Republican-Controlled Committee Legislates That Climate Change Does Not Exist

[troutman]

[Thor]

Bah, these silly scientists who think the world is warming are simply just not aware of the new paradigm added to the scientific method, the political asterix compendium.

IE Newtons laws of gravity no longer require vigorous and repeated testing to reach agreement within the scientific field; it only now requires the knowledge that smaller government and tax cuts = gravity, or as the new formula best explains:

G = J(Jesus) x(variable)2 - RE (Republican party)

[troutman]

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute

According to Wikipedia, the Heartland Institute is a libertarian American public policy think tank based in Chicago, Illinois which advocates free market policies. The Heartland Institute questions the scientific consensus on climate change, arguing that global warming is not occurring

Is James paid by the use of the word "alarmist"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-change-denier

It's that time of year again, when the Heartland Institute gathers together climate naysayers to deny the reality of global climate change.

In a previous post on this blog, James Randerson recognised the similarity between creationists and climate change denialists and their tactics of sowing confusion and doubt about established science.

But the similarities are not just with creationists. The same tactics are used by those who deny the link between HIV and Aids and those who subscribe to any number of bizarre conspiracy theories from 9/11 conspiracies to lizard people.

It's important to recognise that you shouldn't play their game. They'll never be satisfied because they simply don't want to believe the science – for ideological reasons.

[bizaro86]

The biggest problem with the climate change industry (NGOs, IPCC, etc) is the actions they're taking have hurt the environment in many other ways. Obviously the earth's climate is continually changing, whether that's caused by humanity, and whether that's a bad thing anyway are both still up for debate.

But hasty actions by politicians eager to be seen "doing something" to fix the problem have done more environmental harm than good. One example of that is the deforestation of parts of Indonesia to produce palm oil for biofuels. This is deforestation that would never have happened under a pure market economy, because the business case for doing it depends on getting EU carbon credit money.

Article discussing from Yale:

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_cos..._forests/2112/

I don't think anyone can credibly believe that destroying an acre of diverse primary rainforest to plant monoculture crops is a good thing, even if it is replacing fossil fuels.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

You're missing the point Devils'Advocate, clearly if an article agrees with what I want to think then it must be correct.

Your one big fat hypocrite. Your doing just exactly what your accusing me of: Just believing the article you agree with.

Moreover your article isn't even scientific. It begins by attacking the man and continues to argue that every Climate scientist he talked to debunked the research. Really that is a scientific survey? I'm sure you'll also point out to me like the article that "every credible scientist agrees with you" because that has surplanted the scientific method in your circles.

I give you a peer reviewed scientific study that shows that the UN's climate change models are wrong. You embrace an article by a climate change advocate that attacks its merits after taking pot shots at the author. I can't count the times where an artcle i've posted has been shot down because it wasn't published research. I guess that is the standard only when it dares attack your beliefs.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by troutman

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute

According to Wikipedia, the Heartland Institute is a libertarian American public policy think tank based in Chicago, Illinois which advocates free market policies. The Heartland Institute questions the scientific consensus on climate change, arguing that global warming is not occurring

Is James paid by the use of the word "alarmist"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-change-denier

It's that time of year again, when the Heartland Institute gathers together climate naysayers to deny the reality of global climate change.

In a previous post on this blog, James Randerson recognised the similarity between creationists and climate change denialists and their tactics of sowing confusion and doubt about established science.

But the similarities are not just with creationists. The same tactics are used by those who deny the link between HIV and Aids and those who subscribe to any number of bizarre conspiracy theories from 9/11 conspiracies to lizard people.

It's important to recognise that you shouldn't play their game. They'll never be satisfied because they simply don't want to believe the science – for ideological reasons.

Isn't discrediting someone by associating them with other disliked groups more a political tack then scientific? Who here is playing a game?

Also, with the excesses of the environmental movement do you honestly believe that no man caused climate change research is fueled by ideology? Do you also believe that there exists no financial incentive either?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Your one big fat hypocrite. Your doing just exactly what your accusing me of: Just believing the article you agree with.

Sure, that's exactly what I'm doing, when I didn't even make a comment about the content of either article.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Moreover your article isn't even scientific. It begins by attacking the man and continues to argue that every Climate scientist he talked to debunked the research. Really that is a scientific survey? I'm sure you'll also point out to me like the article that "every credible scientist agrees with you" because that has surplanted the scientific method in your circles.

