Roy W. Spencer: My Top 10 Annoyances in the Climate Change Debate
o n z o b
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/my-top-10-annoyances-in-the-climate-change-debate/
November 28th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Well, maybe not my top 10.but the first ten that I thought of.
1. The term "climate change" itself. Thirty years ago, the term "climate
change" would have meant
natural climate change, which is what climate scientists mostly studied
before that time. Today, it
has come to mean human-caused climate change. The public, and especially the
media, now think that
"climate change" implies WE are responsible for it. Mother Nature, not Al
Gore, invented real
climate change.
2. "Climate change denier". A first cousin to the first annoyance. Again,
thirty years ago,
"climate change denier" would have meant someone who denied that the
Medieval Warm Period ever
happened. Or that the Little Ice Age ever happened. What a kook fringe thing
to believe that would
have been! And now, those of us who still believe in natural climate change
are called "climate
change deniers"?? ARGHH.
3. The appeal to peer-reviewed and published research. I could go on about
this for pages. Yes, it
is important to have scientific research peer-reviewed and published. But as
the Climategate
e-mails have now exposed (and what many scientists already knew), we
skeptics of human-caused
climate change have "peers" out there who have taken it upon themselves to
block our research from
being published whenever possible. We know there are editors of scientific
journals who assist in
this by sending our papers to these gatekeepers for the purpose of killing
the paper. We try not to
complain too much when it happens because it is difficult to prove
motivation. I believe the day is
approaching when it will be time to make public the evidence of biased peer
review.
4. Appeal to authority. This is the last refuge of IPCC scientists. Even
when we skeptics get
research published, it is claimed that our research is contradicted by other
research the IPCC has
encouraged, helped to get funded, and cherry-picked to support its case.
This is dangerous for the
progress of science. If the majority opinion of scientists was always
assumed to be correct, then
most major scientific advances would not have occurred. The appeal to
authority is also a standard
propaganda technique.
5. Unwillingness to debate. I have lectured to many groups where the
organizers could not find
anyone from the IPCC side who would present the IPCC's side of the story. I
would be happy to
debate any of the IPCC experts on the central issues of human-caused versus
natural climate change,
and feedbacks in the climate system. They know where to find me. (For the
most common tactic used
by the IPCC in a debate, see annoyance #4.)
6. A lack of common sense. Common sense can be misleading, of course. But
when there is
considerable uncertainty, sometimes it is helpful to go ahead and use a
little anyway. Example: It
is well known that the net effect of clouds is to cool the Earth in response
to radiant heating by
the sun. But when it comes to global warming, all climate models do just the
opposite.change clouds
in ways that amplify radiative warming. While this is theoretically
possible, it is critical to
future projections of global warming that the reasons why models do this be
thoroughly understood.
Don't believe it just because group think within the climate modeling
community has decided it
should be so.
7. Use of climate models as truth. Because there are not sufficient
high-quality,
globally-distributed, and long term observations of climate fluctuations to
study and better
understand the climate system with, computerized climate models are now
regarded as truth. The
modelers' belief that climate models represent truth is evident from the
language they use: climate
models are not "tested" with real data, but instead "validated". The
implication is clear: if the
data do not agree with the models, it must be the data's fault.
8. Claims that climate models have been tested. A hallmark of a good theory
is that it should
predict something which, upon further investigation, turns out to be
correct. To my knowledge,
climate models have not yet forecasted anything of significance. And even if
they did, models are
ultimately being relied upon to forecast global warming (aka 'climate
change'). As far as I can
tell, there is no good way to test them in this regard. And please don't
tell me they can now
replicate the seasons quite well. Even the public could predict the seasons
before there were
climate models. Predicting future warming (or cooling) is slightly more
difficult, but not by much:
a flip a coin will be correct 50% of the time.
9. The claim that the IPCC is unbiased. The IPCC was formed for the explicit
purpose of building
the case for global warming being our fault, not for investigating the
possibility that it is just
part of a natural cycle in the climate system. Their accomplices in
government have bought off the
scientific community for the purpose of achieving specific policy goals.
10. The claim that reducing CO2 emissions is the right thing to do anyway.
Oh, really? What if life
on Earth (which requires CO2 for its existence) is actually benefiting from
more CO2? Nature is
always changing anyway.why must we always assume that every single change
that humans cause is
necessarily a bad thing? Even though virtually all Earth scientists believe
this, too, it is not
science, but religion. I'm all for religion.but not when it masquerades as
science.
Here's Johnny
> Good explanations of climate junk science at
> http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
> http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/my-top-10-annoyances-in-the-climate-change-debate/
>
> about this for pages. Yes, it
> is important to have scientific research peer-reviewed and published.
> But as the Climategate
> e-mails have now exposed (and what many scientists already knew), we
> skeptics of human-caused
> climate change have "peers" out there who have taken it upon
> themselves to block our research from
> being published whenever possible. We know there are editors of
> scientific journals who assist in
> this by sending our papers to these gatekeepers for the purpose of
> killing the paper. We try not to
> complain too much when it happens because it is difficult to prove
> motivation. I believe the day is
> approaching when it will be time to make public the evidence of
> biased peer review.
The easiest way to prove this is to publish a paper as submitted, along with
the reviewers' notes. The reveiwers should be easily exposed as simply
blocking the paper, if the paper isn't shit.
Failing to do this is nothing more than baseless whinging. It is a hallmark
of fringe kooks to claim nobody will let their "science" enter the
mainstream. Intelligent Design is very good at this claim, yet somehow when
asked to put up or shut up, they do neither.
Let this guy put up or shut up.
Here's Johnny
> http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
> http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/my-top-10-annoyances-in-the-climate-change-debate/
>
> 5. Unwillingness to debate. I have lectured to many groups where the
> organizers could not find
> anyone from the IPCC side who would present the IPCC's side of the
> story. I would be happy to
> debate any of the IPCC experts on the central issues of human-caused
> versus natural climate change,
> and feedbacks in the climate system. They know where to find me. (For
> the most common tactic used
> by the IPCC in a debate, see annoyance #4.)
Reputable, media-savvy scientist know better than to debate with a kook. It
looks great on the kook's resume, not so much on the scientist's.
It also falsely inflates the kook's view with the semblance of
respectability. The casual observer might think the two points of view are
equally respectable. This is the major reason real scientists don't debate
pseudoscientists, and this is a major pointing finger, if not smoking gun,
that the auther is just such a kook.
Here's Johnny
> http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
> http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/my-top-10-annoyances-in-the-climate-change-debate/
>
> But when there is
> considerable uncertainty, sometimes it is helpful to go ahead and use
> a little anyway. Example: It
> is well known that the net effect of clouds is to cool the Earth in
> response to radiant heating by
> the sun. But when it comes to global warming, all climate models do
> just the opposite.change clouds
> in ways that amplify radiative warming. While this is theoretically
> possible, it is critical to
> future projections of global warming that the reasons why models do
> this be thoroughly understood.
> Don't believe it just because group think within the climate modeling
> community has decided it
> should be so.
If he's referring to adiabatic cooling, then he's being misleading. Yes,
evaporation does lead to localised cooling for the vapour itself, as it
rises to lower pressure. And yes, it does cause cooling in its original
environment, as evaporating water molecules take energy with them as they
escapes liquid form.
But neither of these cause cooling for the system itself. These are
localised - the energy remains in the system.
Meanwhile, clouds themselves have the effect of increasing solar radiation.
Therefore, they do indeed have the effect of "amplifying radiative warming".