global warming not accurate?

I have determined it's not a legit news...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

A well known scientist that denies global warming and believes in ID. I wouldn't take it seriously.

Also, found out it's a blog, not actual news. And a careful examination reveals that the author is from Heartland Institute known for anti-global wamring stances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

And even defends Smoking Companies saying second hand smoke doesn't pose health risks to non-smokers!
 
This is about a peer-reviewed study, not just some blog posting. Does this mean "peer-reviewed" is no longer the magic word it once was?
 
darkdog said:
This is about a peer-reviewed study, not just some blog posting. Does this mean "peer-reviewed" is no longer the magic word it once was?
Click to expand...

The problem is that it is NOT a peer review article. That article is "pay to play!"

This article explains so well why we shouldn't take them seriously:

"Since I launched my blog a year ago, Ive had the chance to examine the claims of a number of climate contrarians. One thing that has surprised me is how often the contrarians seem to think theyve come up with a silver bullet to shoot down mainstream scientific views about how sensitive the climate is to forcing by greenhouse gases, etc. By silver bullet I mean a very simple, direct, and clear demonstration that the mainstream is flatly wrong. Why is this so surprising? Because even though climate response is a complicated subject, overall sensitivity has been estimated at least nine different ways, and many of these methods are based on paleoclimate data, rather than model output. Since all of these methods have produced roughly the same answer, the vast majority of climate scientists have concluded that the climate is pretty unlikely to be insensitive enough to avoid major problems if we continue to burn fossil fuels like we have been. In other words, the possibility of a silver bullet in this case seems remote.

In my career as a scientist Ive come up with a couple silver bullets, although they werent about anything so dramatic, but the fact is that nine times out of ten when Ive gotten excited because I THOUGHT I had one, further investigation showed that I had made some minor mistake, and in fact the scientists whose work I was examining were right. What bothers me about the climate contrarians is that it doesnt seem to occur to many of them to keep digging once they get an answer they like."

and

"Roy Spencer is a prime example of a contrarian scientist who exhibits this tendency. As I noted in my recent review of Spencers The Great Global Warming Blunder, he has a history of publishing dramatic new evidence for low climate sensitivity and then letting others sort out the serial errors hes made. E.g., he said the reason he published his book was that he could virtually prove climate sensitivity is low and recent warming has been the result of chaotic natural variation, but establishment scientists had blocked publication of this silver bullet in the peer-reviewed literature. I took apart his work, however, and found out that he was only able to get the answer he liked by plugging physically unreasonable parameter values into his model. Whats more, his results depended on a numerical fitting procedure that I hesitate to call statistical, because no statistician would ever suggest such a thing. Spencers answer? He says hes too busy writing papers for the peer-reviewed literature to respond to a critique on a blog."

Roy Spencer’s latest "Silver Bullet" debunked
 
netrox said:
The problem is that it is NOT a peer review article. That article is "pay to play!"

This article explains so well why we shouldn't take them seriously:

"Since I launched my blog a year ago, Ive had the chance to examine the claims of a number of climate contrarians. One thing that has surprised me is how often the contrarians seem to think theyve come up with a silver bullet to shoot down mainstream scientific views about how sensitive the climate is to forcing by greenhouse gases, etc. By silver bullet I mean a very simple, direct, and clear demonstration that the mainstream is flatly wrong. Why is this so surprising? Because even though climate response is a complicated subject, overall sensitivity has been estimated at least nine different ways, and many of these methods are based on paleoclimate data, rather than model output. Since all of these methods have produced roughly the same answer, the vast majority of climate scientists have concluded that the climate is pretty unlikely to be insensitive enough to avoid major problems if we continue to burn fossil fuels like we have been. In other words, the possibility of a silver bullet in this case seems remote.

In my career as a scientist Ive come up with a couple silver bullets, although they werent about anything so dramatic, but the fact is that nine times out of ten when Ive gotten excited because I THOUGHT I had one, further investigation showed that I had made some minor mistake, and in fact the scientists whose work I was examining were right. What bothers me about the climate contrarians is that it doesnt seem to occur to many of them to keep digging once they get an answer they like."

and

"Roy Spencer is a prime example of a contrarian scientist who exhibits this tendency. As I noted in my recent review of Spencers The Great Global Warming Blunder, he has a history of publishing dramatic new evidence for low climate sensitivity and then letting others sort out the serial errors hes made. E.g., he said the reason he published his book was that he could virtually prove climate sensitivity is low and recent warming has been the result of chaotic natural variation, but establishment scientists had blocked publication of this silver bullet in the peer-reviewed literature. I took apart his work, however, and found out that he was only able to get the answer he liked by plugging physically unreasonable parameter values into his model. Whats more, his results depended on a numerical fitting procedure that I hesitate to call statistical, because no statistician would ever suggest such a thing. Spencers answer? He says hes too busy writing papers for the peer-reviewed literature to respond to a critique on a blog."

Roy Spencer’s latest "Silver Bullet" debunked
Click to expand...
Everything he wrote may or may not be true. This study may or may not be legitimate. What's interesting is you're now making the point so many skeptics have made: "confirmation bias". A very typical response from the global warming crowd is "peer-reviewed". Do you kind of see the weakness of that now?
 
netrox said:
The problem is that it is NOT a peer review article. That article is "pay to play!"
Click to expand...
Whoops. I missed your first sentence somehow. My apologies. Where do you get that from? I'm not saying it's incorrect as I don't follow which journals in that realm of science are legit and which aren't. I just don't find that claim in the link you posted.
 
