# Global Warming for Dummies **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2012, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172 "2012-01-30T08:44:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2012, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/341 "2012-02-14T16:58:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Unhinging is not very becoming, and no, just bringing Fritz Vahrenholt again does not magically changes that he is not impressing anyone where it counts, he has written a book, he is not an expert in the issue and one can say that when the book road is chosen is because they do know that peer review will find the flaws, so one really has to dismiss it. Already his gross misunderstanding and denial of the warming trend is enough to grant his dismissal. > > As pointed out, he is not impressing anyone of notice, just denier sources. > > [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february\_2012\_open\_thread.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february_2012_open_thread.php) > Of course, it is not hard to find then much more bad science once one notices the first huge brown M&Ms. > > [Already rebutted](http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm). This is actually evidence that shows that the current warming is not natural nor at the levels he expects. > > As for his conclusion that the increase will be just at low levels like 1 degree, one would have to forget the latest study based on paleoclimate then, only that that is unlikely to happen, the reality is that the ones that were brave to face peer review like Spencer that also support the low levels just hit a wall when trying to convince others that the low levels can be expected. > > [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/editor\_of\_remote\_sensing\_agree.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/editor_of_remote_sensing_agree.php) We have already cleared that charge, so I’ll basically repeated the gist. The editor of Remote Sensing did not resign because the research was wrong, he resigned because (his words, your link - my bolding) "With this step I would also like to personally protest against how **the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements** , e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011 [2], the main author’s personal homepage [3], the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism” published by Forbes [4], and the story “Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News [5], to name just a few. " His was a political move, not a sicentific one. He didn’t say “the data was wrong” or “the conclusions were wrong”, he resigned because other people used the article for their own purposes. Would he have resigned if the authors or readers of a pro-GW paper had used it to say that NY would be under water in 10 years? NO, definitely no. And, were the peer-reviewers sacked? Isn’t peer-review the safety mechanism. Why would an editor have to resign because of how people spin a correctly done research? What were the mistakes in the research? It was simply the sin of publishing non-completly pro-GW paper. The Soon and Baliunas stuff is again only becaus of the sin. I’m sure CR has published several papers whose conlcusions were wrong and that didn’t prompt massive resignations I’ll [take some quotes from the wiki article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy): **Mann** > [@](#): > > I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They’ve already achieved what they wanted, the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want is to bring attention to the paper." …so this means, challenging view ought to be ignored. **JOnes** > [@](#): > > I think the sceptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes unchallenged. I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor …he threatens CR not becuase the research was wrong, but because he didn’t like that it’d give ammo to his enemies, de Freitas > [@](#): > > a mix of a witch-hunt and the Spanish Inquisition So much for science and openness. Otto Kinne > [@](#): > > Conclusions: 1) The reviewers consulted (4 for each ms) by the editor presented detailed, critical and helpful evaluations. 2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested appropriate revisions. 3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly. Summary: Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor Textbook peer-review of a peer-review And then GWers wonder why author don’t publish in peer-reviewed publications. If you’re an editor, you get your ass kicked not becuase the paper is wrong, but becase people can use it. Fritz Vahrenholt is impressing a lot of people, maybe not the people you’d like. He is more of an expert than you and his opinions carry much more weight that yuors (or mine). ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2012, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/342 "2012-02-15T19:04:13Z")
There is an interesting paper published by The American Academy of Microbiology titled: **Incorporating microbial processes into climate change models** [http://academy.asm.org/images/stories/documents/Incorporating\_Microbial\_Processes\_Into\_Climate\_Models.pdf](http://academy.asm.org/images/stories/documents/Incorporating_Microbial_Processes_Into_Climate_Models.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/343 "2012-02-16T06:44:32Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > We have already cleared that charge, so I’ll basically repeated the gist. > The editor of Remote Sensing did not resign because the research was wrong, he resigned because (his words, your link - my bolding) "With this step I would also like to personally protest against how **the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements** , e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011 [2], the main author’s personal homepage [3], the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism” published by Forbes [4], and the story “Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News [5], to name just a few. " > His was a political move, not a sicentific one. He didn’t say “the data was wrong” or “the conclusions were wrong”, he resigned because other people used the article for their own purposes. Would he have resigned if the authors or readers of a pro-GW paper had used it to say that NY would be under water in 10 years? NO, definitely no. > And, were the peer-reviewers sacked? Isn’t peer-review the safety mechanism. > Why would an editor have to resign because of how people spin a correctly done research? Because it was not properly made research, it is just that simple and the critics were right. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > What were the mistakes in the research? It was simply the sin of publishing non-completly pro-GW paper. The mistakes are highlited in the blue link found in the site quoted. [Maybe he really can not see the color blue for the links?] > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The Soon and Baliunas stuff is again only becaus of the sin. I’m sure CR has published several papers whose conlcusions were wrong and that didn’t prompt massive resignations No, I guess like the color blue, you have problems identifying sin, or there is a lack of a good compass to detect it. As pointed before: [http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr\_archives/2003/prrl0319.html](http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2003/prrl0319.html) > [@](#): > > Paleoclimatologists (scientists who study ancient climates) generally rely on instrumental data for the past 150 years and “proxy” indicators, such as tree rings, ice cores, corals, and lake sediments to reconstruct the climate of earlier times. Most of the available data pertain to the northern hemisphere and show, according to the authors, that the warmth of the northern hemisphere over the past few decades is likely unprecedented in the last 1,000 years and quite possibly in the preceding 1,000 years as well. > > Climate model simulations cannot explain the anomalous late 20th century warmth without taking into account the contributions of human activities, the authors say. They make three major points regarding Soon and Baliunas’s recent assertions challenging these findings. > > First, in using proxy records to draw inferences about past climate, it is essential to assess