Climate Denying Scientist Received Millions From Industry

[alluseridsrejected]

If calling someone by their ID then then insulting them and making up unsubstantiated false statements of what they supposedly said is not "engaging" with "these people" then I do not know what you consider engaging. I will attempt to respond with more civility and I am sorry if I have offended you. You and phaZed are both great computer technicians.

Nowhere have I said there was a BIG SECRET. In fact, let me make this perfectly clear. CO2 is a green house gas. We do have SOME effect on the atmosphere. The BIG SECRET if that is what you want to call it, because it is no secret at all, is the IPCC climate models showing there is a high positive water vapor feedback leading to alarming amounts of warming are simply wrong. There is much science to back this up. The feedbacks are all wrong.

What I find interesting that while it seems acceptable to slander this scientist here, you have somehow missed much bigger news within climate science. That is the resignation letter of Rachendra Pachauri, the long time head of the IPCC.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/150224_pachauri_letter.pdf

In it he said:

"For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma. "

So, the IPCC – which we’re told to take seriously because it is a scientific body producing scientific reports – has, in fact, been led by an environmentalist on a mission. By someone for whom protecting the planet is a religious calling. Even at the end, Pachauri fails to grasp that science and religion don’t belong in the same sentence. That those on a political mission are unlikely to be upholders of rigorous scientific practice.

 

[phaZed]

@phaZed You're making that mistake I was talking about - engaging with these people. Don't do it. Every time you do they get to re-publish their delusions for other deluded fools to see. A bit like Bill Nye debating Ken Ham i.e. a complete waste of time and just gives the guy airtime.

You are right. It certainly does seem useless and yet I continue to make the mistake. Trying to get these types to engage in an honest and logical (to themselves and others) discussion or debate simply and quickly dissolves into tit-for-tat silliness, deflecting from the real issues or questions at hand. Perhaps answering in the form of questions would be better - but I fear that would be equally as futile. While I can appreciate the Nye/Ham comparison I feel that debate was great. Not because it changed either of the debater's stances, rather, because the audience can clearly see how silly things are. Dinosaurs living with homosapians - pfft. I would like to think that the audience here on TN gains the same type of humility from these postings.

is the IPCC climate models showing there is a high positive water vapor feedback leading to alarming amounts of warming are simply wrong. There is much science to back this up. The feedbacks are all wrong.

And where can we find that evidence for review?
No doubt you are referring to the Stowasser et al. (2006), Lauer et al. (2009) and Lauer et al. (2010) when referring to the cloud negative feedback?
Why is it that Dessler (2010) and Dessler and Loeb (2013) and Zhou et al. (2013) find the following (in response to the prior findings)?

Dessler and Loeb found that the relatively weak but postive short-term cloud feedbackfound in Dessler (2010) is a robust result across many different datasets. Zhou et al. found a small but slightly negative short-term cloud feedback using the MODIS data. However, the authors conclude that the cloud feedback estimate based on MODIS data is most likely biased low, and the Dessler results are most likely accurate.

and for Sherwood (2014):

Sherwood (2014) looked at the way that the various climate models handle the cloud feedback and found models with a low climate sensitivity were inconsistent with observations. It turns out that these models were incorrectly simulating water vapor being drawn up to higher levels of the atmosphere to form clouds in a warmer world. In reality (based on observations) warming of the lower atmosphere pulls water vapor away from those higher cloud-forming levels of the atmosphere and the amount of cloud formation there actually decreases. The diminished cloud cover leads to greater warming (a positive feedback), as explained by lead author Steven Sherwood

On what basis do you reject the newest findings, yet, keep hold of the older findings?
Why do you hold on to the old data when new data and research by the very scientists that provided you with the argument have now changed their stance on the issue based on their own, newer research?

"For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma. "

Surely you know the difference between a literary device and a figurative one?
Considering that much of the climate denier scene is largely funded and actively participated in by Christian Fundamentalist Right-Wing groups and think tanks (and not science), how does this affect your outlook for your side of the argument? Should it not as well be considered invalid seeing as their religious values are overshadowing the debate?
If we are to believe that the IPCC's Rachendra Pachauri truly does have a Global Warming shrine in is basement, how does that negate the science from 130 countries and thousands of independent authors and reviewers?
Why should Rachendra Pachauri's departure be news? Simply because of the last sentence of his resignation letter or because he is leaving? He was supposed to leave in 2014 but was asked to stay an extra year. This was all planned.

