Still, the fundamental error of equating scientific controversy over certain methodologies is NOT the same as utterly disproving global warming, neener, neener poo-pooh. And we have to look at the relative honesty of this seeming Heartland Institute manufactured "news." James Delingpole* of the Telegraph (UK) who was instrumental in and coined the phrase "Climategate" goes for the bifecta with "Polarbeargate."
We begin at the periphery of the chain-reaction:
Dave Blount / Moonbattery: NASA Data Confirm Global Warming Is a Hoax
The atoms keep smashing — as with all chain-reactions, eventually damping down to zero, dependent on confinement and density as to the when but not the what. But when we trace the reaction back to its source, we find that the headline bears very little resemblance to reality. Here’s the beginning [Emphasis added]:
[* Remember that name.] In plainer English, essentially, we’re losing more heat by atmospheric radiation than was previously thought, and, therefore, predictive models of atmospheric “feedback” (Greenhouse effect) need to be recalculated, taking the new information from satellite observations into account.
Abstract: The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change. Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing, probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.
by Roy W. Spencer * and William D. Braswell
This is utterly normal in science. New information creates new models, as we progressively (emphasis on progress) model our Universe, to better understand and perhaps predict it. Prediction is based on the best available information, over the longest data period possible, but new twists appear all the time.
A new twist has appeared, at least, according to a scientific paper just released. Ironically, nobody involved in the science pretends that human global warming (or whatever it’s called) is a myth. The new peer-reviewed science paper suggests that a previously unknown factor needs to be factored into “in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.” I can’t find anything “revolutionary” in it. But then, I’m not a brilliant scientist like that Moonbattery fellow must be.
To critique the commonly-accepted best model is as old as science. For years, it was debated whether it was the Indian volcanic field or a large asteroid hit that produced the “extinction layer” in the fossil record of dinosaurs. But nobody argued that there wasn’t an extinction event. The asteroid impact crater was found in the Yucatan, as you’ve probably seen on the Discovery Channel.
Here is the Memeorandum Blog Swarm:
The first highlighted headline leaps out: New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism. As noted in “Mysteries of the Universe Revealed #412: Headlines,” you can’t judge an article by its headline. When you follow the link, it’s YAHOO NEWS, but when you follow further, it’s a blog at FORBES magazine, whose Steve Forbes is not noted for his moderate positions vis a vis business. Let’s skip to the end of the article. The article in question comes to us from a “James Taylor,” who is:
Good lord. Little bit of “résumé inflation” there. Before we go further, let it be noted that the innocuous “Environment & Climate News” is published BY The Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute?
We go to the Heartland Institute’s web site and there is their motto: “Free Market Solutions.” And there is the rotating flash animation of Great Freedomers, Benjamin Franklin, Booker T. Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, Thomas Paine … and Frederick Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand.
Jeepers, you don’t suppose they’re limited-government “libertarians” do you? Let’s hold that in abeyance for a moment? Let’s see what James Taylor writes, shall we?
In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth’s atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict. When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a “huge discrepancy” between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
According to his straw man, this knocks all “alarmist global warming theory” into a cocked hat.
Somehow, I kind of don’t actually believe that there is such a thing as “alarmist global warming theory” anywhere in existence other than as a slur on those with whom Taylor disagrees.
I seriously doubt that you’re going to see “Welcome Alarmist Global Warming Theory Convention” on the marquee of any Hilton Hotel anytime soon. And who pays James Taylor to have a specific point of view? The Heartland Institute. Who turn out to have just finished their own little climate conference:
The Sixth International Conference on Climate Change was held in Washington, DC on June 30 – July 1, 2011. Watch the session videos at http://climateconference.heartland.org/watch-live/
And, when you go to that page, you see this Lunch Debate:
Gee. Isn’t that the same “Roy Spencer” of the University of Alabama who co-wrote the paper above? Yup. Small world. And, I guess he was the “Con” in the “Is Global Warming Real?” (known to the moonbats as “AGW” meaning human-caused global warning). The “Pro” guy was grateful for being a sacrificial lamb, according to Freedom Pub, The Heartland Institute’s “action” blog:
AGW Believer Thanks Heartland for ‘Warm’ Welcome Dr. Scott Denning, a climatologist from Colorado State University, praised The Heartland Institute for inviting him to its Fourth International Conference on Climate Change. Denning was among just two AGW advocates who accepted Heartland’s invitation to speak. And Denning emphasized that he was glad he did.
