Quote:The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists

Quote:hey, wait a minute!, April 27, 2010

by morphy mcdugall

The following, from desmogblog, is the lowdown/background on Mr. Spencer:

Spencer and the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance"

Spencer is listed as a "scientific advisor" for an organization called the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance" (ISA). According to their website, the ISA is "a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development."

In July 2006, Spencer co-authored an ISA report refuting the work of another religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The ISA report was titled A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor: an Evangelical Response to Global Warming. Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including 6 that have received a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years.

The other authors of the ISA's report were Calvin Beisner, Paul Driessen and Ross McKitrick .
Satellite Research Refuted

According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times article, Spencer, along with another well-known "skeptic," John Christy, admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth's lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer.

"These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models," said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.
Spencer and the Heartland Institute

Spencer is listed as an author for the Heartland Institute, a US think tank that has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

The Heartland Institute has also received funding from Big Tobacco over the years and continues to make the claim that "anti-smoking advocates" are exaggerating the health threats of smoking.
Spencer and the George C. Marshall Institute

Spencer is listed as an "Expert" with the George C. Marshall Institute, a US think tank that has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Spencer and Tech Central Station

Listed as an author for Tech Central Station daily (TCS), an organization that until recently was owned and operated by a Republican lobby firm called DCI Group.
Research and Background

Spencer is a research scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Spencer has published 25 research articles in peer-reviewed journals, mainly on the subject of satellite climate measurements.
Read it and weep!

Quote:J Smith says:
Again nothing on the book of Spencers in question, just mundane mudslinging attacks on the Man with accusations that cannot be substanciated.
If you are really interested in money trails and conflicts of interest MM, why not post some real facts on people like Gore and Rajendra Pachauri.
Now there's some real fraudsters.

Quote:B Hutchins says:
My! MY! Morphy - haven't you been the busy bee!

First you read Spencer's book. No - wait - I guess you didn't actually read the book - but what the heck - neither did the other negative reviewers.

But you did at least do all this research on Spencer. No - wait - the [...] ellipsis in your "review" is an Amazon "snip" of a URL, so I guess you didn't actually do that research yourself.

It is so good to see that this effort did not cut too deeply into your personal time, as you have made a contribution that is truly stupendous. But, how does one follow stupendous? Well, the next word is for you.

Quote:moron mcdugall says,

Not busy at all. In fact, it took less than one minute to track down Mr. Spencer's credentials. Desmogblog has a fairly thorough database of industry funded climate change deniers, their backers and employers. I don't see much of an excuse for ignorance on this subject, or for being duped by Mr. Spencer.

Quote:The writer does work for very conservative institutions that receive major funding from energy companies and families that made their fortunes from energy. He was also employed by Tech Central Station - a PR firm masquerading as a news site. Anyone with these credentials has been bought and paid for.

His major scientific work published for NASA was that satellite readings showed no warming. This had to be withdrawn because of mistakes. The data actually showed warming.

The buyer of this book will get what the Heartland Institute paid for.

Quote:Again nothing on the book of Spencers in question, just mundane mudslinging attacks on the Man with accusations that cannot be substanciated.
How much are you paid Gary, by environmental movements that live off an agenda of causing anxiety amongst the population, or by green energy start ups that have everything to gain by you discrediting Spencer ( not his book ), a book you have not read?
I'm sure you earn a living in some area that is dependant on the theory of anthropogenic warming?

Quote:Intelligently designed weather?

Spencer is a well-known proponent of the Intelligent Design nonsense. Even though he may have worked for NASA, designing a meteorological sensor system, clearly 'his' scientific logic, i.e., his ability to interpret the information he has collected, must be questioned.

To be fair I'm going to admit that I haven't read this book. However, knowing that the Intelligent Design frauds have a political and religious agenda, as did their scientific creationist predecessors, I'm going to take a leap here and assume that this author applies similar illogic to weather and climate.

Quote:Wow! remember back in high school when we were required to write book reports, and the first task was to try to convince the teacher that we ACTUALLY HAD read the book. My previous hero in this endeavor was a pal, who had arguably never gotten through an issue of "Mickey Mouse's Comics and Stories" (at least not the "stories" part!) contending that he had read "Andersonville." Enter new hero: Terry Jackson.

