New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by Azred Agencies like the EPA don't exist to make the air clean; rather, they exist to enforce regulations that say "if your emissions exceed x then you will pay y" and then collect those fees--money is the goal while the clean air is merely incidental.

Not true. We'll stick with the Clean Air Act, but the same general principles apply to all environmental laws. Yes, there are fines for emissions, but that's not the main point. First, there are rules requiring new plants to meet the best technology standards -- designed to create a "race to the top" over time. When plants continually flaunt the rules, the can be shut down. The Act also has a trading market mechanism for SO2 and NOx that has been extremely effective over time. Finally, as with many such environmental laws, there is even a citizen suit provision -- this allows ordinary citizens to step in and act to enforce the law if the government fails to do so.

Monetary income is one of the least important things in that law. In fact, even when the EPA discusses monetary matters it is not focused on income from fines but rather trying to put valuations on the economic benefit of the harm prevented.

[Azred]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis First, there are rules requiring new plants to meet the best technology standards -- designed to create a "race to the top" over time.

There is only one problem--the race to the top never actually happens. When was the last petroleum refinery built in this country? 20 years ago? 30 years ago?

I will admit that this is not entirely the fault of government because we all know corporations, especially Big Oil--it doesn't matter if they are making $1 billion every quarter like they have for years, they will absolutely refuse to build anything that meets the current standards because they will cry that it costs too much.

This gets us to the real "man behind the curtain" of climate change--money. Governments have figured out that if they can legislate emissions standards on corporations they can make a little money from the fees levied for statutory infractions; meanwhile, corporations pay lobbyists for special exception clauses so they can drag their heels and continue making money on older yet established technology and laugh all the way to the bank. Meanwhile, people like us are left arguing about who's right and who's wrong or whether or not there is anything about which we need to worry.

Notice that I am not saying "corporations are evil". I am simply stating their nature for what it is. Bees collect pollen, cats eat mice, and corporations lust after another dollar no matter what they have to do to get it.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally Posted by robertthebard Fact: The panel considered to be the authoritative source of information doesn't do their own research. They compile everyone's data, and then it's edited by people that don't even evaluate the data given, some of whom can lose money if the reports are too conservative, or too liberal.

Partially true. The IPCC in and of itself does not conduct their own research. The data comes from a myriad of sources; some from government agencies, some from independent researchers.

It's not true that the data isn't evaluated. Some of the data that the IPCC uses comes from previously peer-reviewed literature. It has already been pre-screened if you will. To suggest that the IPCC didn't sift thru the data sets without some form of screening is silly imo.

It's also not true that the IPCC members stand to lose money if they don't toe the IPCC line. Scientists who participate in the IPCC assessment process do so without any compensation other than the normal salaries they receive from their home institutions.

Fact: It's been postulated that science is in full agreement on the issue. However, it's been shown, not postulated, but shown, that they don't even agree with what goes into their reports.

Of course there isn't full agreement on the issue. Simply looking at the myriad of new papers being published and the ongoing scientific debate should be ample proof of that. Does that mean the underlying science is wrong? No. It simply means that climate scientists don't fully understand all the working parts yet.

Fact: It's been postulated that GCC scientists are some of the most brilliant minds in the world. Do people even realize just how complicated the electronics in a car are these days?

Setting aside the hyperbole on "the most brilliant minds in the world" , do you really have any idea how complex climate theory can be?

Originally Posted by Cerek As for GCC scientists being the best in the world, it's a documented fact that some of the most prominent ones manipulated some of the data and also refused to share their data with other scientists who wished to test the data for themselves. Both of these examples go completely against basic scientific practice, so that certainly calls into question the claim these scientists are the best in the world. The best do not deviate from standard procedures or refuse to share their data because the other scientists "just want to find something wrong with it". Instead, they DO share the data because the only way for research to be given any credibility is by having the data tested by others and reaching the same (or similar) results.

Sadly some of that is true.

On the issue of sharing data, there are some well documented instances, at least two of which directly tied to CRU and the IPCC reports, where a very limited number of researchers have seemingly taken great pains to restrict availablity of their data sets. The CRU was cited specifically for that in several investigations. Although the data sets were ultimately provided as requested, the delay was significant. It should be noted that almost every major journal requires its authors to make their data available to other researchers. In at least one notable case tied back to CRU, the request for data came before the actual publication of the journal article. In that case, the delay was warranted. It should also be noted that the vast majority of climate data is publicly available thru government agencies and universities.

That does not invalidate the rest of the research.

