Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
If you don't accept bigfish's conspiracy theories, that makes you a racist MI5/6 stooge (apparently) Didn't you know that?
32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”
- Thread starter bigfish
- Start date
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
He's a loony. Don't worry about it.
david dissadent
New Member
Nope your utterly clueless posts about vulcanisity in the arctic. Basic high school level science has exposed you as a fool. Can you in any way defend this post?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
you can check out a slightly briefer version of what he's saying (in his own words) here, and the paper it mostly stems from here.
I'm going to have to sleep on it, what he's saying looks interesting, but I'd put it in the category of needing a hell of a lot more research to back up his hypothesis as it seems to be based on some pretty flakey data as far as I can tell... essentially (from what's presented in the paper) he's using one averaged set of data made up of 15 data sets to give him the long wave radiation flux variations over time, then using 9 out of those 15 data sets to give him the variation in ice crystal composition of clouds over the same time periods (because data wasn't available for 6 of the time periods), and then comparing the 2 data sets as if they were comprised of the same data period averages, and concluding that there's a causal link between changes in the ice crystal make up of clouds, and changes in the long range radiation flux.
I've no idea why he'd have done it this way, as the results would surely have more validity if he'd simply discarded the other 6 time periods entirely so that the datasets he'd averaged to give him his trend lines were actually comprised of the same datasets / time periods.
Basically as far as I can figure it, there could be a statistically significant causal relationship like he's suggesting, but I can't see how you can place much confidence just on the results of this one study due to this flaw.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Thing is, Spencer (and Christy and a few others) may theorise about all this stuff, but their only actual evidence as far as I recall is that satellite data and their preferred data-sets are called into serious question by the work of Fu et al.
See e.g. this summary letter PDF
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Many on here are talking mostly about the utter uselessness of your and JC2's attempts to rubbish the IPPC's models. You show a very shaky grasp of the science, you know.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
Sorry Bernie, but I can't see how that'd be a factor here as that's all to do with biases introduced into long term tropospheric temperature trends from long term cooling in the stratosphere.
This is about short term variations over periods of 2 months - with the actual variations being looked at being in increments of a day or 2, so there's no way that long term stratospheric trends are going to have an impact IMO.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Have you actually read my posts on this thread?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Point taken, but I still don't see how Spencer's argument translates to a challenge, unless he can make a clear connection with the long term trends.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
The only comment is...
and to aid anyone trying to work out what I'm talking about, here's a visual comparison of the different temperature anomoly graphs for the 2 data sets he's trying to make out are 'very similar' - ie similar enough for him to then go on and base his entire hypothesis on, and then use this to show that the climate models are flawed.
This doesn't necessarily mean that he's wrong, but as far as I can see a lot less certainty can be placed on any of his findings in this study due to this basic flaw in the methodology.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Spencer, like the very few other contrarians with genuine credentials in the field e.g. Lindzen and Christy, tends to be a lot more floridly contrarian when he's writing for PR organisations than in his actual peer reviewed scientific work.
He's been known to take what seem to some like liberties with data too.
See e.g. this: How to cook a graph ...
He's been known to take what seem to some like liberties with data too.
See e.g. this: How to cook a graph ...
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Thing is though, lies propagated on a mass market radio show like Rush Limbaugh's, fed to people whose critical faculties are already damaged (by stuff like creationism and supporting Bush's policies) is all too likely to stick and become revealed truth, just like the rapture or Charlton Heston's role in biblical gun control.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
So it's only religious nuts now who dispute the received wisdom on global warming?
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
Gunther is taking about the content of Limbaugh's radio show 
free spirit
more tea vicar?
I think he was commenting on Rush Limbaugh's audience
eta - bugger, if I went any slower I'd be going backwards
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Well, I was probably being a bit unclear due to just getting back from the pub.
I certainly wasn't claiming a necessary connection between contrarian and creationist beliefs.
There is an interesting overlap though, particularly in the US, between professional global warming scepticism, fundamentalism and the far-right. Several prominent contrarians e.g. Spencer (see above) and Robinson (the Oregon petition guy) are also professed creationists.
Contrarian beliefs are mostly propagated by far-right foundations with a history of promoting other crazy stuff like intelligent design, invading Iraq, studies that purport to show that negroes have smaller brains than white people etc.
