundreds of millions into the research of their favourite AGW scientists ? please !! Look at the sources of these funds. Look at the sources of the grants.
It's all well and good spouting about Oil and Coal but then you need to support that with some argument .. The Oil industry is making money hand over fist and their product is in short supply, running shorter. Where exactly is their interest in opposing AGW ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf AGW proposals are implemented .. where exactly will the Oil industry lose money ? There is NO chance the price of Oil will drop no matter how much or how fast those proposals are implemented.
So the Big Oil and the Big Coal arguments are completely fatuous and empty.
perfect...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps you have heard of an economic theory called the law of supply and demand? Lower the demand, and the price goes lower than it would have been.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEffective action to reduce emissions means eventually putting all fossil fuel companies out of business. You are supposing they will take that lying down?
Re: "The onus here is on the AGW group to support their assertions."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUmm, yeah, if you actually look at the history in the literature, you will find that the AGW position has been gaining strength off and on for about 150 years.
What exactly is your argument? Climate change aside, don't you want a less-polluted world? I would think anyone concerned with economics would work tirelessly trying to preserve the resources every economy relies on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou put your finger on it !!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What exactly is your argument? Climate change aside, don't you want a less-polluted world? I would think anyone concerned with economics would work tirelessly trying to preserve the resources every economy relies on."
This is at the heart of the 'conspiracy of convenience'. The theory of AGW is so 'Convenient' to the desire, held by most everyone including me, to take better care of this planet, with less pollution and less fossil fuels. And also held by 99% of opponents of AGW. This feeds into the politics of Green, and the convenient tie in between Green and AGW.
But while I agree with ALL of the goals of the Green Lobby - that is NO excuse to give the AGW theorists a pass on rubbish science... it is an abuse of Science and the principles of Science. We need to maintain the quality of Science and the rigour of Science while doing the right thing for our plant for the RIGHT reasons.
I read the article and comments to see if there is any science that says global climate change is not happening, or shows its effects as minimal. I didn't get that. What I got was a megla-liberal conspiracy theory, and that is sad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI, like most of the people at this conference, am not a scientist, but this is how I sort it out:
1. Carbon dioxide absorbs heat. So the more of it there is in the atmosphere, generally, the atmosphere will hold onto more heat.
2. There is a carbon cycle. There are things in nature that produce CO2 (breathing, for instance) and things that absorb or remove CO2 (like photosynthesis). There needs to be a balance to have a stable climate. Imbalance changes the climate.
3. Is the quantity of carbon fuel use the source of imbalance? To say we can't know or measure how much CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere, and compare it to natural sources seems silly.
4. It also seems silly to say you can't do the numbers and get a handle on how much CO2 will do how much to the atmosphere. In other words, can the degree of change become relatively predictable?
5. The climate is changing in much the way scientists predicted 15-20 years ago, only faster: many more extreme climate events (storms, floods, droughts) and a general warming.
6. Is this seriously dangerous? For the moment it depends on whether you are a victim or not. In the longer run, methane from the ocean bottoms and the composting tundra appear to be upcoming threats which would accelerate heating.
This is my understanding, briefly. Unfortunately there was nothing in the article, no insights nor data, that suggests my understanding is wrong.
Chirs - no offence but are really that naive to think that there is ANY likelihood of "putting all fossil fuel companies out of business" ?? Even any likelihood of reducing the demand significantly ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe current price of oil is not even based on supply and demand. All of the top people have testified in recent months that uncertainty and speculation are the basis of current prices, and the true price should be 30-40% lower.
Even if all of the wet dreams of the AGW theorists were granted, this is not going to change the game against the Oil industry.
Kind of like smoking, sooner or later, everyone quits. Rest assured, at some point the use of fossil fuels will drop to negligible levels. It remains to be seen what the world looks like when that comes around. The uncertainty depends on what people will do more than uncertainties in the science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight, because if no one were driving gas-powered cars, the price would be just as high.