So. I guess Heartland Institute has a definite agenda in this “global warming” debate, if they only invited two members of the “opposition” to speak. You’ll note the astonishing arrogance of the “Tag” at the bottom of each video: “RESTORING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.”
Seriously? The inescapable implication is that OTHER people (scientists) aren’t as “sciency” as the good old Ayn Rand Heartland Institute. Yippie-ki-yo-ki-yay.
And then Roy Spencer releases his paper, and then Heartland Institute’s environmental “senior fellow” publishes a slanted interpretation of his view on the Forbes Magazineblog, it’s picked up by Yahoo, and the selfsame suspects who last week jumped to the conclusion that Norway was a Jihadist Muslim Al Qaeda attack jump to the conclusion that evil AGW is conclusively disproven and Al Gore is a dork.
That’s NOT science.
Now, the other highlighted headline comes from a former colleague (1981-2006) at Colorado State University, who merely quotes the press release:
Rpielke / Climate Science: New Paper “On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth’s …
Roger Pielke only quotes the title of the monograph in his headline. But that doesn’t stop several bloggers from triumphantly citing his quote from the University of Alabama press release:
Jeff Dunetz / YID With LID: New Peer-reviewed Study “Looks Out the Window” to Prove Global Warming is Hoax
Tom Maguire / JustOneMinute: Science Moves On, With Or Without Al Gore
Bryan Preston / Pajamas Media: Uh-Oh: NASA Satellite Data Blows Big Hole in Global Warming Models
Dr. Pielke is a retired Meteorologist from CSU. And, at the end of his conclusions page on his Climate Science blog, he notes, following his objections to several climate models:
Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur.
A bit reductionist (we don’t know, therefore we don’t have any sound reasons to act, therefore, implicitly, I guess we do nothing. Our Current Policy since 2001.) But in no wise refuting the scientific fact of global climate change. That’s important. You can disagree with models and methodologies without disagreeing as to whether the fundamentals are correct. The sneaky sophistry of the blog swarmers and the Heartland Institute is that disagreement equals refutation.
Garbage. This is logical and scientific nonsense.
One paper does not necessarily alter all prior scientific observation, hypothesis and theory. Only an idiot would maintain that to be true.
Back alley science?
Still, the fundamental error of equating scientific controversy over certain methodologies is NOT the same as utterly disproving global warming, neener, neener poo-pooh. And we have to look at the relative honesty of this seeming Heartland Institute manufactured “news.” James Delingpole* of the Telegraph (UK) who was instrumental in and coined the phrase “Climategate” goes for the bifecta with “Polarbeargate.”
Which suggests that this release of a “scientific paper” conveniently plays into the hands of another manufactured controversy. I wonder who’s having a climate conference this weekend that needs to be squashed? Hmm.[* From “Warmergate? No: It’s WhiteWarmer.” See also the following day’s “Here’s Your Monday News, Early,” and, for a little investigation into Delingpole, “An Inconvenient Poof.”
Telegraph (UK) blogger James Delingpole, leading light of pushing the “scandal” meme, based on hacked emails, whose authenticity is automatically questionable, given their route to the public eye. Ain’t he a peach?]
Let’s apply the conclusion of James Taylor to James Taylor and the Heartland Institute, shall we?
… climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming
alarmismobfuscation truly are.