Looking at the way the Heidelburg Appeal originated, with tobacco and asbestos industry PR people manufacturing a tool to attack science that their clients found inconvenient and then being picked up by climate contrarians, I suspect that what happens here is that the mechanisms and 'friendly experts' associated with attacking one sort of inconvenient science fall into the orbit of these outfits and are then mobilised to attack other sorts of inconvenient science.
You can actually see this sort of mutual back-scratching being explicitly discussed in the Designer Front Group memo I posted earlier.
I'm tempted to speculate a bit further than this though. Spencer is a creationist, Lindzen is a heavy smoker who doubts the scientific consensus on smoking-related diseases. I wonder if in some cases, having taken the first step of trying to find a way around the science in one area for such personal reasons, that one tends to lose one's inhibitions against taking money from e.g. Exxon, to play fast and loose with the evidence concerning other bits of science.
I certainly wasn't claiming a necessary connection between contrarian and creationist beliefs.
There is an interesting overlap though, particularly in the US, between professional global warming scepticism, fundamentalism and the far-right. Several prominent contrarians e.g. Spencer (see above) and Robinson (the Oregon petition guy) are also professed creationists.
Contrarian beliefs are mostly propagated by far-right foundations with a history of promoting other crazy stuff like intelligent design, invading Iraq, studies that purport to show that negroes have smaller brains than white people etc.
Looking at the way the Heidelburg Appeal originated, with tobacco and asbestos industry PR people manufacturing a tool to attack science that their clients found inconvenient and then being picked up by climate contrarians, I suspect that what happens here is that the mechanisms and 'friendly experts' associated with attacking one sort of inconvenient science fall into the orbit of these outfits and are then mobilised to attack other sorts of inconvenient science.
You can actually see this sort of mutual back-scratching being explicitly discussed in the Designer Front Group memo I posted earlier.
I'm tempted to speculate a bit further than this though. Spencer is a creationist, Lindzen is a heavy smoker who doubts the scientific consensus on smoking-related diseases. I wonder if in some cases, having taken the first step of trying to find a way around the science in one area for such personal reasons, that one tends to lose one's inhibitions against taking money from e.g. Exxon, to play fast and loose with the evidence concerning other bits of science.
Only 9000 phds disputing the theory? A mere trifle.
Jesus christ you're geetting stupider by the day! Has pbman taken over your account?
And you're the salt of the Earth, of course.
But, anyway, moving on - this just in:
More: http://www.anorak.co.uk/global-warming/185486.html
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Huh, thought you were a) A brit b) Older
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
An ad hominem attack won't somehow shore up the dodgy science behind your global warming beliefs.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
hehehe
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Let's go with what the crazy kiwi said:
What do you think the negative effects of global warming will be, such that we have to make drastic sacrifices to our economy, way of life etc, in order to prevent them?
I don't mean just you, Crispy, but all or any of the global warming crowd on the thread.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
It's only ad hominem if I'm saying 'this guy is wrong because he is obviously a loon due to being a creationist'
I'm not saying that. I'm saying this guy is wrong because his views aren't backed up by peer-reviewed science, and by the way he's a creationist, I wonder whether the damage to his critical faculties associated with believing in creationism has any bearing on the remarkably dishonest (given the gap between his peer-reviewed stuff and what he says when paid by Exxon PR outlets) statments about climate.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying this guy is wrong because his views aren't backed up by peer-reviewed science, and by the way he's a creationist, I wonder whether the damage to his critical faculties associated with believing in creationism has any bearing on the remarkably dishonest (given the gap between his peer-reviewed stuff and what he says when paid by Exxon PR outlets) statments about climate.
Even if that's an ad hominem, it's still correct. Being an ad hominem doesn't automatically discredit an argument.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I really wonder Jonnie, why you keep trying that ad-hominem argument, this must be about the ninth time, when you know that I'm going to show that it quite clearly doesn't apply.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Here's what you're saying.
"Seems like most of those global warming nonbelievers are right wing creationist nuts, so we don't have to pay attention to anything that they say."
It's attacking the speaker, not the message.
There are two problems with ad hominem, of course. One: your premise is incorrect, ie, not all nonbelievers are right wing creationists. Two: even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.
Is this the ninth time? Well, if you persist in trotting out the fallacy, I'll persist in pointing out the error of your ways.
Similar threads
