New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

[Azred]

I don't care about the Heartland Group or their political leanings whatsoever because they are not the ones who did the research. NASA did the research and I don't think any rational person could claim that that organization engages in "junk science".

On this topic I have raised these points for the past several years:
1) alarmists overestimate our ability to impact global climate. According to the reports and predictions that were coming out 20 years ago, by now there should be no ice in the Arctic and the oceans should have risen at least a foot...neither of which has happened. Also, the predictions typically claimed 0.1 degree rise in average temperature each year...which also has not happened. Finally, when one large volcanic eruption can alter global temperatures by an average of 2 degrees then our importance is clearly minimized.
2) climate science does not follow the Scientific Method because a) there is no "control" Earth containing no human begins against which to measure experimental results, b) the studies begin with the same flawed premise of "human beings are disrupting global climate" rather than reaching conclusions afterwards--this is backwards.
3) alarmists want to enact legislation based on their faulty findings because they think the United States is the only country hurting the planet. I would like to see them try to go force carbon dioxide emissions on China--that would be funny.

[machinehead]

NASA did the research and I don't think any rational person could claim that that organization engages in "junk science".

Doubtful as Dr. Spencer resigned from NASA in 2001.

Rebuttal.
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/...odel-down-roy/

To be fair and balanced here is Dr. Spencers website.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by machinehead Rebuttal. http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/...odel-down-roy/

LOL @ "...put down the the toy model Roy"

[machinehead]

The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a politically conservative think tank established in 1984 in Washington, D.C. with a focus on the misuse of science to further right wing public policy. In the 1980s, the Institute was engaged primarily in lobbying in support of the Strategic Defense Initiative.[1] Since the late 1980s, the Institute has put forward environmental skepticism views, and in particular has disputed mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, although it continues to be active on defense policy. The George C. Marshall Institute has been described by Newsweek as a "central cog in the denial machine."[2] The institute is named after the World War II military leader and statesman George C. Marshall.

Historian Naomi Oreskes states that the institute has, in order to resist and delay regulation, lobbied politically to create a false public perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion.[3] The role of GMI in creating public doubt on these matters and swaying public policy was elaborated in the book "Merchants of Doubt", which details the motives of the organization's heads and their interests.[4]

From Wiki
Dr. Roy Spencer is also on the board of directors of this organization...

[SpiritWarrior]

Also lol @ an attempt to cast doubt on the dangers of second-hand smoke! Wtf? Those tobacco companies must pay 'em a shitload of money.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by Azred I don't care about the Heartland Group or their political leanings whatsoever because they are not the ones who did the research. NASA did the research and I don't think any rational person could claim that that organization engages in "junk science".

Actually NASA collected the data. The part of research which involves analysis and interpretation was not done by NASA.

Originally Posted by Azred On this topic I have raised these points for the past several years: 1) alarmists overestimate our ability to impact global climate. According to the reports and predictions that were coming out 20 years ago, by now there should be no ice in the Arctic and the oceans should have risen at least a foot...neither of which has happened. Also, the predictions typically claimed 0.1 degree rise in average temperature each year...which also has not happened. Finally, when one large volcanic eruption can alter global temperatures by an average of 2 degrees then our importance is clearly minimized. 2) climate science does not follow the Scientific Method because a) there is no "control" Earth containing no human begins against which to measure experimental results, b) the studies begin with the same flawed premise of "human beings are disrupting global climate" rather than reaching conclusions afterwards--this is backwards. 3) alarmists want to enact legislation based on their faulty findings because they think the United States is the only country hurting the planet. I would like to see them try to go force carbon dioxide emissions on China--that would be funny.

It's easy to cherry pick and find where people have been wrong. Being wrong is good, it's part of the process of how we develop knowledge. It's doesn't change the fact human impact on the environment can be and is quite alarming, catastrophic, serious, pertinent, deadly...

We know this by the method of common sense. It is as it was. We can go look at it. For example April 2011 National Geographic article notes research into the acidification of the coral reef environments caused by Carbon Dioxide being absorbed in the ocean. It wasn't happening before and it's killing shit now. It's not the end of the world, but it is serious.