Not only has Mr/Ms Jackson by his/her own admission not read the book, but he/she has assigned a rating to the book based on what he/she thinks of the author's opinions on an unrelated subject. Outstanding!

A previous commenter suggests Jackson remove his/her review. Please do leave it up - at least until all your friends/acquaintances have seen it. They will be so proud.

Quote:Maybe Al Gore's been advised by legal counsel to lie low. He may be the leader of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) movement, but he's not defending it in public, not even when it's falling apart and his new fortune is based upon it.


Mr. Gore and his financial backers earned millions of dollars in start-up "green" companies and carbon trading schemes. If the scam worked, he could've become the first "carbon billionaire."


"What goes up can fall down" applies to ill-gotten gains in the stock market or "carbon trading" schemes. In such schemes, it's foreseeable that trusting investors will (a) not only get hurt when the scam collapses, but they'll also (b) pursue legal remedies and sue him for fraud.

Quote:Richard S Courtney:
December 16th, 2009 at 6:38 am

Lionell:

I think your analyses are interesting, but in my opinion there is one thing that all AGW-advocates have in common: viz.

They value opinions and not evidence.

Indeed, this is why they all behave according to the 9 points that Joanne lists above, and it is why I said I would also include a tenth point.

AGW-advocates see “evidence” as being the most valuable opinion and they are incapable of understanding that “evidence” can be of any other kind. The only type of “evidence” they think exists is the kind of “evidence” assessed in a Court of Law. For example, two witnesses may each present an account of a robbery and the jury decides which of the witnesses is the most believable.

So, the idea that there is an absolute truth which is independent of any witness is beyond the comprehension of AGW-advocates. And they see “evidence”, “science” and “scientists” as merely being tools to bolster an opinion. For them, only opinions are important and “evidence” is only useful in so far as it can help to promote an important opinion.

Therefore, empirical evidence has no value to AGW-advocates because they value opinions as having most importance, and they cannot understand why anybody takes any notice of empirical evidence.

Hence, Joanne’s Handbook is an excellent source for use when communicating with those who genuinely seek information on AGW. But it has no value as an aid for discussion with AGW-advocates because they cannot understand it.

In summation, any attempt to get AGW-advocates to provide empirical evidence is pointless. No matter how they are requested to provide empirical evidence they cannot because they are incapable of understanding what they are being asked to provide.

This is why each of them behaves in the completely predictable ways that have the forms of Joanne’s 9 points. For clarity, I will itemise their behaviours as per Joanne’s points.

1. Real deniers claim something needs to be peer reviewed in order to be discussed.
Those whose opinions matter do the peer review so the peer review makes a paper an opinion worthy of consideration. The paper is information and, therefore, it only has value as a tool to bolster an opinion. Hence, it is worthless until it has had the blessing of those whose opinions matter.

2. Real deniers claim it only “counts” if it comes from a certified climate scientist.
Only a “certified climate scientist” has an opinion that is valuable.

3. If it is peer reviewed, then real deniers claim it only counts if it comes from certain journals.
Only the “certified climate scientists” have opinions that enable them to decide what should count as “evidence”. So, a journal cannot contain useful papers if the journal does not use the “certified climate scientists” to peer review its contents.

4. They claim something can’t be right because it would disagree with thousands of papers. They mock and laugh, but provide no evidence. Not a single paper.
They genuinely do think they are providing “evidence” because for them only opinions count as “evidence”.

5. Real deniers assert it must be wrong because there is a “consensus”. Notice how they won’t talk about evidence?
The opinions of the “certified climate scientists” are the only kind of “evidence” that they understand has any value. If the “certified climate scientists” all hold that opinion then, of course, that opinion must be right.

6. If all else fails, they call people names like … “Denier!”
Anybody who refuses to accept the valued opinions the “certified climate scientists” is contemptible.

7. When they can’t find a real flaw, they look at “funding” and imagine one. (Real scientists research nature. Fake scientists google for dirt.)
Obviously, people who do not accept the only valued opinions as being “truth” must have a nefarious reason for their failure to accept the only valued opinions. And, clearly, any decent person will want to destroy those who dispute the most valued opinions otherwise some people may not ignore their disputations. This is why a trickle of money from ‘Big Oil’ in the past is thought to have corrupted climate realists (they are by nature corrupt) but massive funding from governments to the “certified climate scientists” has not corrupted them (they are incorruptible). And it is why several web sites have been established to lie about climate realists.