their actual sensitivity to temperature variability. In particular, the authors say, Soon and Baliunas misuse proxy data reflective of changes in moisture or drought, rather than temperature, in their analysis. > > Second, it is essential to distinguish between regional temperature anomalies and hemispheric mean temperature, which must represent an average of estimates over a sufficiently large number of distinct regions. For example, Mann and his co- authors say, the concepts of a “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” arose from the Eurocentric origins of historic climatology. The specific periods of coldness and warmth differed from region to region and as compared with data for the northern hemisphere as a whole. > > Third, according to Mann and his colleagues, it is essential to define carefully the modern base period with which past climate is to be compared and to identify and quantify uncertainties. For example, they say, the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) carefully compares data for recent decades with reconstructions of past temperatures, taking into account the uncertainties in those reconstructions. IPCC concluded that late 20th century warmth in the northern hemisphere likely exceeded that of any time in the past millennium. The method used by Soon and Baliunas, they say, considers mean conditions for the entire 20th century as the base period and determines past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving trends on a decadal basis. It is therefore, they say, of limited value in determining whether recent warming in anomalous in a long term and large scale context. This is just like Peter Hadfiled noticed before, if this had been an undergraduate paper, Soon an Bailunas would had gotten an F. > **[potholer54](https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/48/uXesBhYwdRo)** > > The purpose of this channel is to correct false scientific information on the internet. I am a former science journalist and geologist (see the "Who I am" video or channel trailer). > > Feel free to post. The only rules are : > > DON'T... > 1)... > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > **Mann** > > …so this means, challenging view ought to be ignored. > > **JOnes** > > …he threatens CR not becuase the research was wrong, but because he didn’t like that it’d give ammo to his enemies, > > de Freitas > > So much for science and openness. > > Otto Kinne > > Textbook peer-review of a peer-review > > And then GWers wonder why author don’t publish in peer-reviewed publications. If you’re an editor, you get your ass kicked not becuase the paper is wrong, but becase people can use it. And then you have to rely on the climategate emails, it already has been seen that they are out of context and they do not show any evidence that they amount to more than just wishful thinking, as the video shows there was no evidence of blocking papers just because scientists have very good reasons to oppose flawed conclusions. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Fritz Vahrenholt is impressing a lot of people, maybe not the people you’d like. He is more of an expert than you and his opinions carry much more weight that yuors (or mine). Nope to all that wishful baseless ideas. > **[Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change](https://skepticalscience.com/fritz-vahrenholt-duped-on-climate-change.html)** > > German electric utility executive Fritz Vahrenholt is co-author (along with geologist Sebastian Lüning) of a book expressing 'skepticism' regarding the human contribution to global warming, which predictably has been trumpeted by the usual climate... > [@](#): > > And of course there’s the fact that the odd timeframe choice of 14 years conveniently begins at the peak of the strongest El Niño in a century (a.k.a. cherrypicking of short-term data). This cherrypicking is illustrated by The Escalator, which was used by German newspaper Die Zeit to debunk this myth from Vahrenholt’s book (Figure 2). > [@](#): > > Vahrenholt misrepresents the scientific evidence, in this case Kirkby and CERN’s results, which Kirkby himself states “says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step.” The interviewer catches Vahrenholt in this misrepresentation, and Vahrenholt responds by claiming some research exists which supports his myth, and that the IPCC is ignoring it. In reality, the IPCC has discussed the issue in great detail, as demonstrated above. > Vahrenholt is Indeed Duped > > In short, we end the way we began, wondering why anybody takes Vahrenholt’s comments on the climate seriously. Not only does he lack expertise in the subject, but he clearly has not done his research, and misrepresents most of the sources he references. Toward the end of the interview, Vahrenholt provides a comment which Der Spiegel used in the title of the article: > > ``` > "...I feel duped." > > ``` > > Indeed Vahrenholt has been duped, by his own shoddy research, and has also duped many of his readers in the process. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/344 "2012-02-16T18:35:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Because it was not properly made research, it is just that simple and the critics were right. > The mistakes are highlited in the blue link found in the site quoted. > > [Maybe he really can not see the color blue for the links?] > No, I guess like the color blue, you have problems identifying sin, or there is a lack of a good compass to detect it. As pointed before: > > [http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr\_archives/2003/prrl0319.html](http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2003/prrl0319.html) > This is just like Peter Hadfiled noticed before, if this had been an undergraduate paper, Soon an Bailunas would had gotten an F. > > [http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/48/uXesBhYwdRo](http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/48/uXesBhYwdRo) > And then you have to rely on the climategate emails, it already has been seen that they are out of context and they do not show any evidence that they amount to more than just wishful thinking, as the video shows there was no evidence of blocking papers just because scientists have very good reasons to oppose flawed conclusions. > Nope to all that wishful baseless ideas. > > [Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change](http://www.skepticalscience.com/fritz-vahrenholt-duped-on-climate-change.html) The editor, again, didn’t resign because the research was wrong, he himself said so. Even if the researchsaid that the moon was made of ricotta cheese, he said he resigned becuase of the interpretations other were giving to the research. If a respected magazine like RS can approve a paper with their peer-review system, and then peer-review their peer-review and still find nothing wrong, then there is something inherently wrong with the process itself. One more, the resignation of RS’s editor was in his own words because of f a PR problem. Ditto for CR. I’m not arguing whether the papers were right or wrong, but that the resignations were not primarily of scientific grounds. I contend that if the same methodological mistakes had been present in a warmist paper, nobody would’ve resigned and everyones would’ve said “let’s be more careful next time”. \_Unless you contend that there are no publisher, peer-reviewd warmist research with methodological or scientific mistakes. You’re enammoured with the supposed proof given by the “escalator”, it’s a nice visual impact, but it doesn’t not represent what most sceptics say or beleive. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/345 "2012-02-16T20:31:39Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The editor, again, didn’t resign because the research was wrong, he himself said so. Even if the researchsaid that the moon was made of ricotta cheese, he said he resigned becuase of the interpretations other were giving to the research. So you get from now on: it means that he is condemning those sources as unreliable. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > If a respected magazine like RS can approve a paper with their peer-review system, and then peer-review their peer-review and still find nothing wrong, then there is something inherently wrong with the process itself. > One more, the resignation of RS’s editor was in his own words because of f a PR problem. > Ditto for CR. And they never blamed the ones that had the better explanations too, the fault is with the shoddy research. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I’m not arguing whether the papers were right or wrong, but that the resignations were not primarily of scientific grounds. Wrong as demonstrated by AGU. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I contend that if the same methodological mistakes had been present in a warmist paper, nobody would’ve resigned and everyones would’ve said “let’s be more careful next time”. \_Unless you contend that there are no publisher, peer-reviewd warmist research with methodological or scientific mistakes. And in the end you do tell others that **it is a conspiracy**. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You’re enammoured with the supposed proof given by the “escalator”, it’s a nice visual impact, but it doesn’t not represent what most sceptics say or beleive. And that is why they are becoming less and less and they have even less of an impact, as noticed, even the mainstream press (like in Germany) are putting these “skeptics” into the denier column. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2012, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/346 "2012-02-16T22:42:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So you get from now on: it means that he is condemning those sources as unreliable. Have you read the letter of resignation? NEver once does he say hat the data were wrong or the reaserch was unscientific. The article is called “_On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance_”, how more clearly can they state their case? Let’s quoet the resignation letter: > [@](#): > > _With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements_ The problem was “exagerated paper conclusions” not data > [@](#): > > _The political views of the authors and the thematic goal of their study did, of course, alone not disqualify the paper from entering the review process in the journal Remote Sensing_ He didn’t say “the views did not disqualify” he said “did not alone”, which, in normal-people English, means that the political views DID in part disqualify and that is anti-science. > [@](#): > > _The managing editor of Remote Sensing selected three senior scientists from > renowned US universities, each of them having an impressive publication record. Their reviews had an apparently good technical standard and suggested one “major revision”, one “minor revision” and one “accept as is”. The authors revised their paper according to the comments made by the reviewers and, consequently, the editorial board member who handled this paper accepted the paper (and could in fact not have done otherwise). Therefore, from a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process._ Peer review 101 > [@](#): > > _In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents_ Here’s the money shot “ignoring the opponents”. While ignoring what others say is definitely not the best thing to do, it doesn’t, by itself, destroy a paper’s credibility. Interestingly he, apparently, did not contact the author for extra clarification or retractions. Interestingly (and it’s a good thing) they haven’t actually retracted the paper and Wagner himself said [QUOTE\*] …neither the publisher nor I have so far considered this. On the one hand, as I wrote in the editorial, formally everything was correct with the review. On the other hand we believe that it is much better to treat this issue in an open and scientific manner. Therefore the publisher is already working on inviting the science community to respond to this paper\*. [/QUOTE] I like the last part “inviting the science community to respond to this paper”, THAT is science. > [@](#): > > And they never blamed the ones that had the better explanations too, the fault is with the shoddy research. It means, again, that a double run of peer-reviewing wasn’t enough. Is it unreasonable to think that their peer-review process was faukty in other papers? > [@](#): > > Wrong as demonstrated by AGU. Are you saying that geophysicits are experts on climate? I’m always uncertain as to what an “expert on climate science” is with you. A 2003 study shows that an 2011 study is wrong? What prescience! Couldn’t it be that a study 8 later has better/more data? The complaints are exactly the point of the paper. Using the 20th century as a base should make no difference, if the models really work. The authors, at least in the link your yourself provided, simply say that it is wrong because it is wrong to be agaisnt the consensus > [@](#): > > And in the end you do tell others that **it is a conspiracy**. > [@](#): > > And that is why they are becoming less and less and they have even less of an impact, as noticed, even the mainstream press (like in Germany) are putting these “skeptics” into the denier column. I imagine that writing the word conspiracy gives you a warm feeling, becuase there doesn’t seen to be another reason for that. Conspiracies are complicated things requiring lots of people worki´ng together in lockstep without spilling the beans. The blame is the simple conservative element and better-safe-than-sorry attitude. There are no orders or anything, simply that toeing the line and going with the flow is the best way of keeping your job, get the grants, be “cool”. I’ll repeat it for the final time: I do not belive there is a conspiracy. I’ll repeat, the escalator is a lie insofar no sceptic actually says what the chart says. * * * I forgot to add that, as I said, the quotes made in the Soon and Baliunas case came fom wikipedia, I didn’t go fishing in the climategate papers, and if I had it wouldn’t be wrong). If you contend there were taken out of context I ask that you either a) Provide the right context to show the misquoting b) Specify what would be the appropriate context. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/347 "2012-02-17T00:52:56Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Have you read the letter of resignation? > NEver once does he say hat the data were wrong or the reaserch was unscientific. > The article is called “_On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance_”, how more clearly can they state their case? > > Let’s quoet the resignation letter: > The problem was “exagerated paper conclusions” not data And that is my main point, not reliable when interpreting data, that is indeed what Forbes is in this regard. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Here’s the money shot “ignoring the opponents”. While ignoring what others say is definitely not the best thing to do, it doesn’t, by itself, destroy a paper’s credibility. Interestingly he, apparently, did not contact the author for extra clarification or retractions. Because it was not needed, the conclusions did not follow after others reviewed and investigated. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Interestingly (and it’s a good thing) they haven’t actually retracted the paper and Wagner himself said > > I like the last part “inviting the science community to respond to this paper”, THAT is science. And respond they did, what we are seeing here is an attempt by you say that this has not taken place already. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > It means, again, that a double run of peer-reviewing wasn’t enough. Is it unreasonable to think that their peer-review process was faukty in other papers? And here is were you do show how clueless you are, it would then be easy peachy to find flaws on most of the papers that support the evidence and the current consensus, that this is not happening and we only get reheated retreads on already debunked items is really telling. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Are you saying that geophysicits are experts on climate? I’m always uncertain as to what an “expert on climate science” is with you. Climate science involve many fields, Geophysics is one and they are involved deeply on the reconstruction aspect of this, this is yet another very ignorant thing you are saying here. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > A 2003 study shows that an 2011 study is wrong? What prescience! > Couldn’t it be that a study 8 later has better/more data? [QUOTE=Ají de Gallina] I’m not arguing whether the **papers** [/quote] That’s plural, I was remarking on how one of them (Soon And Bailunas) was trashed thoroughly. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The complaints are exactly the point of the paper. > Using the 20th century as a base should make no difference, if the models really work. The authors, at least in the link your yourself provided, simply say that it is wrong because it is wrong to be agaisnt the consensus. More ignorance here, even independent studies show it, and they do report that it is dishonest to deny the warming trend. > **[Statisticians reject global cooling](https://grist.org/article/statisticians-reject-global-cooling/)** > > A terrific story by the AP’s Seth Borenstein, “Statisticians reject global cooling,” not only debunks that myth — it will make your head spin once again on error-riddled Superfreakonomics (coauthored by Levitt). Have you heard that the world is now... > [@](#): > > The debunking will be no surprise to CP readers [see The BBC asks “What happened to global warming?” during the hottest decade in recorded history! and "NYT’s Revkin pushes global cooling myth (again!)], but the AP made three nice contributions. First, the AP talked to NOAA: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA’s climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend. > > > > “The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record,” said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. “Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.” > > > > ``` > > Second, “In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented”: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > “If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect,” said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina. > > > > ``` > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I imagine that writing the word conspiracy gives you a warm feeling, becuase there doesn’t seen to be another reason for that. Conspiracies are complicated things requiring lots of people worki´ng together in lockstep without spilling the beans. > The blame is the simple conservative element and better-safe-than-sorry attitude. There are no orders or anything, simply that toeing the line and going with the flow is the best way of keeping your job, get the grants, be “cool”. This item has been demonstrated by history itself to be false, mavericks and people that had no funding related to climate or environmentalism like Plass found the evidence back in the 50’s that the common view among the scientists that we should not worry about human emissions was wrong. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I’ll repeat it for the final time: I do not belive there is a conspiracy. Yeah, yeah, if it walks like a duck… > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I’ll repeat, the escalator is a lie insofar no sceptic actually says what the chart says. Yeah, I know, no creationist actually says that Darwin was right, so Natural Selection is a lie. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > * * * > > I forgot to add that, as I said, the quotes made in the Soon and Baliunas case came fom wikipedia, I didn’t go fishing in the climategate papers, and if I had it wouldn’t be wrong). If you contend there were taken out of context I ask that you either > a) Provide the right context to show the misquoting > b) Specify what would be the appropriate context. Climate gate was already debunked and investigated, the scientists exonerated many times over, and only clueless people would wring the emails back again. [http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002](http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002) [http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/07/11/206398/new-york-times-media-coverage-climategate/](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/07/11/206398/new-york-times-media-coverage-climategate/) > [@](#): > > Perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as Climategate behind us and turn to the task of actually doing something about global warming. On Wednesday, a panel in Britain concluded that scientists whose e-mail had been hacked late last year had not, as critics alleged, distorted scientific evidence to prove that global warming was occurring and that human beings were primarily responsible. > > It was the fifth such review of hundreds of e-mail exchanges among some of the world’s most prominent climatologists. Some of the e-mail messages, purloined last November, were mean-spirited, others were dismissive of contrarian views, and others revealed a timid reluctance to share data. Climate skeptics pounced on them as evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate research to support predetermined ideas about global warming. > > The panel found no such conspiracy. It complained mildly about one poorly explained temperature chart discussed in the e-mail, but otherwise found no reason to dispute the scientists’ “rigor and honesty.” Two earlier panels convened by Britain’s Royal Society and the House of Commons reached essentially the same verdict. And this month, a second panel at Penn State University exonerated Michael Mann, a prominent climatologist and faculty member, of scientific wrongdoing. > > Dr. Mann, who was part of the e-mail exchange, had been accused of misusing data to prove that the rise in temperatures over the last century was directly linked to steadily rising levels of carbon dioxide. His findings, confirmed many times by others, are central to the argument that fossil fuels must be taxed or regulated. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/348 "2012-02-17T03:09:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that is my main point, not reliable when interpreting data, that is indeed what Forbes is in this regard. Why does it matter at all? Let’s say that Forbes and Fox and WUWT and McIntyre not only said that the paper completely disproved AGW but it also said Mann’s mom loved being bukkaked by feral cats and that NOAA was run by Zombie Zionist Illuminati Freemasons. Why does that change the validity (or lack thereof) of the paper? Why resign? > [@](#): > > Because it was not needed, the conclusions did not follow after others reviewed and investigated. You don’t get to re-write the letter, he didn’t say that. Is it comon for editors to resign when papers are contradicted? > [@](#): > > And respond they did, what we are seeing here is an attempt by you say that this has not taken place already. Why do you feel you can or have to read my mind or intentions? Why can’t you take one bleeping thing the right way? Where is the attempt to say it hasn’t taken place. You are again being dishonest and contrary to the truth or else being certifiably paranoid. I said it was good that others (tried to) find errors in the papers and you twist it to mean suppresion of truth. Apparently I control the internet. > [@](#): > > And here is were you do show how clueless you are, it would then be easy peachy to find flaws on most of the papers that support the evidence and the current consensus, that this is not happening and we only get reheated retreads on already debunked items is really telling. When you chronically fail to answer, I give you the chance to man up. > [@](#): > > Climate science involve many fields, Geophysics is one and they are involved deeply on the reconstruction aspect of this, this is yet another very ignorant thing you are saying here. Nice that you accept that a) Climate science involves many fields b) Geophysics are important I’l remember them when, because it will happen, I cite a geophysicits with 4 PhDs and you tell me it’s not an expert. > [@](#): > > That’s plural, I was remarking on how one of them (Soon And Bailunas) was trashed thoroughly. My response was about two (actually 3 papers, two by S and B) and your answer was “wrong and this paper shows it”. In normal-people English it means they are all wrong. > [@](#): > > More ignorance here, even independent studies show it, and they do report that it is dishonest to deny the warming trend. > > [Statisticians reject global cooling | Grist](http://grist.org/article/statisticians-reject-global-cooling/) The link only states, not prove. > [@](#): > > This item has been demonstrated by history itself to be false, mavericks and people that had no funding related to climate or environmentalism like Plass found the evidence back in the 50’s that the common view among