MSM : Crackpot Vs. Scientist

Crackpot

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.

Scientist

Bill McKibben wanted to make sure he warned his audience of one thing: he is the “bummer outer” of people, he said.

“I do apologize for being depressing,” McKibben said. “You all have had a nice day and now you come and listen to me and that will be that. I apologize in advance for that.”

McKibben said global warming is the single greatest problem humankind has ever faced, it will take a global movement to stop global warming from getting even worse, and the key to that movement is fighting the fossil fuel industry — or, more specifically, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

McKibben said he thought he would be content being a writer. Then he went to Bangladesh as a reporter and there was an outbreak of a disease caused by a certain mosquito. McKibben was infected and he said the hot temperatures that occurred because of global warming is perfect for mosquitoes. He said it was the sickest he has ever been and as he sat in the hospital ward he thought that it was not fair the people of Bangladesh were paying for a climate problem they have not caused.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

89 Responses to MSM : Crackpot Vs. Scientist

  1. Tony Duncan says:

    Steve,

    OMG. You have FOUND two scientists with ALL the credentials necessary to expose Hansen’s fraud about the temperature adjustments. WRITE to them and show them your proof of Hansen’s totally arbitrary re-adjutment.
    Once THEY learn of this they will surely support your request for writing a paper to expose Hansen’s fraud .

    I TOLD you it would be easy!

  2. The crackpots with their RANDOM capitalization ARE out to-day.

  3. Justa Joe says:

    AGW alarmism is lead by a rogues’ gallery of bizarre characters.

    People have been being infected by misquito bourne diseases since men have existed. Is it normal to get sick and then immediately scape goat one’s philisophical adversaries for it?

    • Grumpy Grampy ;) says:

      It is normal for some to see power plants as fire breathing dragons and coal trains as feeding the dragons!

  4. omnologos says:

    there’s just too many people willing to provide carte-blanche if one is acting for a “good cause”. Truth among climate scientists and activists is obviously underrated.

  5. DERise says:

    Led the organization of 350.org. Produced something as uplifting an sprititual as “No Pressure” and people might infer that he is a crackpot. Sigh, what is the world comming to. sarc off/

  6. J Calvert N says:

    From wiki’s Bill Mckibben entry – “Occupation: Environmental Extremist and writer”. (I love the capital letters!)
    And he went to Harvard! Wiki: “As an undergraduate at Harvard University, he was president of The Harvard Crimson newspaper. Immediately after college he joined The New Yorker as a staff writer and wrote much of the Talk of the Town column from 1982 to early 1987.” Strange then that the wiki doesn’t mention any qualifications.

  7. nigelf says:

    Justa Joe, my thoughts exactly when I read the story. “I contracted Malaria while in Bangladesh so it must be caused by man made global warming.” Does he realize how stupid that sounds and is? To imply that he wouldn’t have gotten it and there would be no Malaria there had we not caused the warming?
    Astounding in it’s lack of intellect! It also shows how little he thinks of his audience but that aspect probably flew right over their tiny heads.

  8. nofreewind says:

    I’m reading at one of McKibben’s book.
    Here are a few of his ideas. Everyone should get used to being poor, of course except. I wonder if he gives away everything he makes above 50K/year?
    Then he has this quaint idea of how we should all each have our own vegetable gardens and grow our own food. He uses the highly successful model that is already in place in Cuba as an example! Oh, what a wonderful world he wishes for us. When we have bugs or sick plants each so many people will have their very own special guy to call who will tell them exactly how to fix the problem. This is after i just got done an hour in the hot sun fighting weeds in my own gardens (flowers).

    • Grumpy Grampy ;) says:

      The main reason that farming is commercialized is that large scale farming is more efficient and spreading it over the continent is insurance for regional disasters. I have enough land to support a number of families if necessary but buy most of my fruits and vegetables from the local farmers or at the store.

  9. nigelf says:

    I remember Bill Gray saying in the ninties how the global temps. would start to fall once the PDO went to it’s cool phase and what was he called? A crackpot. Senile old man who’s stuck in the past.
    The PDO is now in it’s cool phase and global temps. have started falling. Are the name-callers apologetic about this? No, they still insist temps. are rising.
    Deniers of reality.