As for manipulation of data sets, there are absolutely no documented instances that data has been falsified. None. Have some data sets been excluded? Yes, sometimes with good reason; othertimes, maybe not. One of the basic truths of science is that your conclusions are only as good as your data. It shouldn't surprise anyone that recording sensors frequently fail or that equipment malfunctions. In both cases, that can result in data records which are only partially accurate. Rather than throw out the entire data set, scientists will eliminate the questionable portion of the data and keep the reliable data. As I stated before, a great deal of the IPCC data came from peer-reviewed literature.

Here's a quote from Roger Pielke Jr., a noted climate scientist (google him if you don't know who he is or want more details)

First, the IPCC is not engaged in research. It apparently violated its own terms of reference when it allowed scientists to re-process data from the peer reviewed literature. So the IPCC clearly violated its own norms. However, even in violating its own norms, because it is not a research organization, it is very hard to say that it engaged in scientific fraud. But even if the IPCC was a research organization, the selective omission of data might be a questionable practice but hardly rises to any level of misconduct, which generally refers to fabrication, falsification or plagiarism. There is no evidence of that here. Just cherrypicking, perhaps egregious leading ultimately to misrepresentation, but nonetheless cherrypicking. It can appear unseemly when revealed (which is why it is not a good idea to do so in the first place), but misconduct? No. Did it engage in any other kind of "fraud"? Well now we are into the area of semantics. As The authors of the IPCC TAR chapter under discussion clearly wanted to present information that (a) best positioned their work for inclusion in the SPM, and (b) avoided giving "skeptics" ammunition. So they stage managed the process to present a picture that they thought best conveyed the storyline that they wanted. Was this fraud? I see no evidence for such a claim. Again, misrepresentation but not fraud. I suspect that others may have a different view, and perhaps some of this is more than semantic. But let me say this. If the IPCC finds itself in a situation where people are debating whether its activities are best characterized in terms of misrepresentation or fraud, then that is not a good place to be.

Much has been made of the IPCC "models" and their inaccuracy. What IPCC actually presented were a range of "projections" based on socio-economic models tied to future fossil fuel usage, population growth and other factors. They weren't intended to be predictions of actual temperature changes, but rather to illustrate the range of possibilities. From IPCC's own website:

Climate projections are distinguished from climate predictions in order to emphasize that climate projections depend upon the emission/concentration/radiative forcing scenario used, which are based on assumptions, concerning, for example, future socio-economic and technological developments that may or may not be realized, and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty.

In other words, they simply represent POSSIBLE future outcomes.

Some of the folks here seem to think that the IPCC report represents "some sort of sacred text" or "to denigrate it as a sham". Pielke says "Our work suggests neither. Instead, from the perspective of its assessment products it is a valuable if imperfect organization."

[Chewbacca]

Wow.... here perhaps is a waste of time and money

http://www.tgdaily.com/unbalanced/57...r-alien-attack

Maybe NASA believes that the little green men really are green - one of its scientists has collaborated on a report suggesting that the Earth's rising levels of greenhouse gases could provoke an alien attack. Using spectrometry, extraterrestrials could detect changes in Earth's atmosphere and deduce that we're out of control, the report suggests. It's one of a number of scenarios discussed in the paper, written by Shawn Domagal-Goldman of Nasa's Planetary Science Division and Pennsylvania State University academics.

[Chewbacca]

Thanks for the free educational experience Micah. Your contributions to this thread are simply top-notch.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca Wow.... here perhaps is a waste of time and money http://www.tgdaily.com/unbalanced/57...r-alien-attack

Here's a slightly different slant from the Rachel Maddow show - pretty darn funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9-oQSpWdsQ

Originally Posted by Chewbacca Thanks for the free educational experience Micah. Your contributions to this thread are simply top-notch.

You're welcome and Thanks.

[Azred]

Originally Posted by Micah Foehammer Much has been made of the IPCC "models" and their inaccuracy. What IPCC actually presented were a range of "projections" based on socio-economic models tied to future fossil fuel usage, population growth and other factors. They weren't intended to be predictions of actual temperature changes, but rather to illustrate the range of possibilities. From IPCC's own website: Climate projections are distinguished from climate predictions in order to emphasize that climate projections depend upon the emission/concentration/radiative forcing scenario used, which are based on assumptions, concerning, for example, future socio-economic and technological developments that may or may not be realized, and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty.

So everything they do can be distilled down to assumptions. What was that old saying about what happens when you assume?

If they are putting out possibilities based on assumptions then two things immediately become clear: 1) quit basing things on assumptions and 2) they are wasting time and money by extrapolating possibilities that they admit might be inaccurate.

In short, the IPCC is telling us that we may ignore their findings due to the inherent uncertainty.