A fair number of the concerns in the article are related to short-term economic advantage, which has _nothing_ to do with what effects increasing CO2 will have. I've yet to see money be a factor in a physics equation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want to mention that there is something we can do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCap and trade went down because it was a bad idea. But there is a good idea out there, called carbon fee and rebate. The Canadian province of British Columbia has a version of it and it is very popular, and why not. It goes something like this:
The idea is to level the playing field between carbon and renewable fuels by placing a steadily growing ($15/ton/yr)fee on oil, coal and natural gas at the source or point of entry. The fees collected are 100% rebated to the citizens equally in the form of monthly checks. The rebate mitigates the rise in energy prices. In fact, research suggests that 70% of citizens will break even or do better. And it encourages less use of carbon fuels.
Once the price of renewables is equal, let the market determine which form of energy we will use. My guess is that we will see way more money invested in renewables.
More, it is a step toward energy independence, and there are no terrorist targets.
And jobs: way more jobs created(4 times) on an ongoing basis. There are already more people employed in wind than in coal, though wind provides only 2% of our energy so far.
On Mears, and Watt's study: IIRC, Watt's began the work in order to test the assertion the US stations had undergone a systemic bias over the years, but he was not able to reach that conclusion in his published work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, what is Mears still going on about?
http://www.carbontax.org/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell done, SciAm. Thank you for presenting this and showing that there are a wide range of views in the community of global warming skeptics. Excellent reporting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks. Try citizensclimatelobby.org
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am persuaded that there is some direct relationship between the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature. I am also inclined to believe that average temperatures are a smidge higher now than 100 years ago. Beyond that, I am not so sure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA convincing model would need at least two equations. First, an equation for the atmospheric concentration of CO2, with independent variables being the concentration of CO2 lagged one period, emissions of CO2 and whatever other variables might be relevant as controls. Second, an equation for average atmospheric temperature, with the independent variables including the atmospheric concentration of CO2, perhaps lagged, and whatever other variables (surely including solar radiation) that might be relevant.
As any time-series analyst should know, any two time-series that are trended will have a high correlation coefficient, whatever the variables; a fitted regression equation will always seem to be statistically significant.
The problem, as I see it, is that a group of so-called climate scientists (a description unknown 20 years ago) have taken a simple relationship linking the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature, and gone on to produce very specific predictions about the effects of CO2 emissions produced by industry. There is a monumental leap of faith involved here. If it is claimed that certain reductions in CO2 emissions will be required to keep global warming to some prescribed level, there has to be a statistical model as the basis for this. One must ask where it is.
The work of climate scientists is, of course, peer reviewed. The catch is that the reviewers are other climate scientists who pretty much believe and promote the same story. People who raise questions are labelled “sceptics” as though scepticism is not appropriate in science, or more insultingly “deniers”. Climate science, in my view at least, would be better served by seeking peer review from people well-versed in other sciences.
Finally, there is the argument that even if there is a high probability that alarmist predictions are wrong, we really should do something on the off-chance that they are right. If doing something means cutting out use of energy by a large amount, then I’m guessing that most of us will live with that risk.
An interesting post Al. The real truth is that the vast majority of sceptics are genuine people who find the science unconvincing in the face of a massively powerful establishment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comment about models is important. Modelling is a highly complex process. With our climate it is incredibly complex, with thousands of factors (more really) influencing the outcome every minute of every day.
The AGW group makes extraordinary claims about their modelling, but reveals nothing about the factors that it uses to produce their results. If this were another area of science that affected our lives so critically, and where billions of dollars are at stake, there would be a widespread demand that those factors be widely examined ESPECIALLY by sceptics, because it is so easy to manipulate such models to produce the outcome you desire and feel so passionately about.
The fact is that no Model has been produced that has been thoroughly tested and proved accurate over a meaningful period of time. They have been continually modified and continually found wanting and on and on. Now that is actually fine ! That is the Scientific method ! but it is not the basis for extraordinary conclusions that have immeasurable impact on our lives and finances in advance of a provable model.