  10. nofreewind says:

    Tony, do you really want to learn how this works? Go back to near the beginning, educate yourself about the hockey stick, here.
    http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/22/ohio-state-presentation/
    download and print out the 1mb one for simplicity.
    This is how unscientific our scientists are. Mann does these tree ring measurement, however the measurements show climate cooling the past 35 yrs when everyone agrees it has warmed somewhat, .4C. We have good data since the mid 70’s. But somehow his data shows the climate “stable” from 1000 AD to 1975, so he creates a graph out of that data. But since the recent tree ring data diverges from the pre 1975 data, he throws it out, and just plugs in the “better thermometer” data which fits his theory more. Then scroll through the pdf and look at the scraggly trees he uses. This is just one very small examples(one of literally thousands) of where it is obvious these guys are crooks. Most of his tree ring data is very from specific places, Russia and Colorado, yet he extrapolates that to the world. What about the MediEvil Warming period where it is fact that grapes were grown throughout England? Oh well they say, that was just a regional event.
    It may be very very hard for you to understand and accept that all these people who you think are good are actually bad, and instead of trying to help you, they are simply trying to take your money. It’s a fact that anyone with a discriminating mind that cares about what is really true, (instead of politics) should easily determine in a few hours work.
    Don’t worry about staying DUMB though. You are in the majority and have plenty of company.

  11. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Tony Duncan,

    why are you wasting people’s time with your ridiculous comments?

  12. omnologos says:

    I don’t want to hear from Spencer how he disproves Hansen, I want to hear from Hansen what if anything would disprove Hansen. But I won’t hold my breath as Gavin has said time and again that no observation will ever disprove Hansen and CAGW.

  13. Andy WeissDC says:

    Do you really believe than no one had ever seen a mosquito in Bangladesh before CO2 got to 350 ppm? That is totally absurd.

  14. Tony Duncan says:

    Wow,

    I leave my copmputer for a couple of hours and am flooded with all sorts of substantive corrections of my erroneous views. no time to address all of them, but I will sit in penenace and carefully go over my sins when I have recovered.

    quickly,

    Omnologos, Science works from other scientists examining each others work.
    I have actually heard Gavin say that he is totally open to evidence that contradicts his and Hansens pessimistic view of climate change. he says that each argument against ACC ends up falling apart, but if a valid one came along, after it was checked out, he would certainly accept it.

    • J Calvert N says:

      Re: “I have actually heard Gavin say that he is totally open to evidence that contradicts his and Hansens pessimistic view of climate change. he says that each argument against ACC ends up falling apart, but if a valid one came along, after it was checked out, he would certainly accept it.@

      Ahhh – but that is not what he really meant is it?

      • Grumpy Grampy ;) says:

        Those clowns are still trying to falsify natural climate variations. They do not even have a theory to be falsified so there is no need to. They have suppositions based on wild a guesses that have been blown all out of proportion. No science involved!

    • omnologos says:

      I have actually heard Gavin say that he is totally open to evidence

      That doesn’t cut it. Gavin (or Hansen) should openly declare what they would classify as evidence that contradicts his and Hansens pessimistic view of climate change. Otherwise expect plenty of post-facto rationalizations.

      I discussed it long ago here. And if you go to RC’s Jan 11, 2008 “Uncertainty, noise and the art of model-data comparison” this is the most you will read from Mr Schmidt (and just in the comments):

      I spend almost all of my time comparing observations with predicted variables […] The point being made is that each comparison has varying degrees of usefulness […] A bigger point is that ‘predictions’ from climate models do not just mean predicting what is going to happen next year or the next decade. They also predict variables and relationships between variables that haven’t yet been measured or analysed – that is just as valid a falsifiability criteria.

      Alas, nobody has since come up with any of those as-yet-unmeasured-in-2008 variables and relationships between variables.

    • rw says:

      What else is he going to say? It’s what he does that matters. (Like excluding ‘denialist’ comments on his website. That doesn’t sound like openness to argument – or is that what he means by arguments “falling apart”?)

      What does he say about Lake Powell? (Is he going to change the cover of his book for the next edition? [Or is he expecting all that extra snow to “fall apart”?])

      • Tony Duncan says:

        RW,
        no time but I couldn’t resist this.

        As far as RC excluding denialist comments. No sane person would engage the incredible volume of irrelevant and bizarre comments that no scientist would waste their time with that appear on this and other sites I have seen. This post is a prime example. I ask Steve to supply scientific evidence from scientists who DENY substantial climate change due to CO2 and not only does he not provide it, but the post is deluged with dozens of comments, most of which are off topic or ludicrous. It would be impossible to have any rational discussion of any topic if these comments were allowed just to get the occasional comment that had value

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        good illustration of my point,

        you supply me with TONS of very clear data, that is SCIENTIFIC in nature. I ask you for the scientific interpretation of that data from scientific sources and from experts who share your basic premises and you ignore that , and typically respond with the above comment.

        • I am sorry that you are unable to interpret for yourself. I have a better idea. You get one of your climate scientist friends to show how my interpretation is flawed.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        it is pretty sad that you can’t get any of your climate scientist friends to verify your assertion of fraud by Hansen. I am perfectly willing to read their opinions, rather than your appeal to (non) authority.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        An I JUST got this comment from phil on another post that perfectly illustrates my point. No sane person would allow a comment like the below if they were trying to have a sane discussion of an issue.

