on 24-09-2013 03:34 PM
After watching Q & A with David Suzuki....I am starting to feel kind of sorry for Alarmists....
David Suzuki also had to admit he was wrong..lol.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3841115.htm
"David Suzuki on the very first question is revealed as a complete know-nothing. His questioner tells him that the main climate
data sets show no real warming for some 15 years.
Suzuki asks for the references, which he should have known if he knew anything of the science.
His questioner then lists them: UAH, RSS, HadCrut and GISS - four of the most basic measurement systems of global
temperature.
Suzuki asks what they are.
Anyone interested in global warming should know right there that Suzuki has absolutely no understanding of what he is talking
about...
For Example -
Challenged from the floor by Professor Stewart Franks, Suzuki admits he might have been mistaken in claiming global warming
was causing more cyclones, which he blamed for killing the Great Barrier Reef. He blames some Australian for “suggesting” it to
him. The truth, as I’ve noted before, is easily found on the Bureau of Meteorology website:.."
Between Tim Flannery and David Suzuki, it must be very embarrassing time to be an Alarmist......lol.
Solved! Go to Solution.
on 24-09-2013 05:37 PM
@siggie-reported-by-alarmists wrote:If you watch it SN......you will notice that he admits he was wrong.
Did you see the bit where he talked about cherry picking?
on 24-09-2013 05:41 PM
Here you go..
Any dispute with these temperatures will need to be taken up with NASA.
And yes, have you noticed it includes the last 15 years....
on 24-09-2013 05:45 PM
Goodness, here's another....yep ...last 15 years available here too..
Thanks Nasa..
on 24-09-2013 05:47 PM
@freakiness wrote:
@siggie-reported-by-alarmists wrote:If you watch it SN......you will notice that he admits he was wrong.
Did you see the bit where he talked about cherry picking?
Indeed I did......
on 24-09-2013 05:49 PM
on 24-09-2013 05:51 PM
HHmmmmm....my graphs just don't look as Alarming as Monmans graphs.........
on 24-09-2013 05:52 PM
@donnashuggy wrote:
He was right about oxygen, can I have a kudo now?
i would but the ones i give posts seem to be disappearing
on
24-09-2013
05:52 PM
- last edited on
26-09-2013
08:25 AM
by
pixie-six
siggie-reported-by-alarmists: " Why does your graph not include the last 13 years. 3, years? The mark of someone who does not understand trends, selective periods. However, here you are:
Whoops again siggie-reported-by-alarmists, your 13 years shows a temperature anomoly increase from 2000, try again, 10 years would be good (for you).
I noticed that at 3.30 PM the temperature was 23.1 °C, now at 5.30 PM it is 21.8 °C Oh gosh it is so obvious the planet is cooling
siggie-reported-by-alarmists try a meaningful long term trend if you want some significant data (chuckle), or when you attempt to skew the debate away from science , choose a period that at least supports your comments.
Meaningful long term trend.
nɥºɾ
on 24-09-2013 05:55 PM
Roy W. Spencer Credentials
Background
Roy W. Spencer is a research scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. He operates his own blog on global warming in which he describes himself as a "climatologist, author, [and] former NASA scientist."
Spencer believes that "the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming in the last 100 years."
Stance on Climate Change
"There's probably a natural reason for global warming . . . We will look back on it as a gigantic false alarm . . . The Earth isn't that sensitive to how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere. I think we need to consider the possibility that more carbon dioxide is better than less." [2]
Key Quotes
"We see something change in our climate and we blame ourselves . . . I don't think we understand what happens. We can watch it happen on the (climate) models, we know it happens, but we don't know for sure how it happens." [3]
"Politicians and some of the scientists like to say that there's a consensus now on global warming or the science has been settled, but you have to ask them, what is there a consensus on? Because it really makes a difference. What are you talking about? The only consensus I`m aware of is that it's warmed in the last century. They completely ignore the fact that there's this thing called the Oregon petition that was signed by 19,000 professionals and scientists who don't agree with the idea that we are causing climate change." [4]
"Twice I have testified in congress that unbiased funding on the subject of the causes of warming would be much closer to a reality if 50% of that money was devoted to finding natural reasons for climate change." [5]
Key Deeds
July, 2011
In July 2011, a paper co-authored by Spencer was published in the journal Remote Sensing, "[which is] a fine [peer-reviewed] journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science," RealClimate found. [6]
His paper looked at a potential connection between clouds and global warming. The paper received significant media attention, and climate change skeptics claimed that it "blow[s] a gaping hole in global warming alarmism." [7]
Within three days of the publication of Spencer & Braswell's paper, two climate scientists (Kevin Trenberth & John Fasullo) repeated the analysis and showed that the IPCC models are in agreement with the observations, so refuting Spencer's claims.