the scientists that we should not worry about human emissions was wrong. > > Yeah, yeah, if it walks like a duck… You mean scientists were honestly wrong about GW in the 50’s? You need to believe in the conspiracy, sorry. > [@](#): > > Yeah, I know, no creationist actually says that Darwin was right, so Natural Selection is a lie. SkS says that sceptics believe something and it’s the sceptics’ fault that the warmists invent and lie. > [@](#): > > Climate gate was already debunked and investigated, the scientists exonerated many times over, and only clueless people would wring the emails back again. > > [http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002](http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002) > > [http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/07/11/206398/new-york-times-media-coverage-climategate/](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/07/11/206398/new-york-times-media-coverage-climategate/) What are the climate science credentials of mediamatters and thinkprogress? They are alarmists and since Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck are not science-based scpetics but rather political talking-heads I don’t give a rat’s ass what they say about science and neither do an other science-based sceptics. Fail, again. * * * This quote was almost as if it was written with you in mind (it’s a generic statement, not about climate alarmism): > [@](#): > > they are arguing from ideology not from reality. They believe in what HAS to be true, because their ideology says so; not what reality, or experience, proves to be true. > > Their ideology is core to their perception of their identity, and their sense both of self worth, and the worth of others. Their judgement and reason are based on it. Everything is filtered through this ideological prism, because it HAS to be, for the health of their own psyche. > > For someone whose entire perception of self worth depends on their adherence to an ideological precept (“I am a good/better person because I believe this morally better thing”), then anyone who disagrees with this precept must be stupid, ignorant, defrauded, deluded, or evil. > > There is no room for honest disagreement in this. To preserve their self worth, and sense of identity, there can be no doubt, and no acceptance of any possibility of error. There is one true path, which they follow, and anyone who deviates from it is apostate. > > If therefore, one cannot dismiss opponents of their ideological precept as stupid, ignorant, defrauded, or deluded (and in the case of clearly intelligent, well informed people, presenting reasoned arguments against your precepts, you obviously cannot); the only thing you can challenge is their motives. > > Your opponents MUST KNOW that you are right, that your ideology is right; since they are intelligent and well informed, and of course any intelligent and well informed person (such as yourself) can see your ideology is clearly morally superior (just as you did). > > Therefore your opponents must be evil, or at best venal and self-interested. > > It simply must be that way, because any other conclusion is unacceptable. * * * Did you read the preliminary research about underwater volcanoes and ENSO? I think he’s jumped the gun but it’d be interesting to see. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2012, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/349 "2012-02-17T03:30:33Z")
So mostly whining in the end, and then more proof of your jumping to assumptions, in this case it is clear that your default is always that nothing was done: > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The link only states, not prove. > **[NBC News - Breaking News & Top Stories - Latest World, US & Local News](https://www.nbcnews.com/)** > > Go to NBCNews.com for breaking news, videos, and the latest top stories in world news, business, politics, health and pop culture. > [@](#): > > Three professors of statistics agreed: David Peterson, retired from Duke University; Mack Shelley, director of public policy and administration at Iowa State University; and Edward Melnick from New York University. > > Each was given two spreadsheets, neither of which had any indication they were temperature data. > > One spreadsheet was year-by-year global temperature changes from 1880 to 2009, adjusted through most of this year from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s ground measurements. The other was year-to-year temperature changes from 1979-2009 gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville from atmospheric measurements by satellite. > > None of the experts detected a downward, or cooling, trend in the numbers. All saw a distinct upward trend. > > This type of blind test is a valid way of seeking statistical help by trying to keep the statisticians’ personal beliefs out of any analysis > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You mean scientists were honestly wrong about GW in the 50’s? > You need to believe in the conspiracy, sorry. This does not make any sense at all, other than nonsense said in desperation of not being able to say anything at all against the historical evidence, it is nonsense to claim that this conspiracy of getting grant money is driving the science. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > SkS says that sceptics believe something and it’s the sceptics’ fault that the warmists invent and lie. More nonsense without any good reply. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > What are the climate science credentials of mediamatters and thinkprogress? > They are alarmists and since Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck are not science-based scpetics but rather political talking-heads I don’t give a rat’s ass what they say about science and neither do an other science-based sceptics. > Fail, again. They link to the science, as usual you are showing all that you are incapable of clicking on the links to the science they refer to, it is not my problem that others once again will find who is being underhanded here. BTW, virtually all your reheated points over here are indeed embraced by Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > * * * > > This quote was almost as if it was written with you in mind (it’s a generic statement, not about climate alarmism): Meh, once again the “it is religious or dogma” canard, history supports me on this, it was evidence that changed the former consensus that we should not worry as natural sinks would take care of human emissions. It is a funny “religion” that uses evidence for more than 60 years to convince others. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2012, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/350 "2012-02-21T05:15:12Z")
Might as well put this up. **Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Climate Files** [http://http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/](http://http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/) It is pretty obvious that what Peter Gleick printed in his blog can’t be reconciled with the timeline that The Atlantic came up: [http://http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/](http://http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/) Unless it turns out that someone hacked his blog account I figure that people are going to start throwing him under the bus within 24 hours. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2012, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/351 "2012-02-21T05:44:16Z")