If SciAm really wanted to play a valuable role in the furtherance of Science, it would initiate a project where each of the major areas of dispute in the AGW debate was open to both sides and analysed one by one. No one else is willing to do it. No one in established Science has been willing to put their science on the line.
Unfortunately it will not happen. It won't happen because the AGW group is so appallingly arrogant that they behave as if the whole topic is done and dusted and they are the fountain of all truth on the matter. They try to buttress their arrogance with comparisons with anti-Evolution and anti-Vaccination people. This arrogance is what is doing so much damage to the image of Science. This unwillingness to acknowledge legitimate opposition and debate in each area of dispute, on a scientific level, and unwillingness to see how the momentum of a convenient 'theory' can snowball and distort the normal Scientific Process is a tragic development in the history of Science.
That SciAm has swallowed this position in it's magazine and in it's podcasts, hook line and sinker, is a tragedy for it's own reputation imho.
But any sound strategy that effectively preserves the environment and natural resources will necessarily address climate change. You are bifurcating interdependent ideas. You can't separate the natural world to reflect your own political bias.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI reject your suggestion that I have any political bias. My argument is 100% Science. Read my other post above. I agree 100% with the principles of the Green Movement, but not built on the foundation of flawed science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlMorris,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou sound like you are a student who took one statistics class and learned about ARCH time series models. The climatologists that you look down on all have much more expertise in statistics and mathematics than you appear to have.
HowardB,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have never heard you discuss any science. You only talk politics and conspiracy theories (e.g. "No one in established Science [sic] has been willing to put their science on the line.")
FYI, SciAm is a magazine for the layman. They have no business in playing some sort of intermediary that you called for. They're more like a news organization.
Tip: before you can solve your problem (political bias), you must accept that you have a problem. Discuss the science, not conspiracy theories; then I'll believe you.
Cramer - you are clearly politically biased to an extraordinary degree and have a closed mind, which is totally anti-science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't discuss science here because there is no opportunity to do so. SciAm doesn't public any articles giving any balance to the AGW debate and therefore there is noting scientific to comment on.
Your claim that SciAm is for laymen and therefore not the place to offer scientific insight into the debate is clearly nonsense. It is exactly the layman who needs to be given an opportunity to get an insight into the reasons AGW is being pushed so heavily by the political establishment and the AGW establishment.
Last week, academics signed a petition to have Notre Dame University in Western Australia cancel a speaking engagement by Lord Monkton, the famous British sceptic. To the university’s credit they did not accede. Conversely, a blizzard of emails to the executives of The Broncos football club executive in Queensland, Australia, supposedly from members but in fact predominately from the left wing group Getup, brought about the cancellation of Monkton’s engagement at the clubs conference venue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese are just two examples of the AGW industry’s policy of not answering questions, rather shut down the questioner. Like cockroaches, they prefer to avoid the light. Now if the science is so persuasive, why is this?
HowardB,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me point out the differences in our replies. I stated that I have never heard you discuss any science (this is about my observations of your behavior, I did not say that you lacked scientific knowledge). You, on the other hand, reply that I am closed-minded and anti-science (this not about my behavior, it's an ad hominem attack on my character that you have no basis to make).
You never mentioned "layman" in your previous comment. You said,
"If SciAm really wanted to play a valuable role in the furtherance of Science, it would initiate a project where each of the major areas of dispute in the AGW debate was open to both sides and analysed one by one. No one else is willing to do it. No one in established Science has been willing to put their science on the line."
Both sides? Do you mean scientists or non-scientists?
What are the major areas of dispute for you? The East Anglia University CRU emails? The "established" scientists unwillingness "to put their science on the line?" The "arrogance" of the "AGW group" and the "damage" it is doing to "the image of Science?" How closed-minded and anti-science SciAm is? How the "major commercial interest such as the UN and the elite Science establishment" has "brought about a 'conspiracy of convenience'?" How the "usual crap scientific nonsense" is "more wild speculation hung on 'could' or 'might' or 'may'?"
