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.
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!
What a maroon http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/pages/the-deniers.aspx
Steve,
Something is wrong with your links. Those all seem to be posts from some website called nationalpost. Not quite a scientific source.
Please repost the proper links.
I see. The scientists mentioned in the articles don’t actually exist. Maybe they drowned in Manhattan recently.
Steve,
I just want to see the papers these scientists have published that expose the obvious fraud of Hansen’s arbitrary corrections to the temperature record..
This posts two of the top climate scientists with the credentials and the EXACT expertise to do so. So you can just show me their papers exposing Hansen’s fraud and I will start helping you provide the truth to the rest of the world
I’ve got an idea. You go back through the tens of millions of USHCN station readings and find the exact time of day when every single one was taken, and then prove to us that the TOBS adjustments Hansen and USHCN made are valid.
I am really not interested in your gossip. It is just annoying.
Tony, I am sure these temperature adjustments by NOAA were “not arbitrary”, just UP!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
It IS really easy. The average global warming trend is three times smaller than the sigma of the distribution of the unadjusted trends of all stations in the HadCRUT set. So it is not significant.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/07/hadcrut3-30-of-stations-recorded.html
DirkH:
I just love it when you talk dirty! 😉
Steve,
NOW, I understand. The issue is just not important enough to get it right. OK. sorry to bother you.
When working with huge datasets most people are honest enough to assume a random distribution of error and not mess with it. They have made adjustments which can’t possibly be proven correct. It is junk science.
Steve,
EXACTLY. it will be easy to get a qualified scientist to point this out in a scientific paper, and totally discredit Hansen once and for all.
Hansen’s own data disproves his models and people like you ignore it, because your ears are plugged and you really aren’t interested in the truth.
Steve,
Actually I AM interested in the truth. I just don;t accept that what you say is the truth just because you or other people say it on blogs.
Show me the science that supports your position. Show me Christie and Spencer’s analysis of Hansen’s data adjustment.
Why have you never commented on the fact that GISS shows temperatures below scenario C? That obliterates the whole catastrophic global warming story, and yet it flies right past you and the climate science community without comment.
Why should Christy and Spencer analyse Hansen’s work? They have their own jobs to do .
Paul,
Are you serious? I repeat to you what I said to Steve. i guess it must not be important enough.
Steve,
there is quite a bit of dispute about your assertion regarding a 23 year old paper.
Right – the climate models can make forecasts for 100 years, but need to be completely redone every two or three years. Complete stupidity.
Tony
Yes I am serious. Christy and Spencer are fully employed doing their own work. They have neither the time nor inclination to root around in someone else’s work that is not in their specialist field and in which they have do not have access to the data in order to try and prove Hansen has made a mistake.
Now that you mention it, is Roy Spencer on that list of 1000 skeptical scientists on the Inhofe list? Or the list of 450 skeptical scientists that Steve Schneider for his PNAS article?
Both and more!
Tony here is an admission from Retro Ruedy at GISS, obtained under FOIA, that their temperature data is not very good and that they are only concerned about their models rather than accurate temperature data. Retro Ruedy recommends using other sources of temperature data if you want accurate data. Personally I’ve taken Retro Ruedy’s advice and ignore Hansen’s temperature data.
http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2010/03/GISS-says-CRU-Better0001.pdf
Sundance,
thank you for providing actual documentation of something ( I hope that deosn;t get you into too much trouble with all the others. It is an interesting email, but it does not shed any light on the question of Hansen deliberately manipulating data in order to make the past cooler than it actually was.
You hold Hansen up to the lowest imaginable standard, indicating that you have no respect for him.
Steve,
no I hold YOU to the lowest standard imaginable. I continue to pay attention to all your comments when they almost never address the point I am making and almost never supply any factual basis for your contentions.
What can i say. I like you. I don;t treat everyone who wastes so much time with as much patience as i do you.
and I do have a full day tomorrow. Because the US has such an atrocious health care system, I have to spend the next few days untangling the bureaucratic mess that we have because American politicians are unwilling to allow a non insane universal coverage.
Maybe you should start your own blog, since you have this constant need to try to change the subject.
Steven, I see your favorite juggling ass clown Bill Nye wannabee is on the rag again. you should tell her there’s an app for that.
http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=there%20is%20an%20app%20for%20that&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA
The crackpots with their RANDOM capitalization ARE out to-day.
Stark,
are you calling Spencer and Christie crackpots? Aha, you must be a provocateur! Outed another for you Steve.
Yes, of course. It’s a terrific violation of Standard English to capitalise the first letter of proper nouns.
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?
It is normal for some to see power plants as fire breathing dragons and coal trains as feeding the dragons!
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.
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/
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.
Gossip columnist is plenty of qualification for what he is doing.
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.
Luckily McKibben was able to interpret those feelings correctly … Loss of sequestered CO2
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).
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.
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.
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.
Tony could also take Prof Muller’s word for it, Muller believes in AGW (because he has been repeatedly deceived) but has discovered his ‘colleague’s’ are fudging the numbers. Watch as he says some alarmist scientists work is not worth reading. He also says the climategate email were leaked, and not hacked. Hear him speak of ‘peer review’. Poor Tony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8BQpciw8suk
Tony Duncan,
why are you wasting people’s time with your ridiculous comments?
Because he has the freedom to post his opinion, unlike other sites that would delete posts form people they do not agree with.
You can probably find the answer in one of those books on ego defense that Mr. D. claims are on his reading list.
Tony lives on the government dole – he is paid to waste time (the broken window concept of economic growth).
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.
Do you really believe than no one had ever seen a mosquito in Bangladesh before CO2 got to 350 ppm? That is totally absurd.
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.
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?
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!
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):
Alas, nobody has since come up with any of those as-yet-unmeasured-in-2008 variables and relationships between variables.
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”?])
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
I supply you with tons of very clear data, and you say you are unable to interpret it. Sounds like a personal problem
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.
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.
You can do better than that. You claim to be friends with “actual climate scientists” Put them to work proving me wrong.
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.>>
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.
You are the maroon using the word “fraud.” Your brain is disordered and dishonest. You probably would have done well in Germany during the 1930s.
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?
Get your scientist friend to prove that Steinbeck’s description of the 1930s was incorrect.
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.
Tony,
Why don’t you try doing something useful instead of your endless mindless parasitic blabber.
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.
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. 🙂
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.
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?
🙂
“…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…
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
“”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
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
“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
“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
“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
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
“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
“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace
“…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
And many more similar quotations from the Team!
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.