IMHO Peter Gleick will get what he deserves, just what I wish the hackers of climate gate should had. Having said that, what Revkin is saying is ridiculous, the Republicans were not allowing any serious discussion on the matter, this is more like the Pentagon Papers; Sure, the ones that released the papers got to suffer consequences, but people in power finally began to discuss the Vietnam matter on a different light and history does not see the ones releasing the Pentagon papers as the villains. In any case Heartland has just a shrinking and irresponsible history of denying science, and the papers hone in on the efforts to deny the science and fund those efforts for the denial, those are not issues that influence science and Heartland continues to fail where it should count. At RealClimate, Gavin Smith from NASA comments on why they did not bother with the Heartland papers. > **[RealClimate: Free speech and academic freedom](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/free-speech-and-academic-freedom/comment-page-6/#comments)** > > RealClimate: Update: Some related concerns from deepclimate.org, if these claims can be verified. In a recent interview for a Norwegian magazine (Teknisk Ukeblad, 0412), the IPCC chair Rajendra Kumar Pachauri told the journalist that he had received... > [@](#): > > [Response: I have consistently stated that the reason Heartland et al deserve to be ridiculed is for their appalling and consistently incorrect interpretations of the science, not for their funding. However, it would have been refreshing occasionally for some of these supposedly libertarian think tanks to actually think about solutions and policy responses that fit with their value system rather than launching repetitive and tired attacks on the science and specific scientists. On a broader scale, whether the information revealed is potentially deleterious to their 501(c)3 status is interesting, but that is a matter for the IRS, not a climate science blog. - gavin] ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2012, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/352 "2012-02-21T16:24:53Z")
BTW, It is Gavin Schmidt, not Smith. I think it is pretty obvious that he figured out that only interesting part of the Heartland documents was actually a fake. I don’t know why you expect any rational response from any politician on climate science or any other scientific or technical issue. When they were debating the climate bill, I spent a lot of time blogging about parts of the bill that just didn’t make sense and wouldn’t have any impact on global warming or even make it worse. I don’t have any tolerance for morons who don’t understand the Greenhouse Effect, but I don’t like people who try to lump serious skeptical climate scientists in with those idiots. Roy Spencer just posted an article explaining the Greenhouse Effect. Based on his comments he still gets emails from people who don’t accept that existence of the Greenhouse Effect. [http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/more-musings-from-the-greenhouse/](http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/more-musings-from-the-greenhouse/) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2012, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/353 "2012-02-21T17:03:23Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > BTW, It is Gavin Schmidt, not Smith. I think it is pretty obvious that he figured out that only interesting part of the Heartland documents was actually a fake. Uh, no, he is precisely saying that this is most likely an issue of IRS fraud from the part of Heartland. And he is referring to the papers that are not the fake. > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I don’t know why you expect any rational response from any politician on climate science or any other scientific or technical issue. When they were debating the climate bill, I spent a lot of time blogging about parts of the bill that just didn’t make sense and wouldn’t have any impact on global warming or even make it worse. Perhaps because their decisions or inaction in this case will affect many in the future? Just a thought.. > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I don’t have any tolerance for morons who don’t understand the Greenhouse Effect, but I don’t like people who try to lump serious skeptical climate scientists in with those idiots. Roy Spencer just posted an article explaining the Greenhouse Effect. Based on his comments he still gets emails from people who don’t accept that existence of the Greenhouse Effect. > > [http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/more-musings-from-the-greenhouse/](http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/more-musings-from-the-greenhouse/) And that is good, but the problem is that he still messes the information coming from many scientists, so as to put what is actually the most reasonable middle of the road position, into the alarmist camp. > **[RealClimate: How to cook a graph in three easy lessons](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/)** > > RealClimate: These days, when global warming inactivists need to trot out somebody with some semblance of scientific credentials (from the dwindling supply who have made themselves available for such purposes), it seems that they increasingly turn to... ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/354 "2012-02-21T19:57:45Z")
Perhaps you would like to read Roy Spencer’s rebuttal to Ray Pierrehumbert’s **blog post**. [http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/a-response-to-ray-pierrehumbert%E2%80%99s-real-climate-post-of-may-21-2008-by-roy-spencer/](http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/a-response-to-ray-pierrehumbert%E2%80%99s-real-climate-post-of-may-21-2008-by-roy-spencer/) I’m noticing that Ray Pierrehumbert’s responded with a blog post to Spencer’s **peer reviewed** paper. I don’t see any indication that was willing to submit his criticisms to peer review. To sum up. Pierrehumbert doesn’t understand Spencer’s paper. He makes random changes to it and gets absurd results. He finishes with making ad hominem attacks on Spencer and Christy and then references a WSJ article that Spencer didn’t write. If it was that easy to rebut Spencer’s paper, then why didn’t Pierrehumbert submit a peer reviewed paper? That is how science is supposed to work. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2012, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/355 "2012-02-21T21:03:37Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Perhaps you would like to read Roy Spencer’s rebuttal to Ray Pierrehumbert’s **blog post**. > > [http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/a-response-to-ray-pierrehumbert%E2%80%99s-real-climate-post-of-may-21-2008-by-roy-spencer/](http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/a-response-to-ray-pierrehumbert%E2%80%99s-real-climate-post-of-may-21-2008-by-roy-spencer/) > > I’m noticing that Ray Pierrehumbert’s responded with a blog post to Spencer’s **peer reviewed** paper. I don’t see any indication that was willing to submit his criticisms to peer review. > > To sum up. Pierrehumbert doesn’t understand Spencer’s paper. He makes random changes to it and gets absurd results. He finishes with making ad hominem attacks on Spencer and Christy and then references a WSJ article that Spencer didn’t write. > > If it was that easy to rebut Spencer’s paper, then why didn’t Pierrehumbert submit a peer reviewed paper? That is how science is supposed to work. Meh, you are also missing that if that was just it then Roy’s paper would be recognized by many other serious researchers, what you are saying here is not the whole picture. And Spencer has not gotten better. > **[RealClimate: Review of Spencer’s ‘Great Global Warming Blunder’](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/review-of-spencers-great-global-warming-blunder/)** > > RealClimate: Guest commentary from Steve Ghan A good writer knows their audience, and Roy Spencer knows his. There are plenty of people who would love to hear a compelling argument for why no action is needed to mitigate global warming, and Spencer's... ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2012, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/356 "2012-02-21T21:24:27Z")