I guess pollution probably doesn't matter to people who ascribe to the belief that the Climate is divinely immune to Human endeavors and simply fixes itself. There really is no argument against such magical irrational thinking other than to point out it is. There is danger in such stupidity.

Extremists on one side scoring points against extremists on the other creates nothing but a bunch of useless noise.

Does using NASA data to write an article which can be summed up with a tongue in cheek as "repeatedly mocking a group of environmentalists referred to as alarmists in order to say we told you so and I'm right" help obscure or highlight the middle ground where we find correct analysis?

[SecretMaster]

I haven't been on in awhile, and I'm glad most people responded with good arguments! I actually got a chance to look at this paper which "debunks" global warming. There are some serious, serious problems with the paper.

There is an irony to the paper. Essentially Spencer is using his model to show how the IPCC's models are quite inaccurate... except the robustness of his model has been a huge issue of contention.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-1.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-...er-part-2.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-...er-part-3.html

And yes, we all know how dishonest the Heartland Organization is.

Edit:

Looks like machinehead posted a separately related link which has the same criticisms. The more the merrier when it comes to the scientific community!

[ElfBane]

@Azred
Welcome back Mathsorcerer. Your posts are welcome here, and will get plenty of yakking! I know it can be pretty depressing over at the Oasis, with it having reached Right-wing Entropy. We haven't quite reached Left-wing Entropy here at Ironworks, and if we get the Oasans back, things will heat back up. So bring them over with you.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by ElfBane @Azred Welcome back Mathsorcerer. Your posts are welcome here, and will get plenty of yakking! I know it can be pretty depressing over at the Oasis, with it having reached Right-wing Entropy. We haven't quite reached Left-wing Entropy here at Ironworks, and if we get the Oasans back, things will heat back up. So bring them over with you.

Yeah we need more political "im right your wrong 'cause I said so"-type debates in the enviromental discussions.

[Azred]

Originally Posted by ElfBane @Azred Welcome back Mathsorcerer.

Hello to you, too. What happens at the Oasis stays at the Oasis and had absolutely nothing to do with me...as you well know.

*************
The logical fallacy of False Cause; notice, specifically, the section on post hoc ergo propter hoc.

the fallacy of arguing that one event was caused by another event merely because it occurred after that event

To claim that temperatures are rising because of human activity cannot be authenticated with any accuracy or definitiveness whatsoever. The true cause of any climate fluctuation is what it has always been--natural cycles. Our weather records go back only 350 years, at best, which is an insigificant amount of time to make any accurate predictions about long-term climate.

Note, also, the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true

Climate alarmists would have us all believe that because some computer models show a doom-and-gloom scenario and that no one can disprove those models that their conclusions are correct, a classic case of this particular fallacy.

Next comes argumentum ad populum.

The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms: "Snob Appeal": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to what an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an authority) in a society thinks or believes. "Bandwagon": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true.

Alarmists want us to believe that because a small group of climate scientists, not all of whom agree with themselves, say that something is true then it is true. Besides, which version of the alarmists should we believe? The ones from the late 70s and early 80s who predicted a mini-ice age or the ones from the late 80s and early 90s who predicted the end of all polar ice caps and vast reaches of deserts?

Finally, we have argumentum ad hominem.

the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

Much of the time, the instant anyone doesn't go along with the "human beings are destroying the global climate" philosophy is called a variety of names or they are accused of being in the pay of Big Oil or some sort of rabid dog who wants to fill the world with smoke stacks and strip mines. This is not simply incorrect, it is ridiculous.

People also fail to separate the issues of "climate change" and "environmental quality". I may not believe that humans are altering the climate but I do believe that we need to keep the environment healthy.

I would still like to see anyone try and force countries like India and China to have the restrictions put onto them like alarmists have done in the United States. People are still engaging slash-and-burn agriculture in Brazil, but I don't hear people wailing about it.