        <<PhilJourdan says:
        August 1, 2011 at 12:53 pm
        Tony Duncan says:
        July 30, 2011 at 5:39 am

        That is not an “observation”, that is an “opinion” not supported by the facts so far presented.

        No, that is your assumption. Until verified (or through clairvoyance), that is all it is. Nice Ad hominems too.

        Do you have complete access to the entire NASA budget including black items? If not, that is a bad leap of faith on your part.

        The only difference between Steve’s Ad hominems and yours, are yours are couched in diplo-speak. However, since I am one of the stupid unwashed masses you are directing that to, I do take offense. And would remind you (since you claim Christianity), those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves shall be exalted. Your ego is the size of Manhattan, and knows no bounds.>>

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        Proving you wrong. you mean proving that Hansen did not fraudulently adjust temperatures in order to make the past cooler and the present hotter?
        you are alleging a serious crime and so far have supplied no evidence of it. This seems to me to be an issue of tremendous importance if it is true, and worth the input of climate scientists who have publicly repeatedly gone on record opposing Hansen’s and most other scientists arguments for CO2 induced climate change.

        Normally I don’t bother the climate scientists i do have contact with, but since Steve is being so obstinant about refusing to provide any support for his allegation from any of them, I will do so.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        fascinating. i use the word fraud over and over again, and now, since you will provide me with no scientist to support your contention, and i reluctantly agree to bother someone I know, you get all shy about me using the word.

        Steve, what word would you like me to use to describe someone manipulating data in order to get a preconceived outcome?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        again, WHAT a devastating response. First off he is not a friend. it is someone I have met who is willing to respond to me if I don’t bother him with stupid questions.

        But I want to be accurate in my question. I don’t think Steinbeck is really a scientific parameter. But maybe at least as good as an african travel reporter. Please tell me what I should be asking about if not fraud? From your description, it looks, talks, walks and tastes like fraud. Other people here seem to think that is what you are talking about, and you don;t contradict them.

      • glacierman says:

        Tony D. Says: “Steve, what word would you like me to use to describe someone manipulating data in order to get a preconceived outcome?”

        How about Hansenomics?

        Mannipulation?

        I am sure theres a lot more.

    • Sundance says:

      Tony, do you think Gavin has formulated a means of testing Hansen’s model? The Feynman approach requires scientists to determine parameters of falsification for a hypothesis. Others have established such parameters, and are constantly attacked for doing so, and Gavin and the hockey team are the usual suspects in leading the attacks.

      One of the parameters that several scientists are tracking is that James Hansen’s GISS model projects that ocean heat in the top 700 meters would accumulate at a rate of .67*10**22 Joules per year. Argo ocean buoys began measuring ocean heat down to 700 meters starting in 2003 and here is what the buoys report:

      2003 ~0 Joules
      2004 ~0 Joules
      2005 ~0 Joules
      2006 ~0 Joules
      2007 ~0 Joules
      2008 ~0 Joules
      2009 ~0 Joules
      2010 ~0 Joules
      2011 ~0 Joules through June 2011

      So we’re missing 5.36+ Joules and for Hansen’s GISS model to be correct on a decadal scale, a heat increase that corresponds to a radiative imbalance of roughly 4 Watts/meter must occur over the next 18 months. Since the Argo buoys have not detected any downward heat movement from the surface to lower depths, it would appear that such heat accumulation as outlined by the Hansen model, will not be found. It would require a 4 Watts/meter increase in surface heat over the next 18 months for Hansen’s model to made whole again.

      As I have posted the MET scientists’ paper from 2009 showing that existing IPCC GCMs are already falsified at the 90% level and that if no significant warming (roughly .3C degrees of global temperature rise) occurs between now and 2013, that 90% level will increase to 95%, and the IPCC models will have been falsified. I don’t see enough warming in the pipeline to for .3C degrees GMST rise by 2013 so my faith continues to wane (I was a true believer).

      I’m sure Gavin and the hockey team will be the very first group to accepting that if the models are wrong they are wrong. 🙂

      • glacierman says:

        Sunnyd,
        Is this the raw, unajusted data, or the value added data? You know they have to pencil whip the data into submission. When they get done, it will very Scenario A no problem.

        If the team is in charge of this data and let it out into the public without adding value first, they really do have a problem in their defense.

  15. Sparks says:

    A planets atmosphere does not behave as a “greenhouse” it is held in place by the gravitational pull of the planet and not enclosed by the top layers of the atmosphere, comparing the Earths atmosphere to a green house is a bad Analogy and poor science, that’s completely different from making the comparison between the effect of a green house and the effect of trapped gases under a source of energy, that’s why it’s called an effect.
    If we were to fill one green house with Co2 and another with fresh air, the green house that was filled with Co2 would be warmer, what I understand from this experiment and in comparison to Earths atmosphere is that our atmosphere is not contained in a “greenhouse” of any kind.
    Why is it that AGW proponents/believers who are alarmed that a trace gas in the Earths atmosphere could trap an ever increasing amount of heat that hasn’t materialized in over 30 years of hype, They never seem to be relived to hear that there is more to the science and a whole other side that contradicts the man made climate change, the arguments being put forward is as if they need there to be an extremely sensitive atmosphere.
    The predicted man made global warming simply didn’t happen, get over it. the hypothesis is wrong, move on evolve and adapt. I will not accept the other hypothesis either, you know, the one about aerosols counteracting Co2, causing an equilibrium “despite man made global warming”, this is ridiculous, and what pathological lairs do when found out, They Make up more lies on the fly that fit their original Lie. it all adds up so it must be true?

    🙂

  16. Gary Hladik says:

    “…and there was an outbreak of a disease caused by a certain mosquito. McKibben was infected…”

    Dang! I didn’t know insanity was a mosquito-borne disease!

    Washington, DC must be completely infested by the little critters…

    • omnologos says:

      Don’t be so harsh Gary… Nobody, NOBODY could survive several years of writing “Talk of the Town” for the New Yorker without some sort of brain damage.

  17. omnologos says:

    why don’t you give it a try Tony…take any new RC post, get a perfectably reasonable comment and question by anybody here, see it disappear for no discernible reason.

    besides if they don’t like the music they shouldn’t be dancing. How likely is it that only and all the rabidly alarmist sites are the ones censoring like mad?

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Omno,

      my first though is because they are not insane.

      I see lots of comments and reasonable questions on RC, and I see lots of responses and reasonable responses. I do NOT see the bizarre irrelevant and patently bonkers responses that I see here. Some of which are on this post

      • omnologos says:

        In fact it’s not what you see that should get you worried. It’s what you don’t. It’s the perfectly good and well-natured DELETED comments that mark a website of “rabid alarmism”.

        You haven’t yet explained why certain stuff happens at RC, Tamino, SkepScience, etc etc but never at Curry’s, Pielke Jr’s, or Watts’ or McIntyre’s for that matters.

  18. gator69 says:

    I worked together with a warmist to see if we could get a reasonable and on topic comment posted on RC from a skeptical viewpoint. I wrote out the post and emailed it to the warmist for him to review and edit. He did not believe that a rational, scientific and on topic post would be deleted. He tried to post the comment, after he did completed his editing, and it was deleted. The warmist inquired as to why and was told the comment was ‘off topic’, pure and utter BS.

  19. gator69 says:

    “”With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said, ‘We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period’.”
    Dr David Deming

  20. gator69 says:

    We need to get some broad based support,
    to capture the public’s imagination…
    So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
    make simplified, dramatic statements
    and make little mention of any doubts…
    Each of us has to decide what the right balance
    is between being effective and being honest.”

    – Prof. Stephen Schneider,
    Stanford Professor of Climatology,
    lead author of many IPCC reports

  21. gator69 says:

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
    Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
    we will be doing the right thing in terms of
    economic and environmental policy.”

    – Timothy Wirth,
    President of the UN Foundation

  22. gator69 says:

    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
    climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
    bring about justice and equality in the world.”

    – Christine Stewart,
    former Canadian Minister of the Environment

  23. gator69 says:

    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
    on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”

    – Prof. Chris Folland,
    Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

  24. gator69 says:

    “The models are convenient fictions
    that provide something very useful.”

    – Dr David Frame,
    climate modeler, Oxford University

  25. gator69 says:

    “I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
    on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”

    – Al Gore,
    Climate Change activist

  26. gator69 says:

    “It doesn’t matter what is true,
    it only matters what people believe is true.”

    – Paul Watson,
    co-founder of Greenpeace

  27. gator69 says:

    “…climate policy is redistributing the world’s wealth… it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.”

    Ottmar Edenhofer, German economist, IPCC Co-chair of Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change

  28. PhilJourdan says:

    Tony Duncan says:
    August 1, 2011 at 12:41 pm
    RW,
    no time but I couldn’t resist this.

    As far as RC excluding denialist comments. No sane person would engage the incredible volume of irrelevant and bizarre comments that no scientist would waste their time with that appear on this and other sites I have seen.

    Nice try. But then that is what the alarmists are doing. Exagerating to the extreme, and then claiming harrassment. The fact of the matter is, when approached by lettered scientists with reasoned and reviewed work – they conspired to bury it. So do not throw out another strawman. You are getting monotonous at that. When they start addressing and debating any work, ANY work, they can start to claim overwork. But as they do not, they cannot, and your statement would not scare a crow.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *