Here’s yet another significant “oops” in global warming propaganda, unearthed by climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer.
Spencer’s formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center where he received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal. He’s now principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and one of almost 500 scientists who dissent from the global warming party line advanced by the UN’s study group. Says Spencer:
“There are huge error bars on our observational estimates of feedback” used by the UN’s IPCC climate models. In other words, what scientists see doesn’t jibe with what is assumed to build the computer models.
You know what the models are, right? Those computer projections based on faulty and incomplete assumptions.
If the errors are so great, Spencer asks,
“then doesn’t that mean that it is just as likely that the real climate system is very insensitive (making manmade global warming a non-problem) as it is to be as sensitive as the IPCC models claim it is?”
In case you didn’t catch it, Spencer’s question is rhetorical.
“The fact is, we DON’T know how much of recent warming is natural,” Spencer says, “simply because we don’t have good enough global cloud observations back to the 1970’s (and earlier) to measure any long-term changes in cloudiness to the required accuracy – 1% or less. [...]“
“I fear that the sloppy science that too many climate researchers have lapsed into could, in the end, hurt our scientific discipline beyond repair. The very high level of certainty (90%) claimed by the IPCC for their manmade explanation for warming can not be justified based upon the scientific evidence, and is little more than an expression of their faith that they understand the causes of climate variability – which they clearly don’t. For those scientists who value their scientific reputations, I would advise that they distance themselves from politically-motivated claims of a ’scientific consensus’ on the causes of global warming — before it is too late. Don’t let five Norwegians on the Nobel Prize committee be the arbiters of what is good science.”
Probably good advice. Especially before heaping billions of dollars of cost on everyone to pay to fix something that’s most likely not broken.
By the way it’s ‘faulty’ not ‘falty.’
In reading some of your other editorials I noticed that you make a point of impying there is a gravy train for those scientists whose work is biased towards human induced global warming. Why don’t you qualify the motivations of skeptics? Spencer has clearly enjoyed a industry gravy train and you know it. You also know that Spencer and John Christy had to admit in 2005 that their work that indicated the troposhere was cooling was wrong and in fact it is warming.
To have a “skeptic” position on a topic be it global warminjg or the dangers of tobacco, it only takes a handful of well paid “experts” to fuel the network of think tanks, bloggers and radio/cable talking heads to spread the message. Throw in the industry hacks working for the Council on Environmental Quality and James Inhofe’s disinformation efforts and you can sow a lot of doubt without a lot of sound science.
It’s about time we get the debate going on this subject. When a honored scientist like Michael Griffin (NASA) gets shouted down just by saying that global warming is not necessarily a problem that demands mankind’s action goes to show how one-sided and politically (& financially) motivated this situation is.
The Global Warming fear mongers claim the debate is over. It seems like the debate has never begun.
You can tell when a point hits home when the only comment an opponent can make is to point out a spelling error.
Dan Pangburn,
I have seen your post a;; over the internet. Have you submitted this to peeer review? Do you believe that year to year variations in termperature discredits a trend? Do you understand why 1998 was so warm?
Peer review biased by group-think is de facto censoring. My paper is primarily a presentation in graphs of referenced data that is provided by government agencies. The graphs make the data easier to comprehend. This paper has not been censored. It looks mostly at global climate history before significant temperature rise stopped in 1998.
Peer review is censoring?? LOL!! Peer review is a procedure to establish proper academic rigor, provide disinterested critiques, subject a hypothesis to prepublication examination of logic, and thus to the presentation of a final product that isn’t, to be polite, wacky. You just placed yourself among the wacky - congratulations.
March 27, 2008
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last ~ Winston Churchill
Since 2003, Europe — not the United States — has experienced a series of attacks, and near-constant threats, ranging from bombed subways and rail stations to…
rlh seems to know what peer review is SUPPOSED to mean. Apparently ‘biased by group-think’ is unclear. Group-think occurs when an editor avoids people that disagree with him/her.
As the atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase and average earth temperature doesn’t, many people are going to look more and more foolish.
Matthew
Have you considered the fact that the aarp might be trying to do something that will have long range benefits, beyond the scope of our lives, affecting our children? They are a large organization now, over 30 million I think, a powerful lobby.