As I noted to you elsewhere, my struggle is against faulty science that begins with a presumption (human beings are disrupting the climate) and then looks for data to fit the presumption.

[Chewbacca]

Wait!!! the vast alarmist conspiracy is full of people who have...scientific uncertainty? Chicken little wasn't running around crying "Maybe!!!".

However I have noticed this new trend of chickens running around yelling "Alarmists"! Man, are they CERTAIN! They make a nice harmony with the ones yelling "Global Warming!" Like nails on a chalkboard meets squeaky brake-pads.

And where would we be without scientific assumption? It's clear in layman's terms it makes an ass out of me and U in certain situations.

[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by Micah Foehammer Partially true. The IPCC in and of itself does not conduct their own research. The data comes from a myriad of sources; some from government agencies, some from independent researchers. It's not true that the data isn't evaluated. Some of the data that the IPCC uses comes from previously peer-reviewed literature. It has already been pre-screened if you will. To suggest that the IPCC didn't sift thru the data sets without some form of screening is silly imo.

In the link I provided pages ago, it discusses how the IPCC evaluates the data, builds a preliminary report, and then submits that report to another panel for final editing. It also states in that article how some of the people on the panel that actually compiled the report don't agree with who, and how that report gets edited before it's submitted. I cannot recall specific examples, but some were given in the liner notes to that chapter. What did stick with me was that the report was adjusted either conservatively or liberally, according to who was complaining about content. In fact, good ol' GW got one chairman fired. That's a little too much influence on what's supposed to be a neutral "find the facts and publish them" organization, wouldn't you agree?

It's also not true that the IPCC members stand to lose money if they don't toe the IPCC line. Scientists who participate in the IPCC assessment process do so without any compensation other than the normal salaries they receive from their home institutions.

In the context of my post, it's not the IPCC that will lose money based on what's in their reports, it's governments, and as I indicated above, when the leader of one country can cause the chair to lose his job, there's something flawed with the system.

Of course there isn't full agreement on the issue. Simply looking at the myriad of new papers being published and the ongoing scientific debate should be ample proof of that. Does that mean the underlying science is wrong? No. It simply means that climate scientists don't fully understand all the working parts yet.

...and yet, I have been assured time and time again, in this very thread, that they are in full agreement. I have been told that I can, if I doubt that, start calling all the major universities, and do the research to prove that they aren't, despite the fact that this very thread exists because somebody didn't agree. Good, bad or indifferent, the source was shot down as "having an agenda".

Setting aside the hyperbole on "the most brilliant minds in the world" , do you really have any idea how complex climate theory can be?

Yeah, I do. However, the quote in quotations in your post isn't mine. However, I don't buy the fact that the guy that looks at the data, and can't even tell me if it's going to rain, while it's raining, is more of a genius than the guy that built the Hubble Telescope. Yes, it's an extreme example, but it gets the point across. Again, despite claims that we would, we have not had the "worst year for hurricanes ever" that was predicted. Despite claims to the contrary, the Ozone layer did repair itself, and come to find out, wow, it's been repairing and destroying itself for like ever. The "instant gratification" that scientists with an agenda, Let's sell our new aerosol propellant, have claimed really cracks me up. If we'd done as much damage as they said we were doing, the ozone layer would be gone by now, even with the changes to propellents, since we all know these things won't turn around over night. Like TL said, "they just happened to have a new propellent to put on the market" when the scare went out. Isn't that an agenda?

The unfortunate thing here is that yes, when taken in context with the general premise of GCC science, that mankind is responsible for CC, it does tend to invalidate most of the science. After all, that's not how science works, and we all know that. That we are a contributing factor cannot be denied, but that doesn't mean we're the root cause, and frankly, that's what GCC scientists are out to prove. In the process, they hope we'll ignore the fact that the earth has been through much more radical changes in it's climate that anything they are predicting. In fact, they are gambling on most of their audience not knowing that at all. While the IPCC may not get paid, the people that actually do the research they evaluate do.

Serious snip is serious, and done for TL'DR purposes.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally Posted by robertthebard In the link I provided pages ago, it discusses how the IPCC evaluates the data, builds a preliminary report, and then submits that report to another panel for final editing. It also states in that article how some of the people on the panel that actually compiled the report don't agree with who, and how that report gets edited before it's submitted. I cannot recall specific examples, but some were given in the liner notes to that chapter. What did stick with me was that the report was adjusted either conservatively or liberally, according to who was complaining about content.

Go back and read the quote I posted from Pielke. I think it sums up pretty well what I think. Since your snip TLDR seemed to indicate you didn't read it the first time, have a second go.