Read the comments in that article, it's thoroughly debunked. I should have clued in when I saw "alarmist model" mentioned several times. Scientists don't say those things.
 
netrox said:
Read the comments in that article, it's thoroughly debunked. I should have clued in when I saw "alarmist model" mentioned several times. Scientists don't say those things.
Click to expand...
Comments in an article on Yahoo? That doesn't really cut it. If that's really the standard for debunking, we could have considered global warming itself debunked 10 million times over.

Also, the term "alarmist model" appears in the article describing the published paper, not the paper itself. That article was written by somebody other than the paper's authors. Here's the link for the paper itself: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
 
It's too bad that they are not honest.... I wish that they would have mentioned about the ozone layers in the article.

The ozone layer holes are caused by aerosol sprayers such as paint can sprayer, hair can sprayer, household can sprayers, and old refrigerators/air conditioners that contain free-ons - hydrofluorocarbon (HCF). It also included in gas vapors and emissions.

Large slaughter animal farms generate the greenhouse gas emissions (the ozone layers). We are overpopulation because we are man-made producers for variety of marketings around the world everyday.

Interesting, there was a report about some scientists that discovered the most negative impact on large rice farms that harm the layers.

Things are crazy for many different things on our Earth. I think that our Earth is a fragile especially the atmosphere that we need to protect from the sun waves.
 
webexplorer said:
How come they did not mention about the ozone layers in the article?
Click to expand...
because ozone layer is not related to this article. ozone layer protects us from sun's deadly ray. the article is talking about Earth venting more heat into space than as predicted by UN.

Carbon Dioxide is what keeps Earth nice and warm.

webexplorer said:
The ozone layer holes are caused by aerosol sprayers such as paint can sprayer, hair can sprayer, household can sprayers, and old refrigerators/air conditioners that contain free-ons - hydrofluorocarbon (HCF). It also included in gas vapors and emissions.
Click to expand...
not that simple. I seriously doubt we human beings can cause ozone holes. It is true that we contribute to formation of ozone hole yes but we are not a sole reason for it. Nope. Impossible.

webexplorer said:
Large slaughter animal farms generate the greenhouse gas emissions (the ozone layers). We are overpopulation because we are man-made producers for variety of marketings around the world everyday.

Interesting, there was a report about some scientists that discovered the most negative impact on large rice farms that harm the layers.

Things are crazy for many different things on our Earth. I think that our Earth is a fragile especially the atmosphere that we need to protect from the sun waves.
Click to expand...
I'm not really that concerned about Earth on that scale. I'm more concerned with local environment.
 
darkdog said:
Everything he wrote may or may not be true. This study may or may not be legitimate. What's interesting is you're now making the point so many skeptics have made: "confirmation bias". A very typical response from the global warming crowd is "peer-reviewed". Do you kind of see the weakness of that now?
Click to expand...
Hey netrox, my question still stands, if you care to answer it. Or anyone else for that matter.
 
Your question was answered. Read the methods section. All peer reviews are not equal. :roll:
 
jillio said:
Your question was answered. Read the methods section. All peer reviews are not equal. :roll:
Click to expand...
Thank you for your opinion, jillio. My question still stands for netrox or anyone else who cares to answer.
 
darkdog said:
Thank you for your opinion, jillio. My question still stands for netrox or anyone else who cares to answer.
Click to expand...

How many answers do you need?:laugh2:

Be patient. I doubt that netrox's first prioity is getting back in here to answer any questions you may have posed.:giggle:
 
Last year I saw a jaguar in the Mark Twain National Forest here in Missouri. No one believes me but that doesn't bother me. I hope to see more animals vacationing far away from their homes. :giggle:
 
sorry didnt reply sooner...

Another debunk...

Climate Scientists Debunk Latest Bunk by Denier Roy Spencer | ThinkProgress

Peer review in science... I want it to be reviewed by scientists, not what an amateur guy says. Roy Spencer is not a scientist, he's a lobbyist for oil and tobacco companies.

And you know that when a "scientist" say there's no harm in second hand smoke - *cough* - he's lying. Many experiments have shown it to be harmful and many people who lived in houses with smoke developed lung cancer that is statistically higher than those who live in non-smoking houses.

Secondhand Smoke

Remember how tobacco companies tried to convince the public that smoking is not dangerous because they know they stand to lose money and don't want to be sued? It's EXACTLY the same tactics they use with global warming. They skew results to suit their agenda which is basically to make more money and to make them not liable for the harm they've done to the earth.
 
netrox said:
sorry didnt reply sooner...
Click to expand...
No problemo. :)

netrox said:
Another debunk...

Climate Scientists Debunk Latest Bunk by Denier Roy Spencer | ThinkProgress

Peer review in science... I want it to be reviewed by scientists, not what an amateur guy says. Roy Spencer is not a scientist, he's a lobbyist for oil and tobacco companies.

And you know that when a "scientist" say there's no harm in second hand smoke - *cough* - he's lying. Many experiments have shown it to be harmful and many people who lived in houses with smoke developed lung cancer that is statistically higher than those who live in non-smoking houses.

Secondhand Smoke

Remember how tobacco companies tried to convince the public that smoking is not dangerous because they know they stand to lose money and don't want to be sued? It's EXACTLY the same tactics they use with global warming. They skew results to suit their agenda which is basically to make more money and to make them not liable for the harm they've done to the earth.
Click to expand...
Note that I specifically haven't vouched for the quality of the paper. I honestly don't know either way, but I can boil down the responses you've quoted to several things:
- It's full of scientific errors.
- It's confirmation bias, meaning he's fudging numbers to get the results he wants.
- He has a financial interest in getting a certain result (i.e. grant money).

All that despite the fact that it's "peer reviewed". I've noticed that when skeptics make the same points about pro-global warming scientists and the papers they publish, the standard response is "But it's peer reviewed!!!" Are pro-AGW scientists exempt from such criticism? If not, why not?
 
Back
Top