You keep repeating the same ideological conspiracy theories. Even with these non-scientific issues, you provide no evidence. Anyone (like SciAm) that does not agree with you is anti-science. Meanwhile, you have never discussed the science (in your own words), and you want people to believe that your "argument is 100% science." Other people have discussed the science here. Why not you? Put up or shut up.
"The work of climate scientists is, of course, peer reviewed. The catch is that the reviewers are other climate scientists who pretty much believe and promote the same story."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe work takes the form of articles in academic publications, and they come complete with all the data and footnotes and sources and all that. You don't have to be wikki-leaks to read them, you just need a means of getting hold of them. The work is probably online somewhere. My guess is someone from Scientific American, or some University library can probably help you find what you are looking for.
You may enjoy your rant Cramer but it doesn't mean anything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You keep repeating the same ideological conspiracy theories."
Yada yada the same old accusations and abuse against opponents of AGW .. they are conspiracy theorists ... yeah .. very adult.
"Even with these non-scientific issues, you provide no evidence."
Evidence ? The evidence of the silencing of any opposition is documented and proven beyond any doubt. The total manipulation of the peer review system. The prevention of grants going to opponents. The continuous abuse of opponents. The blocking of all scientific debate.
"Anyone (like SciAm) that does not agree with you is anti-science. "
People who block debate, keep data secret, prevent opponents publishing papers, demean and abuse scientists and others that don't accept the AGW dogma - they are definitely anti-science.
"Meanwhile, you have never discussed the science (in your own words), and you want people to believe that your "argument is 100% science."
As I pointed out there is no forum for discussing the Science. We are on a SciAm forum and SciAm never ever gives any space to scientific arguments against AGW. So there is no place to discuss the Science.
"Other people have discussed the science here. Why not you? Put up or shut up."
Don't be so disingenuous. Why don't you write to SciAm and urge them to give space to all of the arguments ? If not then perhaps you will shut up.
It is a travesty for the reputation of Science and it's great history.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"These are just two examples of the AGW industrys policy of not answering questions, rather shut down the questioner. Like cockroaches, they prefer to avoid the light. Now if the science is so persuasive, why is this?"
Indeed. It is really an indication of total arrogance and closed mindedness. Scepticism is one of the greatest values in Science. yet AGW abuses and belittles and demeans scepticism and sceptics. Scepticism is all well and good it seems, but not in relation to the precious and blessed AGW.
They try to paint opponents as politically biased while they themselves wear their political and financial bias on their chests. They try to paint opponents as ignorant of science, yet they refuse to allow opponents the opportunity to challenge their claims and they data, even keeping much of it secret.
If the proponents of AGW believed in the greatness and history of Science they would invite open forums all across the world to discuss and debate the actual Science. They would open the debate to all and sundry. They would welcome any and all researchers who want to challenge their AGW beliefs. If they are right in their beliefs then what have they do be afraid of ?
HowardB,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, no substance.
You said, "SciAm never ever gives any space to scientific arguments against AGW." Are you saying they delete your comments if you begin posting scientific arguments? I have never had any of my comments deleted.
It is very simple. I'll provide an example. SciAm provides news on many published scientific articles. Many are controversial. Please check out this one:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-will-clouds-respond-to-climate-change
In this article, Andrew Dessler, a climatologist, said that his study suggests that "climate change will create a positive feedback from clouds that produces additional heating of the planet."
Roy Spencer, a climatologist and skeptic, attacked Dessler's study, calling its "central evidence weak at best, misleading at worst."
Here's the paper:
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf
All the models (NCAR-PCM1, IPSL-CM4, etc) and data are available. You can download the open source FORTRAN and C code and the data and evaluate the models and data yourself. You can post your findings here (which should show errors in Dessler's work). Are you saying that SciAm will not allow this? Will SciAm delete your posts?
Ridiculous.
HOWARDB,
YOU ARE CONSTANTLY ATTACKING ALL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. I have never seen you defend any science or provide any scientific evidence for why the research that you attack is wrong. You make your ad hominem attacks and then DISAPPEAR when others start discussing the science.
Here's an example on the subject of gravitational lensing:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=free-floating-planets-microlensing
See your comments #22 and #42. Again, only accusing the scientists "poor science clearly aimed at grant money and publicity." You provide no evidence of anything.
Others, including myself and jtdwyer, began discussing the science in the paper:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1105/1105.3544v1.pdf
You disappeared. Saying that your "argument is 100% science" is false. You never offer any science. If anyone is "anti-science," it is you. You sound like a retired scientist from a failed career who as an ax to grind with the scientific community. Kinda reminds me of Ted Kaczynski.
HowardB and AlMorris,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou two are acting as though the best estimate of how the earth will respond to higher CO2 levels is based entirely on models. That is incorrect. The best estimates of what the earth will do come from paleoclimate studies, how the earth has responded in the past.
However the resolution of the data from the past is most often too low to tell us what will happen in the next few decades to a century or so. This is especially true since the current rate of change in CO2 levels is higher than we have any clear record of. Kind of like the difference between a shove and a punch, same amount of energy, but different effects. So, that is where the models, based on laws of physics, come into play.
There is no perfect model; yeah, we know that. That is the nature of models, whether they are models of fluid dynamics used in designing aircraft or GCMs. However, that does not mean they are not useful.
You write: "Again, no substance." - I am not trying to discuss substance and will not. This is a general discussion not a scientific argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI said "SciAm never ever gives any space to scientific arguments against AGW" and I reassert that. Your example article is about clouds and their general affect on warming. It does not deal with the core AGW theory which is never covered by SciAm.
"YOU ARE CONSTANTLY ATTACKING ALL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH."
Actually I am not. What I am constantly saying is that I don't accept AGW and the science being used to justify it. That is a very different thing and not the hysterical response that you make.
I comment on many other topics on SciAm which you don't appear to be familiar with. I take part in many discussions which are in total agreement and supportive of the great science being done in other areas of science. If you think that the comment section is a place to discuss or argue the detailed science that you are rather naive.
Regarding Drifting Planets you become quite comical. "Others, including myself and jtdwyer, began discussing the science in the paper" oh yes... you rant against everyone who disagrees with you, including JT, and you wonder why people wander off .... funny,.
That article referred to a paper that extrapolated findings in an infinitesimally small area of the universe and made extraordinary claims about the presence of floating planets across the rest of the universe. It was silly and clearly aiming at publicity, self promotion and probably future grant applications. I made my points and left. You continued to rant and attack as you do hear, closing with a childish piece of abuse. Boring.
Chris it is true I referred to models and their weakness. This is for good reason. The modelling is at the core of the AGW predictions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou write:"The best estimates of what the earth will do come from paleoclimate studies, how the earth has responded in the past."
I disagree. The earth has warmed up and cooled down, slow and fast, by huge amounts, many times in the past. These studies have not supported the extraordinary claims being made by the AGW and none of them have been tested.
"However the resolution of the data from the past is most often too low to tell us what will happen in the next few decades to a century or so."
I agree fully. This is yet another part of the problem. However instead of recognising the problem, the ICCC and the core AGW believers do not accept this and blast away with their incredibly detailed predictions ! One case for example is the extraordinary extrapolation of the use of tree rings. Once used for aging, and then for 'general estimates of changes in climate from e.g. wet to dry, and warm to cold. But now they are claiming to be able to measure global temperatures to less than a tenth of a degree from tree rings... unbelievable. I have read more than a dozen of these papers and they simply don't stand up.
The truth is that these computer models can produce wildly different results depending on the data input into them, yet they always chose the values that produce the highest warming. It is disingenuous.