Well duh, neither article is scientific, since they're journalistic articles by the media, not scientific ones by scientists.

What scientists think is part of the scientific method. Getting a paper published in a journal is the beginning of science, not the end of it.

If this paper has merit, will will be referenced, and supported, and its conclusions will be supported. If not, then it'll just be a bunch of words in an archive somewhere.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I give you a peer reviewed scientific study that shows that the UN's climate change models are wrong.

Not really, at least not in the way you think "wrong" means. This paper doesn't invalidate AGW by any means, it just proposes that the models are inaccurate (which means they are wrong, but there's a difference between wrong meaning the amount of warming is 20% less and wrong meaning there's cooling not warming).

Dr. Spencer has been on this for many years, this paper is nothing new.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You embrace an article by a climate change advocate that attacks its merits after taking pot shots at the author. I can't count the times where an artcle i've posted has been shot down because it wasn't published research. I guess that is the standard only when it dares attack your beliefs.

The standard hasn't changed, it only appears so because you don't understand the standard to begin with.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Well it looks like man caused global warming has taken another big hit. Apparently you can throw out all the UN's climate models because they are way off. I wonder if they will give their research money back now.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

Quick question...where the hell is the graph to show me the major difference in temperature? Plus...why would it reject the research money? The article merely states that the current model is wrong. It doesn't reject global warming/climate change, but merely the thought that the aggressive pace that was predicted may be wrong. It does not confirm nor deny the theory.

Also...I'm alarmed at the frequency that this alarming article used the word alarm/alarmist. I'm going to set my alarm clock for early tomorrow so I can send an alarming letter to the publisher of this article.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Isn't discrediting someone by associating them with other disliked groups more a political tack then scientific? Who here is playing a game?

If someone uses tactics that are the same dishonest and irrational tactics that have been identified in other groups then the comparison is valid.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Also, with the excesses of the environmental movement do you honestly believe that no man caused climate change research is fueled by ideology? Do you also believe that there exists no financial incentive either?

There'll always be ideologically driven people on any side of any issue. Reality however isn't influenced by any ideology, so no matter how many people say the sun revolves around the earth based on ideology, honest inquiry will eventually lead to a better conclusion.

But this is an interesting point about ideology.. you've put forward a paper by Dr. Spencer as an authoritative statement about the issue of AGW.

How did you determine that paper had more merit than the other papers?

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

HA!

Right in the "Related Stories" below Calgaryborn's article, there is this article debunking the link he posted:
http://news.yahoo.com/climate-change...234403696.html

I really appreciate when the deniers link to articles that virtually debunk themselves. It saves time from having to search all over the internet. Thanks!!

From the article: "He's taken an incorrect model, he's tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct," Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, said of Spencer's new study.

For a minute there, I thought they were talking about the IPCC!

[photon]

Originally Posted by troutman

According to Wikipedia, the Heartland Institute is a libertarian American public policy think tank based in Chicago, Illinois which advocates free market policies. The Heartland Institute questions the scientific consensus on climate change, arguing that global warming is not occurring

Heh, the Heartland Institute page on Environment features none other than the same youtube video showing Richard Muller that's in this thread!

I can't find reference to Richard Muller's statistical work that supports the other temperature data sets though...

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Also, with the excesses of the environmental movement do you honestly believe that no man caused climate change research is fueled by ideology? Do you also believe that there exists no financial incentive either?

I wish it were true that humans were not contributing to increased global warming, and that the "alarmism" was unwarranted. That's just not what the science says. What is my ideology in that? I'd be very happy if it were otherwise, and our future was secure.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by kirant

Quick question...where the hell is the graph to show me the major difference in temperature? Plus...why would it reject the research money? The article merely states that the current model is wrong. It doesn't reject global warming/climate change, but merely the thought that the aggressive pace that was predicted may be wrong. It does not confirm nor deny the theory.

Also...I'm alarmed at the frequency that this alarming article used the word alarm/alarmist. I'm going to set my alarm clock for early tomorrow so I can send an alarming letter to the publisher of this article.

This article contains a couple graphs from the study:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07..._missing_heat/

[photon]

Originally Posted by zuluking

From the article: "He's taken an incorrect model, he's tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct," Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, said of Spencer's new study.

For a minute there, I thought they were talking about the IPCC!

Naw, the IPCC's models don't require a negative six trillion degree anomaly.

(The IPCC BTW doesn't have a model, it doesn't have any scientists..)