What’s sauce for the goose, after all. Heartland Institute from SourceWatch:
Mission According to Heartland website, its mission is “to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems”. The Institute campaigns in support of: “Common-sense environmentalism”, such as opposition to the the Kyoto Protocol aimed at countering global warming Genetically engineered crops and products; The privatization of public services; The introduction of school vouchers; The deregulation of health care insurance; and against: What it refers to as “junk science” (science that that could indicate a need for regulation); Tobacco control measures such as tobacco tax increases (the Institute denies the health effects of second-hand smoke)
And you might want to take a look at this:
The Heartland Institute “global warming experts” list contains vanishingly few researchers who consider themselves climate scientists and who regularly publish papers supporting their climate science views in reputable peer-reviewed journals (e.g., not Energy and Environment).
The Heartland Institute’s Environmental “expert,” James Taylor, is a lawyer based in Florida. Despite presenting a veneer of scientific expertise in their Environmental advocacy, the Heartland lacks any(?) scientists trained to understand climate issues.
Hey! Wasn’t James Taylor the guy who blogged on Forbes to start this whole kerfluffing party?
And, just by the by, the Heartland Institute’s CEO is Joseph L. Bast, who is also on the board of directors of the Illinois Policy Institute (our old friend John Tillman) and was a founding director of the State Policy Network, among other interesting connections, including the pharma-backed “Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.” And, he sits on the Board of Directors of the American Conservative Union, since 2007. (Actually the Heartland Institute is literally steps away from the Illinois Policy Institute on La Salle Street in Chicago.)
I guess that’s what they think “science” is. (Sounds more like ideologically driven partisanship to me. )
But you’ve gotta admit, it’s a long way from finding that more heat is radiating from the Earth than previously thought to:
John Hinderaker / Power Line: Is It Over for Global Warming Alarmism?
Doug Powers / Michelle Malkin: Analysis of NASA Satellite Data Suggests UN Climate Models are Full of Hot Air
Rick Rice / Wizbang: “The new findings… should dramatically alter the global warming debate”
Bruce McQuain / Questions and Observations: Climate alarmist theory dealt yet another factual blow
Ed Morrissey / Hot Air: Sky-high hole blown in AGW theory?
Brian O’Connor / Red Dog Report: NASA Data Blows Gaping Holes in Global Warming Hysteria
The Lonely Conservative: Sorry, Global Warmers: New NASA Study Shows Heat Not Trapped in Earth’s Atmosphere as Claimed
Dave Blount / Moonbattery: NASA Data Confirm Global Warming Is a Hoax
I guess they’ve all gone fission with their Global Smarming Theory. But that’s not science. And, in NO WISE is it “RESTORING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.” The opposite, in fact. And there’s n0thing to stop ANOTHER peer-reviewed scientific paper disputing the peer-reviewed results of this paper showing up.
UPDATE 7:15 PM PDT: From LiveScienceDOTcom
New research suggesting that cloud cover, not carbon dioxide, causes global warming is getting buzz in climate skeptic circles. But mainstream climate scientists dismissed the research as unrealistic and politically motivated.
“It is not newsworthy,” Daniel Murphy, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cloud researcher, wrote in an email to LiveScience.
The study, published July 26 in the open-access online journal Remote Sensing, got public attention when a writer for The Heartland Institute, a libertarian think-tank that promotesclimate change skepticism, wrote for Forbes magazine that the study disproved the global warming worries of climate change “alarmists.” However, mainstream climate scientists say that the argument advanced in the paper is neither new nor correct. The paper’s author, University of Alabama, Huntsville researcher Roy Spencer, is a climate changeskeptic and controversial figure within the climate research community.
A writer, published author, novelist, literary critic and political observer for a quarter of a quarter-century more than a quarter-century, Hart Williams has lived in the American West for his entire life. Having grown up in Wyoming, Kansas and New Mexico, a survivor of Texas and a veteran of Hollywood, Mr. Williams currently lives in Oregon, along with an astonishing amount of pollen. He has a lively blog His Vorpal Sword. This is cross-posted from his blog.