"However, that does not mean they are not useful."
I agree again, fully. The study of Climate Change, something that is evidently happening and recognised as such by the vast majority of AGE opponents must be studied. They must however be studied by all, equally, and not only by those in the AGW club. Our future depends on the quality of the science and in ANY history of Science it is clear that whenever one lath is followed to the exclusion of others, we lose out.
We need vastly more study of our climate. Vastly more accurate study of historic climate changes and vastly more modesty about the the enormous amount that we simply do not know. It's not enough to admit how much we don't know and then predict disaster.
Again, no substance. Just an ad hominem rant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd no science or knowledge of gravitational lensing to refute a paper written/signed by 39 scientists:
T. Sumi
K. Kamiya
A. Udalski
D.P. Bennett
I.A. Bond
F. Abe
C.S. Botzler
A. Fukui
K. Furusawa
J.B. Hearnshaw
Y. Itow
P.M. Kilmartin
A. Korpela
W. Lin
C.H. Ling
K. Masuda
Y. Matsubara
N. Miyake
M. Motomura
Y. Muraki
M. Nagaya
S. Nakamura
K. Ohnishi
T. Okumura
Y.C. Perrott
N. Rattenbury
To. Saito
T. Sako
D.J. Sullivan
W.L. Sweatman
P.J. Tristram
P.C.M. Yock
M.K. Szymanski
M. Kubiak
G. Pietrzynski
R. Poleski
I. Soszynski
L. Wyrzykowski
K. Ulaczyk
Anyone can prove that you're lying just by googling the following and reading your comments:
site:scientificamerican.com howardb
I challenge you or anyone else to find one comment where you provide any constructive contribution to debating science. Most of your posts are libelous ad hominem rants.
Quit using the bogus excuse that SciAm does not let you. [yes, this would not be the forum for a real scientist doing a real peer review of a paper, but that's not who you are or what you would be doing, but it would be better than libelous ad hominem rants.]
HowardB said, "I have read more than a dozen of these papers and they simply don't stand up."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisList the papers. Let's discuss them.
Wow .. you are so clever. Now we know 30 scientists who are being used to generate publicity seeking coverage aimed at gaining more grants. Wow. You are a genius.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are nothing but an attack merchant. with little or no scientific knowledge and essentially nothing more than a flamer.
HowardB,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice reference to the LGBT community. Not only are you an anti-science ideologue, you're also a bigot.
I bet you also liked it when Lord Monckton called Ross Garnaut a fascist:
"That's a fascist point of view," Lord Monckton told the audience. "That you merely accept authority without question. Heil Hitler, on we go."
His speech at Notre Dame (Fremantle, Australia) was sponsored by billionaire mining mogul Gina Rinehart. Great science. Money definitely not a part of that equation.
Whose paying you HowardB?
And still no science. List the papers you read about tree ring data. Let's talk some dendroclimatology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispokerplayer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for the articles. I will read them.
However, I believe you have misunderstood my position. I am not certain of any future temperature increases or the fate of humanity as a result of any possible future temperature increases or the fate of the climate or economy based on how we address this issue.
There are many closed-minded ideologues on both sides. They, the ideologues, are certain of the future. They, the ideologues, are typically unwilling to even consider the science, either because they can't or won't. Rather, ideologues attack the experts on the other side as committing fraud with the intent of "generating publicity seeking coverage aimed at gaining more [government] grants" or committing fraud because they are being paid by Big Oil.
Everybody believes they are an expert. The people (including climatologists) that don't hold their opinion (that they believe is fact) are either "GW alarmists" or "GW deniers."
But these ideologues NEVER discuss the science. To them, it's only about climategate or being paid by Big Oil. Some even claim that SciAm will not let them discuss the science.
These ideologues are the sheep of our society. 400 years ago they would have been in the crowd cheering as a "witch" is being burnt at the stake. They would have been the toothless wretches which could only rationalize in terms of ridiculous superstitions. Instead, they picture themselves 400 years ago as Galileo challenging authority or part of the royalty standing above the masses.