And then he got worse, as pointed out before in this thread. > **[Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer](https://skepticalscience.com/Journal-editor-resigns-over-fundamentally-flawed-paper-Roy-Spencer.html)** > > Professor Wolfgang Wagner has stepped down as editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing. The reason for his resignation was his journal's publishing of the paper On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth's... > [@](#): > > Spencer and Braswell’s study uses an overly simplistic climate model, their conclusions rely on using one particular data set, and their paper does not provide enough information to duplicate the study. The paper is fundamentally flawed and has no scientific merit. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2012, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/357 "2012-02-21T22:51:52Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meh, you are also missing that if that was just it then Roy’s paper would be recognized by many other serious researchers, what you are saying here is not the whole picture. > > And Spencer has not gotten better. > > [RealClimate: Review of Spencer’s ‘Great Global Warming Blunder’](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/review-of-spencers-great-global-warming-blunder/) According to Google Scholar, Spencer and Braswell (2008)has been cited 23 times and the follow up paper Spencer and Braswell (2010) has been cited 19 times Come back when you find an actual peer reviewed paper that refutes Spencer and Braswell and not blog posts. [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Potential+Biases+in+Feedback+Diagnosis+from+Observational+Data%3A+A+Simple+Model+Demonstration%2C+by+Spencer+and+Braswell&hl=en&btnG=Search&as\_sdt=1%2C10&as\_sdtp=on](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Potential+Biases+in+Feedback+Diagnosis+from+Observational+Data%3A+A+Simple+Model+Demonstration%2C+by+Spencer+and+Braswell&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C10&as_sdtp=on) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/358 "2012-02-22T02:35:51Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > According to Google Scholar, Spencer and Braswell (2008)has been cited 23 times and the follow up paper Spencer and Braswell (2010) has been cited 19 times > > Come back when you find an actual peer reviewed paper that refutes Spencer and Braswell and not blog posts. > > [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Potential+Biases+in+Feedback+Diagnosis+from+Observational+Data%3A+A+Simple+Model+Demonstration%2C+by+Spencer+and+Braswell&hl=en&btnG=Search&as\_sdt=1%2C10&as\_sdtp=on](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Potential+Biases+in+Feedback+Diagnosis+from+Observational+Data%3A+A+Simple+Model+Demonstration%2C+by+Spencer+and+Braswell&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C10&as_sdtp=on) Like if that was not the case, this does show that in reality you are just paying attention to the denialist sites. > **[Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-1/)** > > The following is PART 1 of an extended critique of Roy Spencer’s The Great Global Warming Blunder:  How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists (New York:  Encounter Boo… > [@](#): > > What has the response to Spencer and Braswell (2008) been like since the publication of The Great Global Warming Blunder? Three more papers have been published that respond in some way to Spencer and Braswell (2008) and two of them deserve our special attention. > > First, Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University published a paper in Science magazine (Dessler, 2010) in which he estimated the cloud feedback in a way that he claimed gets around the cause-and-effect problem Spencer and Braswell (2008) identified. He found that the cloud feedback is probably positive, but there is some statistically non-negligible probability that it could be very weakly negative, too. This result is consistent with the IPCC models. Roy Spencer actually held a press conference (!) to talk about how he disagreed with Dessler’s interpretations, and Spencer and Dessler had an e-mail exchange, which is discussed (and linked) at the RealClimate site. The crux of the issue is that, based on a single figure in another modeling paper he published last year (Spencer and Braswell, 2010), Spencer thinks clouds cause El Niño, which would go against decades of research. > > Second, do you remember Piers Forster? One of the scientists who gave a favorable review of Spencer and Braswell’s paper, and even suggested ways to improve it? The guy who published a paper mentioning Spencer and Braswell’s work, and saying his results were consistent with theirs? Well, Murphy and Forster (2010) went ahead and did a more thorough examination of Spencer and Braswell’s approach, and the result wasn’t pretty. Here’s the abstract of their paper. > > > [@](#): > > > > Changes in outgoing radiation are both a consequence and a cause of changes in the earth’s temperature. Spencer and Braswell recently showed that in a simple box model for the earth the regression of outgoing radiation against surface temperature gave a slope that differed from the model’s true feedback parameter. They went on to select input parameters for the box model based on observations, computed the difference for those conditions, and asserted that there is a significant bias for climate studies. This paper shows that Spencer and Braswell overestimated the difference. Differences between the regression slope and the true feedback parameter are significantly reduced when 1) a more realistic value for the ocean mixed layer depth is used, 2) a corrected standard deviation of outgoing radiation is used, and 3) the model temperature variability is computed over the same time interval as the observations. When all three changes are made, the difference between the slope and feedback parameter is less than one-tenth of that estimated by Spencer and Braswell. Absolute values of the difference for realistic cases are less than 0.05 W/m^2/K, which is not significant for climate studies that employ regressions of outgoing radiation against temperature. Previously published results show that the difference is negligible in the Hadley Centre Slab Climate Model, version 3 (HadSM3). (Murphy and Forster, 2010) > > Ouch. The short version is that Spencer and Braswell plugged in some unrealistic values of the main variables into their model, and automagically got answers that confirmed their hypothesis that standard climate models might be greatly overestimating climate sensitivity. When someone else plugged in realistic values, it turned out that Spencer and Braswell’s hypothesis was not confirmed in any significant sense. We’ll see in a future installment of this review that this kind of sloppy modeling work is one of Roy Spencer’s hallmarks. And everyone has to notice that that was just part one. > **[Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-2/)** > > The following is PART 2 of my extended critique of Roy Spencer’s The Great Global Warming Blunder:  How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists (New York:  Encounter Boo… > [@](#): > > A Developing Theme? > > If you read Part 1, do you notice a developing theme? Roy Spencer finds a result he likes, and then stops looking. In the next installment, I’ll reveal the worst example of all. > **[Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-3/)** > > The following is PART 3 of my extended critique of Roy Spencer’s The Great Global Warming Blunder:  How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists (New York:  Encounter Books, 2010).  … > [@](#): > > My point is that if Roy Spencer has a hunch that chaotic variations in cloud cover are controlling the climate, and that the PDO has been driving recent temperature increases, then more power to him. But let’s face it, trying to play the part of the brilliant iconoclast hasn’t been working out so well for Roy, lately, because he’s been sloppy about lining up his evidence. Probably every scientist has had papers or proposals rejected based on reviews they thought weren’t entirely fair. But if every time that happened to me I were to take my ball and go home, as Spencer did when he decided to bypass the peer review system and take his message “to the people,” I would be missing out on something uncommon and valuable. That is, I would be missing the chance to develop my ideas in the face of unrelenting and, for the most part, intelligent and informed criticism. > > I hope he takes some lessons from the criticisms I’ve given, and tones down his wild accusations of impropriety and bias against his colleagues. Scientists, including Roy Spencer, are just people, and most of them are trying to do their best. > > [UPDATE: Arthur Smith has now done the full mathematical proof for what I showed by playing around with MATLAB. UPDATED UPDATE: Arthur went on to show that, given the mathematical form of Spencer’s model, he would have to start his model at ∆To = negative a few trillion degrees in 1000 A.D. to have his model produce a suitable anomaly in 1900 to adequately fit the 20th century data. Ok, so if you keep reading down into the comments, it turns out that there are other ways (that aren’t physically impossible) to drive the model and get the proper starting point for the 20th century, but they are still wildly improbable, and there’s no evidence for anything like that.] ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/359 "2012-02-22T05:03:08Z")