I believe you are referencing the quote you provided earlier in post # 81. Actually the most serious objection that you cited is from Fred Singer. Singer wasn't a member of IPCC; so his claims aren't based on first hand involvement. Can he really properly evaluate what the IPCC does?

Since you raise the issue of agendas, I suggest you check out the following link and go down and read the sections on Global Warming and SEPP funding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Fred_Singer

You don't think there might be a little conflict of interest there? Maybe Singer is right, but I think a little skepticism might not be out of place.

As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the only criticisms around the IPCC involved reluctance to share data, and perhaps the statistical rigor of the analysis. (See Secret Master's posts # 33 and 35 and my intervening post #34).

In the context of my post, it's not the IPCC that will lose money based on what's in their reports, it's governments, and as I indicated above, when the leader of one country can cause the chair to lose his job, there's something flawed with the system.

Actually RTB your comment relating to funding appears as a part of this sentence:

"They compile everyone's data, and then it's edited by people that don't even evaluate the data given, some of whom can lose money if the reports are too conservative, or too liberal."

Excuse me, but the context seemed to be refering to the IPCC and that you are linking the funding to the people compiling the data and editing the report. No mention of governments in that sentence. Not my fault if you combined two separate ideas into one and then expect people to figure out what you really meant. If IPCC authors are being defunded by their governments then it's an issue with the governments NOT the IPCC.

...and yet, I have been assured time and time again, in this very thread, that they are in full agreement. I have been told that I can, if I doubt that, start calling all the major universities, and do the research to prove that they aren't, despite the fact that this very thread exists because somebody didn't agree.

That claim has been repeated endlessly along with the claim that the science is closed. I didn't fully believe either of those claims when they were first stated as fact, and after more than a fair amount of research I believe them even less now. It was hyperbole.

The appeal to validation based on consensus doesn't ring 100% true. Science isn't done by consensus - skepticism IS a natural part of the process and that's how science advances. If the history of science has shown us anything, as Cerek pointed out, it's that the consensus doesn't always get it right. That doesn't mean that the claims that a consensus does exist are invalid. Nor does it mean that the consensus is wrong.

Check out the link SM proved back in post #24. If you follow that link, you will see that that it's within the general public where the biggest divergence from consensus exists. That is simply proof that one side, the skeptics, have been remarkably more effective in getting their message out. It doesn't prove that message is right.

There is a half truth buried in the assertion of scientific agreement though. The basic underlying science is well understood and agreed upon even by some dissenting scientists.
The dispute lies in some of the details of climate change mechanisms. Even Azred's climate skeptic blog site agrees with the basic premise that manmade CO2 results in warming; the site's author simply disputes the mechnism and the extent of warming. Not the underlying science. And yes there are some folks who totally deny the effects of CO2 warming regardless of the source.

Seriously, I would have though that all of this would be relatively obvious. I don't understand why we are continuing to rehash this.

Yeah, I do. However, the quote in quotations in your post isn't mine.

LOL Yeah I know that. I simply refered to and dismissed the general hyperbole. I don't see any value in arguing over semantics regarding who is brighter or more brilliant. It's a value judgement that does not add anything to the scientific discussion imo.

The unfortunate thing here is that yes, when taken in context with the general premise of GCC science, that mankind is responsible for CC, it does tend to invalidate most of the science.

Sorry RTB but I think that is totally wrong. There’s an old legal proverb: If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, attack the witness. That's what Singer does. And that's what some of the counter arguments in this thread (on both sides actually) do as well. In fact, I'm even a little guilty of the same thing by pointing out some details on Singer, although I don't totally dismiss him out of hand.

I think it's simply a convenient excuse for you to dismiss ALL of the research being done that supports the theory. Rather than attacking the facts by presenting solid scientific arguments, you attack the source. You have never actually proven the case that the science itself is invalid let alone that the IPCC engaged in fraud.

The IPCC does NOT represent the entire scientific community. It is one voice. Perhaps that voice is too loud or even off-key, but it is one voice nonetheless. To dismiss an entire group and body of research based on one voice simply fails any normal standard of logic.

Azred said:

As I noted to you elsewhere, my struggle is against faulty science that begins with a presumption (human beings are disrupting the climate) and then looks for data to fit the presumption.

And yet this entire thread started by you championing Roy Spencer's paper as proof of that. Spencer starts from a position opposing global warming, takes data, builds a model to support the hypothesis, and then claims "Hey look, I was right." Isn't that exactly what you claim that you object to? But since Spencer agrees with your premise, he must be right and the other scientists wrong. As Secret Master said earlier, it's better to take Spencer's paper and evaluate it on it's own merits, and judge it accordingly.