8. Real Deniers deny that instruments are right. No! The simulations are more real than reality. Trust the models!
The “instruments” are tools to promote opinions. Computer model are the clearest form of this because they are mathematical formulations of the opinions of the “certified climate scientists”. Obviously, anything that does not agree with the most valued opinions must be wrong.

9. They threaten dissenters with jail (for fictitious crimes). Climate Criminals!
If those who do not accept the most valued opinions cannot be silenced and/or discredited then they must be punished as a sign to all that only the opinions of the “certified climate scientists” are worthy.

Also, as I said, I would have liked a point number 10: i.e.
They try to remain anonymous because they are mostly too cowardly to allow themselves to be accountable for what they do.
Opinions matter and evidence does not. An opinion is discredited if its presenter is discredited. The opinion is protected by preventing attack of its presenter.

Any way, that is how I have seen it for a long time.

Indeed, I used that perception to obtain specific responses from the troll. I talked down to him/her/them and the inevitable response was Point 7. I claimed expertise in my field and cited one of my papers and the inevitable response was Point 3. I explained that climate models cannot have any demonstrated forecasting skill and the inevitable response was Point 8. etc.

So, this thread has not given me a reason to change my perception of the cause of the behaviours of AGW-advocates.

Richard

Quote:0 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Not so fast!, January 4, 2010
By morphy mcdugall (colorado) - See all my reviews
Quoting from the desmogblog database of climate change deniers: Ian Plimer is listed as an "Allied Expert" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An October 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group."

DeSmog recently uncovered information that two of the three Directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project are senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto based lobby firm that specializes in "energy, environment and ethics."
Background and Research

According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Plimer has published more than 40 research articles in peer-reviewed journals, mainly on the subject of ore deposits.
Misinformation by yet another 'expert' with an axe to grind and a bottom line to protect.

Quote: 2 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Telling Lies for the Mining Industry?, December 13, 2009
By B. Tween_DeLions "B.T." (USA) - See all my reviews
Plimer wrote a book attacking creation "science", called "Telling Lies for God".

Since Plimer is a director of three mining companies, and since he has said that the Australian "carbon-trading scheme" could decimate the Australian mining industry, one can only wonder if Plimer is now telling lies for the mining industry.

Quote:12 of 44 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Joins Spencer and Lomborg to make anti-science trio, September 15, 2009
By R. E Westgard "Viking" (Bay Lake & St Paul, MN USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Among the nonsense in this science fiction effort is the claim that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans. From the The USGS: "Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)!" Excel energy's coal plant at Becker, MN alone emits 18 million tons/year of CO2.
Save your money and skip this one. Even sillier than Michael Crichton's State of Fear.
R. Westgard, professional member, Geological Society of America.

Quote:CO2 and Light
Carbon dioxide (CO2) and light are essential for plant growth. As the sun rises in the morning to provide light, the plants begin to produce food energy (photosynthesis). The level of CO2 drops in the greenhouse as it is used by the plants. Ventilation replenishes the CO2 in the greenhouse. Because CO2 and light complement each other, electric lighting combined with CO2 injection are used to increase yields of vegetable and flowering crops. Bottled CO2, dry ice, and combustion of sulfur-free fuels can be used as CO2 sources. Commercial greenhouses use such methods.

Quote:[Trenberth] You can object all you like but you are not looking at the evidence and

you need to have a basis, which you have not established. You seem to

doubt that CO2 has increased and that it is a greenhouse gas and you are

very wrong. But of course there is a lot of variability and looking at

one spot narrowly is not the way to see the big picture.

Quote:It is also difficult to find evidence of a drastic warming outside urban areas in a large part of the world outside Europe. However the increase in temperature in Central Europe may be because the whole area is urbanized (see e.g. Bidwell, T., 2004: Scotobiology – the biology of darkness. Global change News Letter No. 58 June, 2004).

So, I find it necessary to object to the talk about a scaring temperature increase because of increased human release of CO2. In fact, the warming seems to be limited to densely populated areas. The often mentioned correlation between temperature and CO2 is not convincing. If there is a factor explaining a major part of changes in the temperature, it is solar irradiation. There are numerous studies demonstrating this correlation but papers are not accepted by IPCC. Most likely, any reduction of CO2 release will have no effect whatsoever on the temperature (independent of how
expensive).