 

[alluseridsrejected]

And where can we find that evidence for review?
No doubt you are referring to the Stowasser et al. (2006), Lauer et al. (2009) and Lauer et al. (2010) when referring to the cloud negative feedback?
Why is it that Dessler (2010) and Dessler and Loeb (2013) and Zhou et al. (2013) find the following (in response to the prior findings)?

That is a really nice way to build a straw man, even providing papers for me with your own links and your own arguments to tear down. Why did you bother to even ask a question? No, I have provided a list of 14 different peer reviewed scientific papers to you on a different thread. There are many more. Here is the most recent of them I am referring to:

New research based on observational data suggests that the warming effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) on the Earth is much less than has been assumed.

http://www.reportingclimatescience....aper-lowers-climate-sensitivity-estimate.html
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2342-y
https://niclewis.files.wordpress.co..._clim-dyn2014_accepted-reformatted-edited.pdf

On what basis do you reject the newest findings, yet, keep hold of the older findings?
Why do you hold on to the old data when new data and research by the very scientists that provided you with the argument have now changed their stance on the issue based on their own, newer research?

Again, your words, your own straw man. I see no need to respond.

Surely you know the difference between a literary device and a figurative one?

He said environmentalism is his religion. I accept what he said.

Considering that much of the climate denier scene is largely funded and actively participated in by Christian Fundamentalist Right-Wing groups and think tanks (and not science), how does this affect your outlook for your side of the argument?

Really, it is the good Christians now is it? And to think that I thought this thread was started because it was the evil big oil money buying off scientists.

I can see this thread is going nowhere, so I will now bow out. Have a good day!

 

[phaZed]

That is a really nice way to build a straw man, even providing papers for me with your own links and your own arguments to tear down. Why did you bother to even ask a question? No, I have provided a list of 14 different peer reviewed scientific papers to you on a different thread. There are many more. Here is the most recent of them I am referring to:
http://www.reportingclimatescience....aper-lowers-climate-sensitivity-estimate.html
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2342-y
https://niclewis.files.wordpress.co..._clim-dyn2014_accepted-reformatted-edited.pdf

In order to build a straw man argument I would need to make statements, but I am only asking questions. These questions are in direct response to your answer. I am simply trying to clarify your position and question your position in a logical way. Since you are the one of whom holds the position you are the best person to answer the logical steps used in your critical thinking to arrive at your conclusions.

So, is the correct answer, "No, those are not the papers I was referring to."? Great! Shall we move on to the Curry paper? You say there are 14 papers, but those links all point to the one Curry paper. Are we to believe that you are basing your entire critical thinking process on a single paper? If the Curry paper is correct, what impact does the Curry paper predict? What facts do you see that that report leads you to? I am having difficult time extracting the actual impacts of this report if it is in fact true. Does it negate climate change or does it simply stave the problem off for a while, or what?
Also, does it not seem jaded to quote the very person who is indirectly implicated in the OP as evidence against the OP, Judith Curry?

From Curry's own remarks in the paper:

Is this paper the last word on climate sensitivity estimates? No. The uncertainty analysis in the Lewis and Curry paper relates only to the uncertainty in external forcing, surface temperature and ocean heat uptake. There remains considerable meta uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity, including how the problem is even framed.

Would it not seem irresponsible to build a final conclusion based on a paper in which it states "this is not the last word."? Would this not imply, if you do base your critical thinking on this paper, alone, that you are going against the authors' very own literal words?

He said environmentalism is his religion. I accept what he said.

So is the correct answer, "Yes, I take his statement as literal, word for word."? If so, speaking literally, where can I find information on how to join the Church of Environmentalism? What creeds and worship methods do they use as laid out in their texts? I can't seem to find a reference to Environmentalism as an established religion, perhaps you could help me with that?

Why do you not think Rachendra Pachauri is Hindu as he literally claims? Have you or someone else contacted Rachendra Pachauri to ask what he meant by that statement? If not, why should we consider an opinion from yourself as fact? Why would you, yourself consider your own opinion as fact? Would that not be close-minded to make final judgement without merit?

I still fail to see how what he said negates the science. There is a logical fallacy called ad hominem in which personal character attacks are carried out to negate a claim. This argument is fallacious because it does nothing to disprove or prove the argument and is irrelevant.