[Matata]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The biggest problem with the climate change industry (NGOs, IPCC, etc) is the actions they're taking have hurt the environment in many other ways. Obviously the earth's climate is continually changing, whether that's caused by humanity, and whether that's a bad thing anyway are both still up for debate.

But hasty actions by politicians eager to be seen "doing something" to fix the problem have done more environmental harm than good. One example of that is the deforestation of parts of Indonesia to produce palm oil for biofuels. This is deforestation that would never have happened under a pure market economy, because the business case for doing it depends on getting EU carbon credit money.

Article discussing from Yale:

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_cos..._forests/2112/

I don't think anyone can credibly believe that destroying an acre of diverse primary rainforest to plant monoculture crops is a good thing, even if it is replacing fossil fuels.

Biofuels are stupid, stupid, stupid. The degradation of farmlands is every bit as scary as the worst case scenarios for climate change and it requires too much land and resources to be considered viable at a societal level.

Also, mad props to Photon for representing the scientific method. It's something that takes years to even begin to understand, and explaining it to anyone who doesn't at least have a BASc is pretty much impossible.

[pepper24]

I was in Toronto a few weeks ago for business and could barely see the CN Tower via the smog from man-made contribution being mainly cars.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

Sure, that's exactly what I'm doing, when I didn't even make a comment about the content of either article.



Well duh, neither article is scientific, since they're journalistic articles by the media, not scientific ones by scientists.

What scientists think is part of the scientific method. Getting a paper published in a journal is the beginning of science, not the end of it.

If this paper has merit, will will be referenced, and supported, and its conclusions will be supported. If not, then it'll just be a bunch of words in an archive somewhere.



Not really, at least not in the way you think "wrong" means. This paper doesn't invalidate AGW by any means, it just proposes that the models are inaccurate (which means they are wrong, but there's a difference between wrong meaning the amount of warming is 20% less and wrong meaning there's cooling not warming).

Dr. Spencer has been on this for many years, this paper is nothing new.



The standard hasn't changed, it only appears so because you don't understand the standard to begin with.

Where did you get the 20% figure? What i've read so far is the models under estmated the loss of heat or rather over estimated the ability of clouds to hold in heat after periods of warmth. Since the holding in of heat would cause more evaporation which would lead to more heat holding clouds and so on it is quite significant to the theory.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

This article contains a couple graphs from the study:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07..._missing_heat/

Thanks. Not sure how much stock it's worth putting into these studies though (not a slight against the research itself, but I'm just a fan of using raw data. I reject articles which say the opposite just the same). Arguments are being thrown around both directions as to how much clipping of data exists when such smoothing is used.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Where did you get the 20% figure?

I didn't get it anywhere, I just used it as an example of the difference between what wrong could mean. As far as I can tell this paper doesn't claim to invalidate AGW.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

What i've read so far is the models under estmated the loss of heat or rather over estimated the ability of clouds to hold in heat after periods of warmth. Since the holding in of heat would cause more evaporation which would lead to more heat holding clouds and so on it is quite significant to the theory.

That's the proposal anyway to explain the discrepancy between the predicted increase in temperature by the models and the observed increase.

There are other proposals as well, which don't claim the models are invalid.

The difficulty with Dr. Spencer's work (from what I remember anyway it's been a while since I read anything about this and this paper may change that) was that his model was tuned to work for recent history, and that if you tried to go back in time and use the model to "predict" historical climate it came out with incorrect conclusions (whereas the models he is trying to invalidate work). I haven't read the new paper though but the comments I've read seem to have similar criticisms.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

I didn't get it anywhere, I just used it as an example of the difference between what wrong could mean. As far as I can tell this paper doesn't claim to invalidate AGW.



That's the proposal anyway to explain the discrepancy between the predicted increase in temperature by the models and the observed increase.

There are other proposals as well, which don't claim the models are invalid.

The difficulty with Dr. Spencer's work (from what I remember anyway it's been a while since I read anything about this and this paper may change that) was that his model was tuned to work for recent history, and that if you tried to go back in time and use the model to "predict" historical climate it came out with incorrect conclusions (whereas the models he is trying to invalidate work). I haven't read the new paper though but the comments I've read seem to have similar criticisms.

Ya well the second link I provided suggested at the end of it that that was an arguement against his work. The problem with that argument is that Spencer's data is directly observable wereas any historical data relies on indirect observations.