You apparently have no capability to actually find a peer reviewed paper. Let me help you out. Here is the Dessler 2011: **Cloud variations and the Earth’s energy budget** [http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2011.pdf](http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2011.pdf) Spencer and Braswell (2011) **On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance** [http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer\_Misdiagnos\_11.pdf](http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer_Misdiagnos_11.pdf) Frankly I don’t know which one is correct, but I’m pretty sure this is bleeding edge climate science and reading comments by actual climate scientists indicate that they take this discussion seriously instead of engaging in personal attacks on Spencer. I don’t understand how anyone can have an informed opinion on these papers without access to the climate models and satellite data they are working with. I strongly doubt that most of people with strong opinions on these papers actually know enough. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/360 "2012-02-22T15:40:24Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > You apparently have no capability to actually find a peer reviewed paper. Let me help you out. Here is the Dessler 2011: > > **Cloud variations and the Earth’s energy budget** > [http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2011.pdf](http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2011.pdf) > > Spencer and Braswell (2011) > **On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance** > [http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer\_Misdiagnos\_11.pdf](http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer_Misdiagnos_11.pdf) Why thank you for that, of course I already made the point that for some reason the assumption that you assume that others (and I’m not talking about just me) will not be able to do a Google search, to check for themselves the links, the referred science or the main points of the devastating critiques is becoming really silly. Once again, the link to the science that you forgot to also link to, is in the cite already mentioned. Maybe it could be because his links are not blue like in other sites, I know, you think that people are incapable of seeing links. 🙂 specially of research that specifically undermined people like Spencer, and once again you are assuming that that research was not done… > **[On the Accuracy of Deriving Climate Feedback Parameters from Correlations...](https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/23/18/2010jcli3657.1.xml)** > > Abstract Changes in outgoing radiation are both a consequence and a cause of changes in the earth’s temperature. Spencer and Braswell recently showed that in a simple box model for the earth the regression of outgoing radiation against surface... > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Frankly I don’t know which one is correct, but I’m pretty sure this is bleeding edge climate science and reading comments by actual climate scientists indicate that they take this discussion seriously instead of engaging in personal attacks on Spencer. They are serious, as in seriously finding Spencer to be more unreliable as times goes by. > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I don’t understand how anyone can have an informed opinion on these papers without access to the climate models and satellite data they are working with. I strongly doubt that most of people with strong opinions on these papers actually know enough. They know enough to point out that Spencer is losing respect for getting things wrong and it is only then that one has to consider other reasons why Spenser persists on not making corrections. I agree with this commenter at Realclimate, people like Spencer are described better as deniers than as skeptics. > **[RealClimate: Free speech and academic freedom](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/free-speech-and-academic-freedom/comment-page-8/#comments)** > > RealClimate: Update: Some related concerns from deepclimate.org, if these claims can be verified. In a recent interview for a Norwegian magazine (Teknisk Ukeblad, 0412), the IPCC chair Rajendra Kumar Pachauri told the journalist that he had received... > [@](#): > > They’re labelled deniers not because they dispute the extent of positivie feedbacks, but because they put forward really terrible and easily refutable arguments to support their positions. Lindzen’s “Iris effect” was apparently interesting enough and plausible enough to some that observational evidence to support it was sought by the wider scientific community, but observational data refuted it. That was … 15 years??? … or so ago and no one has put forward any argument in favor of there being no net positive feedback that rises to that level of being interesting. > > If they want to shed the label “denier” they’ll have to quit acting like deniers. Spencer, in particular, has a tendency to refuse to accept criticism of even his whackier stuff as being valid. > > I supposed they could be labeled “cranks” rather than “deniers”, but to technical types, including scientists, “crank” is no complement … This BTW has been seen before and today on the fights against the deniers of the tobacco cancer connection, creationists and Intelligent designers in the biological field, ideology eventually makes their biases taint their research and then they begin to be less and less referred to. I do think one huge reason why you do not want to acknowledge the papers made when checking the research of Spencer is because there are papers at that do criticize Spencer, the references to the Spencer papers will indeed be there, **but they are not praising Spencer in their references.** [http://climatecrocks.com/2011/07/06/roy-spencer-and-all-this-time-we-thought-you-were-a-scientist-weird/](http://climatecrocks.com/2011/07/06/roy-spencer-and-all-this-time-we-thought-you-were-a-scientist-weird/) > [@](#): > > The self professed “Official Climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show”, Spencer is most famous for being conspicuously, repetitively, and stubbornly wrong with regard to some of the most critical satellite temperature measurements. Roy has a new book, which is not about climate, but is rather some kind of manifesto of his free-market economics beliefs. > > The book was recently announced on his website, and in a curious answer to a comment, Roy Spencer let slip what he’s really been doing all these years. > > The complete comment- > > > [@](#): > > > > Nicholas, I would wager that my job has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism. > > > > ``` > > I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government. > > > > If I and others are ultimately successful, it may well be that my job is no longer needed. Well then, that is progress. There are other things I can do. > > > > ``` > > And here we thought the most important thing was the objective, scientific truth. Indeed. > **[Just Put the Model Down, Roy](https://skepticalscience.com/just-put-the-model-down-roy.html)** > > This is a re-post of an entry on Dr. Barry Bickmore's blog, Anti-Climate Change Extremism in Utah > [@](#): > > The Challenge > > I could go on with more nitpicks, but I’m going to stop here, because it should be clear that, once again, Spencer has made a big deal out of something that doesn’t have any evidentiary value. So if, as Spencer claims, “[t]he evidence for anthropogenic global warming being a false alarm does not get much more convincing than this,” then can we please move on? Can Roy PLEASE put his toy model down? > > I doubt he will, but maybe he will accept this challenge. Instead of complaining about how biased and awful the peer review system has gotten, he should (at the very least) get a statistician to work with him and do the modeling right, and then submit it for publication. Personally, I don’t think the work can be saved, even then. However, I think the exercise of working with someone who knows how to properly make statistical inferences would be enlightening for Roy Spencer. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172.md?page=19)