Leading scientist / climate change denier was paid by energy companies

[Doc Savage Fan]

.... A satellite to be launched into space... would have been on-board a space shuttle during reentry? I'm having trouble following your logic there.

Oops....good catch!

 

[shira]

With the launch of the DSCVR satellite, on its way to L1, I think the science will be even more settled as it is now. The DSCVR satellite will be able to measure the amount of light that's re-radiated from the Earth from the sunny side. In essence, it will be able to measure the rate the Earth is receiving energy from the sun, and the rate it's losing energy, and calculate from the difference the degree of warming on the Earth. The mission was originally mothballed by Dubya.

Trying to sway committed climate-deniers with scientific evidence is a fool's errand. Deniers will claim that the satellite has bad circuitry, or that the satellite has intentionally been mis-programmed to record erroneous data, or that the difference between absorbed and irradiated energy can be explained by mechanisms other than greenhouse gasses.

Just as ISIS looks at the Qur'an and imagines justification for sexual slavery and the beheading of innocents, climate deniers will continue to twist climate data into exactly the pretzel they want.

 

[shira]

I ignored the argument because it is a trog trap. I cant argue for a group of people I don't represent. What is the problem with criticizing the research based on the research and not on where the funding originates? Your tobacco example. Was it discredited because of the funding? Or because the research was faulty?

Climate deniers cherry-pick the research to confirm their bias, and then claim that the much greater research on the other side is trumped up.

YOU say research on research is what YOU want. Then how come you're not firmly convinced of climate change? If it's just the research you're looking at and not the conspiracy claims, the case is open and shut.

So why don't you explain to us why your think climate change is overblown?

 

[Kev]

I ignored the argument because it is a trog trap. I cant argue for a group of people I don't represent. What is the problem with criticizing the research based on the research and not on where the funding originates? Your tobacco example. Was it discredited because of the funding? Or because the research was faulty?

OK well if you want to criticize the research:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/u...ate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

Though often described on conservative news programs as a “Harvard astrophysicist,” Dr. Soon is not an astrophysicist and has never been employed by Harvard. He is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering. He has received little federal research money over the past decade and is thus responsible for bringing in his own funds, including his salary.

Though he has little formal training in climatology, Dr. Soon has for years published papers trying to show that variations in the sun’s energy can explain most recent global warming. His thesis is that human activity has played a relatively small role in causing climate change.

Many experts in the field say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change.

Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, a NASA division that studies climate change, said that the sun had probably accounted for no more than 10 percent of recent global warming and that greenhouse gases produced by human activity explained most of it.

“The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless,” Dr. Schmidt said.

The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, whose scientists focus largely on understanding distant stars and galaxies, routinely distances itself from Dr. Soon’s findings. The Smithsonian has also published a statement accepting the scientific consensus on climate change.

 

[Jaskalas]

Trying to sway committed climate-deniers with scientific evidence is a fool's errand. Deniers will claim that the satellite has bad circuitry, or that the satellite has intentionally been mis-programmed to record erroneous data, or that the difference between absorbed and irradiated energy can be explained by mechanisms other than greenhouse gasses.

That's funny... your camp mentioning satellite data. Same data that does NOT show "warmest year ever". Same data which shows the pause. Same data not infilled with urban heat.

Let's stick to that data, shall we?

 

[shira]

OK well if you want to criticize the research:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/u...ate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

Though often described on conservative news programs as a “Harvard astrophysicist,” Dr. Soon is not an astrophysicist and has never been employed by Harvard. He is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering. He has received little federal research money over the past decade and is thus responsible for bringing in his own funds, including his salary.

Though he has little formal training in climatology, Dr. Soon has for years published papers trying to show that variations in the sun’s energy can explain most recent global warming. His thesis is that human activity has played a relatively small role in causing climate change.

Many experts in the field say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change.

Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, a NASA division that studies climate change, said that the sun had probably accounted for no more than 10 percent of recent global warming and that greenhouse gases produced by human activity explained most of it.

“The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless,” Dr. Schmidt said.

The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, whose scientists focus largely on understanding distant stars and galaxies, routinely distances itself from Dr. Soon’s findings. The Smithsonian has also published a statement accepting the scientific consensus on climate change.

An aerospace engineer? Wow. Clearly, aerospace engineers need to know something about the air, otherwise they woudln't be able to design good airplanes. And the air gets warmer and cooler, and moves all around. So if you know a lot about how air affects airplanes, you must know something about climate. And since "something" is better than nothing, and the very best climatologists are second to none (which is the same as "nothing"), it's clear that aerospace engineers must be the very best climatologists.

No wonder Dr. Soon is such a threat to mainstream climatologists. He's clearly a genius.

 

[shira]

That's funny... your camp mentioning satellite data. Same data that does NOT show "warmest year ever". Same data which shows the pause. Same data not infilled with urban heat.

Let's stick to that data, shall we?

Only a confirmed denier would argue that if the previous year wasn't the warmest eve that proves climate change is fake. You're also struggling pretty hard to establish a "pause."

Please explain to us how you get from "warmest year ever recorded" to "not the warmest year ever recorded" to "the same temperature as the past 10 years?" Show us your data.

 

[Jaskalas]

Only a confirmed denier would argue that if the previous year wasn't the warmest eve that proves climate change is fake.

Struck a nerve, have I?
First, I never said "proves climate change is fake." Those are your words.

You're also struggling pretty hard to establish a "pause."

Second, yeah - they keep infilling surface station data with urban heat. So it continues to rise and diverge from satellite data. I've got a problem with that.

Now let's try to be clear here. Do you, or do you not trust the satellite temperature record? It would be quite odd for you to dismiss it while mocking people over DSCVR.

Please explain to us how you get from "warmest year ever recorded" to "not the warmest year ever recorded" to "the same temperature as the past 10 years?" Show us your data.

What, you're trying to deny the satellite data?
It's not "my" data, it's public and it's everywhere.http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/RSSUAHdata.png

 

[Paratus]

Struck a nerve, have I?
First, I never said "proves climate change is fake." Those are your words.

Second, yeah - they keep infilling surface station data with urban heat. So it continues to rise and diverge from satellite data. I've got a problem with that.

Now let's try to be clear here. Do you, or do you not trust the satellite temperature record? It would be quite odd for you to dismiss it while mocking people over DSCVR.



What, you're trying to deny the satellite data?
It's not "my" data, it's public and it's everywhere.http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/RSSUAHdata.png

That plot shows a roughly 1/3 degree rise in 1/3 of a century in the lower troposphere.

Looks like a temperature rise to me. What does it look like to you?


Edit: please link a graph showing the discrepancy between the ground stations and satellite data and/or ground sites measuring the same troposphere data as the satellites.

 

[fskimospy]

That plot shows a roughly 1/3 degree rise in 1/3 of a century in the lower troposphere.

Looks like a temperature rise to me. What does it look like to you?


Edit: please link a graph showing the discrepancy between the ground stations and satellite data and/or ground sites measuring the same troposphere data as the satellites.

He also seems to be linking data on the mean temperature vs. the temperature anomaly, which is a pretty bad idea from my understanding.

 

[Genx87]

Climate deniers cherry-pick the research to confirm their bias, and then claim that the much greater research on the other side is trumped up.

YOU say research on research is what YOU want. Then how come you're not firmly convinced of climate change? If it's just the research you're looking at and not the conspiracy claims, the case is open and shut.

So why don't you explain to us why your think climate change is overblown?

Where did you derive that?

You like to assume a lot of things of posters and then argue against what you believe are their opinion.

 

[Jaskalas]

That plot shows a roughly 1/3 degree rise in 1/3 of a century in the lower troposphere.

Looks like a temperature rise to me. What does it look like to you?

Looks fairly steady, if not slightly rising before a step change associated with the '98 super El Ninio. Then it's fairly steady again, if not slightly lowering since that singular change.

This analysis of the satellite record would collapse if temperatures rise above the 2000's average for a few years. Surface station data claims just that. The deviation in recent years has become an important factor for discussion.

Edit: please link a graph showing the discrepancy between the ground stations and satellite data and/or ground sites measuring the same troposphere data as the satellites.

Woodfortrees.org