Lot’s of “peer reviewed” papers posted by Ronnie by Lindzen, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer cited. And some others I’ve never heard of. Pretty fun ameliorating them. LOL
Chris
Not sure what you posted this for, but it gives me an excuse to review these malicious lying thugs for god, ideology and profit - and their consistently dishonest presentation of science.
Lot's of "peer reviewed" papers posted by Ronnie by Lindzen, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer cited. And some others I've never heard of. Pretty fun ameliorating them. LOL Chris
www.theguardian [dot] com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism Jan 6, 2014 The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures The Weekly Standard suggests we should gamble our future on the climate scientist who's been the wrongest, longest… Richard Lindzen is one of the approximately 3 percent of climate scientists who believe the human influence on global warming is relatively small (though Lindzen is now retired, no longer doing scientific research). More importantly, he's been wrong about nearly every major climate argument he's made over the past two decades. Lindzen is arguably the climate scientist who's been the wrongest, longest. The Weekly Standard devotes the first page of its piece to establishing how smart Lindzen is – and he certainly is a smart man, but as climate scientist Ray Pierrehumbert put it,FYI Climate Misinformer: Richard Lindzen myths compared to serious science. https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm"It's okay to be wrong, and [Lindzen] is a smart person, but most people don't really understand that one way of using your intelligence is to spin ever more clever ways of deceiving yourself, ever more clever ways of being wrong. And that's okay because if you are wrong in an interesting way that advances the science, I think it's great to be wrong, and he has made a career of being wrong in interesting ways about climate science."Make no mistake about it; Lindzen has made a career of being wrong about climate science. Unfortunately, while the Weekly Standard piece goes through Lindzen's many contrarian climate arguments, it misses the key point that they haven't withstood scientific scrutiny or the test of time: • Changes in water vapor will dampen global warming (also known as Lindzen's "Iris hypothesis")? Refuted by four peer-reviewed studies within a year of the publication of Lindzen's hypothesis. (not that Lindzen would ever acknowledge be wrong about anything) Climate change over the past century has been "minimal"? In reality, the current rate of global warming is unprecedented over the past 11,000 years. • The 15-year 'pause' myth? Completely debunked – global surface warming over the past decade turns out to be more than double previous estimates, and the climate continues to accumulate heat at a rate equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second. • The accuracy of climate models during that timeframe? Much better than Lindzen claims.
Ah, then there’s my collection
Dear Professor Dick Lindzen
Sharing an email I sent to the professor this evening:
Professor Dick Lindzen, Going through your 2012 interview with Alex Epstein at his Power Hour* and examining your various tricks and obfuscations, I'm amazed that real people of power have allowed you your long destructive career as a merchant of science fiction. What I find difficult to grasp is when did it become OK to treat scientifically factual evidence with malicious contempt; and worse - with license to contort and misrepresent? And when did it become OK to reject constructive honest learning in favor of clinging to faith based dogmas and short-sighted self-interest? It seems like you've been on a way too long post retirement career dedicated to dumbing down our leaders and the public about the critically important topic of humanity's impact on our life supporting biosphere. You must be feeling smug - you and your pals sure have succeeded. What do you care that the young ones get to deal with the mess that ignoring our Grand Geophysical Experiment for decades has created. Though, guess I do understand why our leaders and society succumbed to your siren song - admitting the obvious would have required us to figure out how to be happy with a little less. We couldn't do that, now could we? Shame on you. With deep sorrow, Citizenschallenge March 23, 2015Dissecting Dr Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/03/7-dissecting-lindzens-obtuse.html #7/7 environmentalism and environmentalists - Dissecting Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness March 26, 2015 #6/7 clouds, vapor, Iris Effect - Dissecting Dr Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness March 25, 2015 #5/7 Spurious feedback - Dissecting Dr Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness - March 23, 2015 #4/7 Nature in Balance? - Dissecting Dr Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness #3/7 Government is driving AGW - Dissecting Dr Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness March 17, 2015 #2/7 The Conspiracy - Dissecting Dr Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness March 13, 2015 #1/7-Dissecting Dr Lindzen's intrinsic obtuseness - The Question ____________________________________________________________________ Lindzen's slander as weapon for scientific persuasion. March 7, 2015 http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/03/lindzen-slander-asweapon-persuasion.html
Lot's of "peer reviewed" papers posted by Ronnie by Lindzen, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer cited. And some others I've never heard of. Pretty fun ameliorating them. LOL ChrisFred Singer protégée of the father of manufactured denial Fredrick Seitz] has long history of dirty tricks from deathbed manipulation of a great scientist to manufacturing fake look a like science papers.
http://desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer The key points of Lancaster's report are reproduced below: [17] Revelle did not write the Cosmos article. S. Fred Singer claimed sole authorship of the major statements of the article in his ES&T paper months before he put the finishing touches on his Cosmos Masterpiece. If S. Fred Singer is sole author of this material, then Revelle cannot be an author. If S. Fred Singer is not sole author of this material, then he has admitted in his deposition to ethical concern about one author publishing under his own sole authorship material that was co-authored. Revelle appears not to have had full information — not about the ES&T publication and not about the many energy-industry agents who were busy at work here. In a written affidavit (Archived PDF here) by Roger's secretary Christa Beran, it appears that Singer may have also pressured Roger Revelle into his involvement with the paper:https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/tag/oregon-petition/
NAS incident wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition A manuscript accompanying the petition was presented in a near identical style and format to contributions that appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal,[28] but upon careful examination was distinct from a publication by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said the presentation was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article … is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the publication was full of "half-truths".[29] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."[29] After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in a 1998 news release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."[30] It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."[30] Robinson responded in a 1998 article in Science, "I used the Proceedings as a model, but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal."[29] A 2006 article in the magazine Vanity Fair stated: "Today, Seitz admits that 'it was stupid' for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format. Still, he doesn't understand why the academy felt compelled to disavow the petition, which he continues to cite as proof that it is "not true" there is a scientific consensus on global warming".[31]__________________________________________________________________________________________________
How The Merchants Of Doubt Push Climate Denial On Your Television Blog ››› March 8, 2015 ››› DENISE ROBBINS http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/08/how-the-merchants-of-doubt-push-climate-denial/202792 A new documentary shows how a "professional class of deceivers" has been paid by the fossil fuel industry to cast doubt on the science of climate change, in an effort akin to that from the tobacco industry, which for decades used deceitful tactics to deny the scientific evidence that cigarettes are harmful to human health. The film, Merchants of Doubt, explores how many of the same people that once lobbied on behalf of the tobacco industry are now employed in the climate denial game. ... Fred Singer is the president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, which has received funding from Exxon Mobil and casts doubt on global warming. Singer has received funding from the Heartland Institute to "regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message" and consulted for Shell, Arco, Unocal, Sun Energy and the American Gas Association. Singer is the founder of the Heartland Institute's "Nongovernmental International Panel On Climate Change" (NIPCC), a collection of climate change deniers (dedicated to attacking and confusing the science, rather than learning from the evidence at hand) ...
No apology is owed Dr. S. Fred Singer, and none will be forthcoming By Jim Hoggan • Wednesday, June 28, 2006 http://www.desmogblog.com/no-apology-is-owed-dr-s-fred-singer-and-none-will-be-forthcoming On Sunday, June 18, the DeSmogBlog received an email from Dr. S. Fred Singer, in which he says, “Yr (sic) June 16 blog contains the false statement that I sold my services to tobacco lobbyists."decades on and he happily hasn't learned a damned thing
JUNE 5, 2015 No pause in the frenzy of denial: S. Fred Singer blog[dot]hotwhopper[dot]com/2015/06/no-pause-in-frenzy-of-denial-s-fred.html
Did I mention he’s been doing this a long long time…
Who is S. Fred Singer? courtesy of http://www.exposethebastards.com/who_is_s_fred_singer S. Fred Singer is one of the few climate deniers with scientific credentials. Armed with a Ph.D in Physics from Princeton University, Singer worked as a U.S. government scientific administrator during the 1970s and 1980s and as a professor at the University of Virginia from 1971-1994. However, he has long since sold his scientific reputation and credentials to both the tabacco and oil industries. Here are some of his most notable activities: 1990 - Creates the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) an organization which focuses on climate change skepticism. According to research from DeSmogBlog, SEPP has received funding from several major oil companies including Exxon, Shell, and ARCO. 1993 - Collaborates with the Public Relations firm Apco Associates to discredit the science behind secondhand smoke. Apco was hired to Philip Morris to develop the The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition to challenge "junk" science around tobacco smoke and other issues such as global warming. 1995 - Through SEPP, Singer launches a publicity campaign called the "Top Five Environmental Myths of 1995." This campaign purports the U.S. Environmental Protection's conclusion that secondhand smoke was a human carcinogen is bogus. This project was developed by a PR firm working for British American Tobacco. 1995 - Creates the Leipzig Declaration, a petition signed by scientists which claim there is no consensus on the connection between carbon emissions and global warming. Investigative journalists showed that a bulk of the signatories either had not signed the document or were not scientists dealing with climate issues. 2005 - George Monbiot of The Guardian newspaper uncovers SEPP as the source of the misinformation stating that "555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service have been growing since 1980." 2012 - Speaks at the Heartland Institutes's annual International Conference on Climate Change. This conference denies human induced global warming exists. Between 1998 and 2010, the co-sponsors of this conference received more than $21 million in funding from ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers. Internal Heartland Institute documents show they pay Singer $5,000 per month for his cimate denial work.
Lot's of "peer reviewed" papers posted by Ronnie by Lindzen, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer cited. And some others I've never heard of. Pretty fun ameliorating them. LOL
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/roy-spencer/ Roy Spencer is one of the few climate contrarians with real credentials. That doesn’t stop him from propagating some real whoppers, however. Here I’ve collected links to critiques of Roy’s work. I’m starting with the posts I’ve made on my blog, including my 3-part review of his new book, The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists. Christy and Spencer’s Satellite Temperature Record Mistake 1. Andy Revkin writes about the episode in the New York Times. Dr. Spencer Goes to Salt Lake City 1. Politicizing Science. Roy Spencer testified before a committee of the Utah House of Representatives. Read all about what he said, and the response of local scientists and politicians. The Great Global Warming Blunder 1. Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1. In his latest book, The Great Global Warming Blunder, Roy Spencer lashes out at the rest of the climate science community for either ignoring or suppressing publication of his research. This research, he claims, virtually proves that the climate models used by the IPCC respond much too sensitively to external “forcing" due to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, variations in solar radiation, and so on. Instead, Spencer believes most climate change is caused by chaotic, natural variations in cloud cover. He and a colleague published a peer-reviewed paper in which they used a simple climate model to show that these chaotic variations could cause patterns in satellite data that would lead climatologists to believe the climate is significantly more sensitive to external forcing than it really is. Spencer admits, however, that his results may only apply to very short timescales. Since the publication of his book, furthermore, other scientists (including one that initially gave Spencer’s paper a favorable review) have shown that Spencer was only able to obtain this result by assuming unrealistic values for various model parameters. 2. Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2. Roy Spencer repeatedly claims that most of the rest of the climate science community deliberately ignores natural sources of climate variation, but then contradicts himself by launching an inept attack on the standard explanation for climate change during the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last million years (i.e., they are initiated by Milankovitch cycles). The problems Spencer identifies are either red herrings or have been resolved, however, and he proposes no other explanation to take the place of the standard one. In fact, climate scientists have used paleoclimate data such as that for the ice ages to show that climate sensitivity is likely to be close to the range the IPCC favors. Therefore, it appears Roy Spencer is the one who wants to sweep established sources of natural climate variation under the rug. 3. Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3. Roy Spencer posits that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is linked to chaotic variations in global cloud cover over multi-decadal timescales, and thus has been the major driver of climate change over the 20th century. To test this hypothesis, he fit the output of a simple climate model, driven by the PDO, to temperature anomaly data for the 20th century. He found he could obtain a reasonable fit, but to do so he had to use five (he says four) adjustable parameters. The values he obtained for these parameters fit well with his overall hypothesis, but in fact, other values that are both more physically plausible and go against his hypothesis would give equally good results. Spencer only reported the values that agreed with his hypothesis, however. Roy Spencer has established a clear track record of throwing out acutely insufficient evidence for his ideas, and then complaining that his colleagues are intellectually lazy and biased when they are not immediately convinced. Blog Posts 1. Roy Spencer’s Non-Response. Many of Roy’s readers were asking him to respond to my 3-part review of The Great Global Warming Blunder, which Roy said he wrote because he couldn’t get some of his work published in the peer-reviewed literature. (Due to foul play, naturally.) Now he says he won’t waste time responding to blog critiques, because he’s too busy trying to get his work published in the peer-reviewed literature. 2. Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet. Roy Spencer has come up with yet another “silver bullet" to show that climate sensitivity is lower than IPCC estimates. I.e., he fits a simple 1-box climate model to the net flux of heat into the upper 700 m of the ocean, and infers a climate sensitivity of only about 1 °C (2x CO2). There are several flaws in his methods–inconsistent initial conditions, failure to use the appropriate data, and failure to account for ocean heating deeper than 700 m. (He fixed the last one in an update.) All of these flaws pushed his model to produce a lower climate sensitivity estimate. When the flaws are corrected, the model estimates climate sensitivities of at least 3 °C, which is the IPCC’s central estimate. In any case, a simple 1-box climate model does not appear to be adequate for this kind of analysis over only a few decades. But while Spencer’s latest effort doesn’t really do any damage to the consensus position, it turns out that it does directly contradict the work he promoted in The Great Global Warming Blunder. 3. Just Put the Model Down, Roy. Roy Spencer’s wild and crazy curve-fitting adventures never seem to end! The following excerpt from my critique says it all. “Well, give me more than 30 parameters, and I can fit a trans-dimensional lizard-goat and make rainbow monkeys shoot out its rear end." L’Affaire Spencer 1. Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback (RealClimate.org). Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell published a paper in which they once again botched their statistics in an attempt to show that the climate sensitivities of standard climate models are too high. This created a media bubble, with some media outlets claiming a “gaping hole" had been blown in global warming “alarmism". Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo took it apart on the RealClimate blog. 2. Remote Sensing Editor Resigns Over Spencer/Braswell Paper. The editor of S&B’s paper figured out that the criticisms of the paper were devastating, and that S&B had ignored previously published research that they should have addressed in their paper. Given the big media frenzy, the editor decided to resign (probably to save his journal from a reputation for publishing anything submitted.) 3. Roy Spencer Persecuted by Own Data. Roy Spencer’s latest paper, published in Remote Sensing, supposedly “blew a gaping hole" in the standard theory of climate change. A new paper by Andrew Dessler shows that this is just another in a long string of Roy’s faulty claims to prove that climate sensitivity is lower than previously thought. The main problem in all of these attempts has been rampant abuse of statistics. Typically, Roy would brush off such criticisms, relying on the statistical naïveté of his core audience and the media, and claim he is being persecuted by the “IPCC gatekeepers". In this case, one of Dessler’s figures shows very clearly how Spencer and his co-author Danny Braswell left out of their analysis all the data that didn’t fit with their hypothesis. It’s so clear that even people who don’t know much about statistics can see the problem. There is no running from this one–no claiming that Spencer is being persecuted–unless he wants us to believe he’s being persecuted by his own data. 4. Roy Spencer Responds With More Excuses. Spencer responded to Dessler’s criticisms by misconstruing some of the arguments and sweeping away the statistical concept of “error bars" with a wave of his hand. He also couldn’t understand why he needed to report all that missing data. 5. Remote Sensing Publishes Rebuttal. Remote Sensing published a rebuttal to Spencer and Braswell’s paper. The rebuttal, written by Kevin Trenberth, John Fasullo, and John Abraham, is mostly based on an earlier RealClimate post by Trenberth and Fasullo, but tidied up and updated for publication.
Another global warming contrarian paper found to be unrealistic and inaccurate Abraham et al. show that a paper by ‘sceptics’ Spencer & Braswell is rife with unrealistic assumptions in an overly simple model http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/oct/21/global-warming-contrarian-paper-unrealistic-inaccurate "… Dr. Spencer and his colleague Danny Braswell made a number of basic math and physics errors in the article that call into question their conclusions. Before we get into the errors, let’s talk about what their model does. They basically treated the ocean like a non-moving fluid and allowed heat to diffuse into the ocean depths. They did allow some mixing in the upper layers through added terms in a one-dimensional equation. The model neglects down-welling or up-welling of waters which occur particularly at the poles. In the end, they end up with a bunch of tunable parameters, which they adjusted so that the model output matches the measured temperature history. So, what were the errors and poor modeling choices? The model treats the entire Earth as entirely ocean-covered The model assigns an ocean process (El Niño cycle) which covers a limited geographic region in the Pacific Ocean as a global phenomenon The model incorrectly simulates the upper layer of the ocean in the numerical calculation. The model incorrectly insulates the ocean bottom at 2000 meters depth The model leads to diffusivity values that are significantly larger than those reported in the literature The model incorrectly uses an asymmetric diffusivity to calculate heat transfer between adjacent layers The model contains incorrect determination of element interface diffusivity The model neglects advection (water flow) on heat transfer The model neglects latent heat transfer between the atmosphere and the ocean surface. Now, simple models like this one can still be useful, even though they necessarily gloss over some details. But some of these errors and omissions are pretty obvious, and would have been easy to fix. For instance, by treating the entire Earth as water covered, Spencer and Braswell omit 30% of the surface of the Earth that’s land-covered, and which heats up faster than the oceans. They then compare the CO2 sensitivity of their ocean-only model to those obtained from more realistic models — apples and oranges. Furthermore, the application of a very local phenomenon (El Niño) to the entire globe just doesn’t make much sense. …"
OK, enough of that round up.
And what’s the point of sharing all that?
Probably none since few bother to worry themselves with the mass acceptance of special interests playing dirty tricks and peddling malicious lies nonstop about what Earth scientists are learning about our planet and what we are doing to it.
And sure, sure what can we do at this point besides hold on as the train wreck proceeds. :sick: