1. illconsidered
  2. Another week of GW News, July 24, 2011

Another week of GW News, July 24, 2011

By illconsidered on July 26, 2011.

Logging the Onset of The Bottleneck Years


This weekly posting is brought to you courtesy of H. E. Taylor. Happy reading, I hope you enjoy this week's Global Warming news roundup

skip to bottom

Another week of Climate Instability News

Information is not Knowledge...Knowledge is notWisdom

July 24, 2011

co2now gfxskeptisci app gfx

Low Key Plug

My first novel Water was published in Canada May, 2007. The American release was in October. An Introductionto the novel is available, along with the Unpublished Forewordand the Launch Talk(which includes some quotations), An overview of my writing is available here.

<regards>

-het

P.S. Recent postings can be found in the week archive and the ancient postings can be accessed here, which should open to this.

I notice moyhu has set up a monster index to old AWoGWN on AFTIC.

"A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit." -Greek proverb

Tags
News
Roundup
climate change
climate change news
climate disruption
global warming
global warming news
HET
Categories
Environment

More like this

Thanks for the link, Cop.

First off, it was Roy Spencer using NASA data--not NASA itself.

Second, Dr. Spencer has a track record of flying head long into scientific consensuses, such as his adamant insistence that Intelligent Design and the Biblical account of creation is as believable as Darwinism.

That being said,

(1) I sincerely *hope* he's right.
(2) We must always be open to the possibility that even an inductive reasoner such as Dr. Spencer *is* in fact, right. He has been on the make for the disproof of AGW for a decade, which hurts my assessment of his objectivity but does not necessarily disprove him.
(3) If he is right, the truth will eventually penetrate the scientific community. I admit to my doubts given his track record, but again, we must be open to anything.

Copernic

You answered your own question at post #1.

It was written by one of the Heartland Institute's executives - therefore it is nothing more than disengenuous, lying, cherry-picked, pseudo-science, crap.

And I say that without even hurting my brain by looking at it.

Sorry â I should not have dismissed the study so easily, despite the complete lack of credibility of the source. Letâs see what other climate scientists think of the work:

â....mainstream climate scientists dismissed the research as unrealistic and politically motivated....â

â...It is not newsworthy," Daniel Murphy, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cloud researcher, wrote in an email to LiveScience....â

â..."He's taken an incorrect model, he's tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct," Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, said of Spencer's new study....â

â..."I cannot believe it got published," said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research....â

â...."If you want to do a story then write one pointing to the ridiculousness of people jumping onto every random press release as if well-established science gets dismissed on a dime," Gavin Schmidt said. "Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data...â

â...Other researchers pointed to flaws in Spencer's paper, including an "unrealistic" model placing clouds as the driver of warming and a lack of information about the statistical significance of the temperatures observed by the satellites. Statistical significance is the likelihood of results being real, as opposed to chance fluctuations unrelated to the other variables in the experiment....â

â....Spencer agreed that his work could not disprove the existence of manmade global warming....â