In Andrew Dessler's view, "[This] paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take Roy Spencer seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants." [8]
In response to the flawed peer review that allowed the publication of the paper, the Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing stepped down. He had this to say: (PDF)
"After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.
With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements. . ." [9]
on 24-09-2013 05:56 PM
April, 2010
Spencer published The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climatologists which is prominently advertised on his blog.
Apart from concluding that global warming is likely caused by a natural cycle, Blunder poses the question, that "maybe putting more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing."
2008
Spencer published Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor in 2008.
Confusion is described as "forsaking blindingly technical statistics" about global warming to describe the issue in "simple terms." [10]
March 8, 2007
Roy Spencer appeared on the The Great Global Warming Swindle to talk about the "Great Science Funding Conspiracy." Spencer claims that "climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding."
Swindle received critical response from the scientific community, including a letter addressed to ABC signed by thirty-seven British Scientists that claimed "the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest. In view of the seriousness of climate change as an issue, it is crucial that public debate about it is balanced and well-informed."
ABC Australia’s Tony Jones also brings the film's scientific accuracy into question in an interview with the film’s director, Martin Durkin.
February 28, 2007
Roy Spencer was interviewed on Rush Limbaugh's Show. See an excerpt below: [11]
RUSH: You called yesterday and you wanted to say that my instincts on this global warming as you've heard me discuss them, are accurate. You started a discussion of the calculations here, these climate models, saying that they do not factor -- because it's not easy to do or maybe it's not even possible to factor -- in the role of precipitation and clouds. Could you start there, and basically whatever you were going to say yesterday, go ahead and launch.
DR. SPENCER: Well, I feel like -- and there are a few of us that are like this -- that the Earth has a natural air-conditioning process which occurs that is mainly through precipitation systems. Now, people will think, “Oh, well, you mean when they come by they cool off the air,” and that's not what I'm talking about. It's about the Earth's natural greenhouse effect which is mostly water vapor and clouds. The Earth has a natural greenhouse effect that keeps the surface of the Earth warm.
RUSH: Isn't it true that the majority of greenhouse gases do come from the sources you just mentioned, not manmade sources?
DR. SPENCER: Well, yeah, that's true. Carbon dioxide is a relatively small part of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect. . . .
There's a big problem with [the accepted explanation for the greenhouse effect], though. It makes it sound like the greenhouse effect is what determines the temperature of the Earth, and actually the truth is it's more the other way around. Given a certain amount of sunlight coming in, that is mostly absorbed at the surface of the Earth, weather processes happen which create the greenhouse effect because most of the greenhouse effect is from evaporated water which then turns into clouds, and of course water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas.
RUSH: I dare say I have to interrupt you at this point because most people who only pay attention to the crisis mongers, believe that there is no greenhouse effect other than that created by man. The whole notion of the greenhouse effect has led people to believe that man has totally manufactured this and that it's totally harmful. What you're saying is it's a natural thing that helps keep the Earth's temperatures moderate?
DR. SPENCER: Yeah, that's right. That's right. All the scientists agree with that. What you're talking about is the fact that the media distorts things so much that people don't get the right information. If you're using the media to rely on to get the science about this issue, you won't.
December 13, 2007
Spencer is listed as a signatory to a 2007 open letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon that denied man-made climate change. [12]
The letter states that "it is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity throughout the ages."