I challenge you to find one comment of mine where I said I believe that global warming is our future.
Perhaps Cramer, you are a red hot mathematician and statistician. Heaps better than me, but then again, maybe not. But who cares? It's interesting that turkeys such as yourself imply that you know and understand the relevant modeling, yet are so reluctant to share it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne thing I'm pretty confident about is my ability to read a mathematical equation and how the coefficients have been estimated. C'mon Cramer, tell us all where the most convincing model is. A link would be swell.
As it stands, AWG seems a bit like a religion; the high priests have the holy grail, but they sure as hell ain't letting the followers seeing it up close. Less so the unbelievers.
But, Cramer, you could be right. Unless we all reduce our emissions of green house gasses, the planet might indeed be stuffed. So, where is the model?
Ad hominem attacks on opponents are utterly depressing and totally at odds with the basic rules of intelligent discourse. They also inevitably undermine the views of those deploying them. When will these half-witted bloggers realise that they are simply demonstrating the weakness of their argument – no matter which side of the debate they are ‘supporting’!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAd hominem attacks on opponents are utterly depressing and totally at odds with the basic rules of intelligent discourse. They also inevitably undermine the views of those deploying them. When will these half-witted bloggers realise that they are simply demonstrating the weakness of their argument – no matter which side of the debate they are ‘supporting’!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I am both mathematician and statistician. I have a joint-degree MS, not a PhD. I am not a climatologist nor do I have any formal climate science education.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs there a "most convincing model?" Not that I'm aware of. From what you said you seem to a vision that there is some sort global bureaucratic hierarchy headed by an AGW czar who oversees AGW "high priests" who oversees lower level scientists. Do you really think China, Russia, Europe, and America are all conspiring or have slipped into a herd mentality? There are about a dozen ice core stations in Antarctica including Volstok (Russia), EPICA/Dome C (Europe), Byrd (US), and Dome Fuji (Japan). China has the Dasuopu, Dunde, and Guliya ice cap stations. I am not saying there is much controversy here; I am just saying there is a lot of independent research going on. All taking a considerable amount of funding.
You said that you are "pretty confident about [your] ability to read a mathematical equation and how the coefficients have been estimated." Not all models are parametric, but they are all available for you to evaluate.
The availability of models is what the peer-review process is all about. The whole idea is to provide information to allow others to reproduce the results of the research. Does scientific misconduct happen? Of course. The example I remember the most is the nanotechnology research by Jan Hendrik Schon. Others include cold fusion by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann (no misconduct was every proven).
Traditionally, the experimental assets (lab equipment, code, etc) are not typically made available. The idea is to reproduce the results from scratch so possible errors are not also reproduced. What if there is some error in the software code that nobody notices? However, code libraries for basic algorithms are shared. The idea was here's the design (or algorithm), build your own equipment (or computer code).
But more and more code sharing has occurred over the last few decades. Most all the code and data is available for to reproduce climatology studies. Even non-scientists have access to it over the internet. People just have to roll up their sleeves and do a lot of work (however, most non-scientists have their own jobs). Start with any research paper you want and do some work. I'll give an example in my next post.
To find the models, look in the research papers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI already mentioned an example in my comment #42 about the cloud feedback that the skeptic Roy Spencer has a problem with:
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf
It lists ten models and the data used. You can find these models. Look for there websites. Here's one example:
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/
The source code is available for CCM3
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/ccm3/
Here's an online working version:
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/full_spectrum.html
Here's some others:
http://www.ecmwf.int/
http://mitgcm.org/
Try this one:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw
I guess many people refuse to look at these websites because they are ran by the "AGW alarmists."
AlMorris,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "But, Cramer, you could be right. Unless we all reduce our emissions of green house gasses, the planet might indeed be stuffed."
Where did I say this? I never made any claim of what might happen to our planet unless we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.