Really, it is the good Christians now is it? And to think that I thought this thread was started because it was the evil big oil money buying off scientists.

Well, yes. I'm not proclaiming that, they are by their own admissions! Don't shoot the messenger! So how am I wrong here?
How the Religious Right Is Fueling Climate Change Denial
Why Climate Change Skeptics and Evolution Deniers Joined Forces

Who is behind these programs of de-education?

The group writing much of the legislation is the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), a "nonpartisan" consortium of state legislators and business interests that gets plenty of money from the usual suspects. But the legislation has also received vital support from groups associated with the religious right. For example, the perversely named Louisiana Science Education Act, which opens the door to climate science denial in the classroom, was co-authored by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based creationist thinktank. That act also received crucial support from the Alliance Defending Freedom, the well-funded Christian legal advocacy group that has described itself as "a servant organization that provides the resources that will keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel", and which promotes a radical religious agenda in public schools.

What does religion have to do with climate science? Radical religious activists promote the anti-science bills, in part, because they also seek to undermine the teaching of evolution – another issue that supposedly has "two sides", so schools should "teach the controversy". Now, you don't have to believe that Earth was created in six hectic days in order to be skeptical about climate science, but a large number of climate science deniers also happen to be evolution deniers.

OK so, you say that we must dismiss Rachendra Pachauri because he mixed religion with science, correct? What scientific research has Rachendra Pachauri produced that we will be dismissing?

Well then, by your own measure, we must start dismissing others that do the same religion and science mixing of their own, correct? If so, can we safely dismiss a large portion of the Republican Party and their mixing? If not, why do you feel you can dismiss only the people you choose? Is it convenient?

 

[Galdorf]

The scientist still can't explain then January we had 4 years ago for the whole month temps were off by 85F hell i was wearing a t-shirt, shorts and had the AC running the avg day time temps were around 80F the grass was green and trees were budding ducks came back and Canada geese and i got a really good sun burn very unusual.
Month later in the US a group of students on a bus trip got sunburn temps there were average they we wearing winter coats but got sunburn?.

I was just getting use to warming weather this month all of a sudden temps started dropping again odd it is -20C with wind chill..

Climate change is nothing new it has been happening for millions of years hell the north and south pole use to be tropical: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5034026.stm

What really is scaring scientist atm is the melting going on in north pole and south pole satellite imaging showing it is speeding up at alarming rates:http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/18/world/antarctica-totten-glacier-warm-water/index.html

 

[TechLady]

Cherry-picking again, laughable sources again.

"Climate change is nothing new."

 

[phaZed]

Just thought that I would update this post as new evidence emerges and the OP is vindicated..

Court Docs Confirm Fossil Fuel Industry Funding Climate Change Denial

Peabody Energy, America’s biggest coalmining company, has funded at least two dozen groups that cast doubt on manmade climate change and oppose environment regulations, analysis by the Guardian reveals.

The funding spanned trade associations, corporate lobby groups, and industry front groups as well as conservative thinktanks and was exposed in court filings last month.

The coal company also gave to political organisations, funding twice as many Republican groups as Democratic ones.

Peabody, the world’s biggest private sector publicly traded coal company, was long known as an outlier even among fossil fuel companies for its public rejection of climate science and action. But its funding of climate denial groups was only exposed in disclosures after the coal titan was forced to seek bankruptcy protection in April, under competition from cheap natural gas.

It's official...
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
American Legislative Exchange Council
Americans for Prosperity
Contrarian scientists Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon
Washington lobbyist and industry strategist Richard Berman

and more.. all receiving money to thwart science and fact.

The names of a number of well-known contrarian academics also feature in the Peabody filings, including Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Soon has been funded almost entirely by the fossil fuel industry, receiving more than $1.2m from oil companies and utilities, but this was the first indication of Peabody funding.

Soon and the Smithsonian did not respond to requests for comment.

Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, two contrarian scientists who appeared for Peabody at hearings in Minnesota last month on the social cost of carbon, were also included in the bankruptcy filings.

 

[oldtech]

By all means update us - you know, Because 3 months of relative peace and quiet on this topic is just too frakking blissful to tolerate any longer.

 

[TechLady]

Good point! Maybe we should start chatting about guns again. Ha ha ha.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(No)