Global Climate Change Science News

[Animavore]

No doudt these Republicans, if they are honest, will end up with the same conclusion as Muller et al.

And if they are, and they don't, then what?

I don't honestly believe that anyone in the Republican Party is going to have the qualifications to ascertain the data correctly, it's like Andrew Schlafly demanding Richard Lenski he be allowed study his E coli..
They could hire climate scientists I suppose, but that's probably not going to work out well for them.

[Animavore]

Here's the NYTs article Seth refers to on the previous page.

For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.

One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

cont. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ti ... .html?_r=1

Pretty damning. Seth's article reads something more like Exposed: No Intelligence Allowed.

[piscator]

WillieGate!

[Seth]

Here's the NYTs article Seth refers to on the previous page.

For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.

One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

cont. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ti ... .html?_r=1

Pretty damning. Seth's article reads something more like Exposed: No Intelligence Allowed.

Nope, that's just a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy, a favorite of Marxist propagandists. Just because he received money from someone doesn't speak to the accuracy of his claims. You'd need to rebut the actual data and conclusions, which nobody has done.

[JimC]

So Seth, medical researchers in the past who received a lot of money from the tobacco industry, and published material which attempted to minimise the harm done by smoking were entirely innocent, and their research is just as objective and useful as any other scientists?

Get real...

[piscator]

A clear conflict of interest would clearly taint Willie's writings. A damn Parliamentary Inquest cleared the East Anglia people, and disingenuous motherfuckers are still citing "Climategate!" as a reason they don't like climate scientists telling them what's wrong with polluting the planet. In particular, the financial ties of anti-science and denialist figures still shouting "ClimateGate!" should come under the same sort of public scrutiny and speculation as they themselves support for climate scientists.

Dear Anthony may buy ink by the barrel, but the NYT buys it by the supertanker...

[Animavore]

Nope, that's just a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy, a favorite of Marxist propagandists. Just because he received money from someone doesn't speak to the accuracy of his claims. You'd need to rebut the actual data and conclusions, which nobody has done.

I'm not a Marxist, and it's a lie that nobody has rebutted it.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01 ... aggerated/

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ny6 ... edit?pli=1

http://climateconomysociety.blogspot.no ... riggs.html

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress. ... r-climate/

http://rbutr.com/rbutr/WebsiteServlet?r ... Id=4952341

[Seth]

So Seth, medical climate researchers in the past who received a lot of money from the tobacco industry, IPCC and various government agencies worldwide and published material which attempted to minimise maximize the harm done by smoking carbon emissions were entirely innocent, and their research is just as objective and useful as any other scientists?

Get real...

[Animavore]

So Seth, medical climate researchers in the past who received a lot of money from the tobacco industry, IPCC and various government agencies worldwide and published material which attempted to minimise maximize the harm done by smoking carbon emissions were entirely innocent, and their research is just as objective and useful as any other scientists?

Get real...

This idea suffers the exact same problem as any other conspiracy theory; far too many people involved. Do you honestly expect us to believe thousands of scientists from a multitude of fields are all in on some big scheme together without a whistle-blower in sight? That's as absurd as believing 9/11 was a massive conspiracy and for the same reason.
But believing in one or two scientists being paid by vested interests to sow manufactured doubt against the established science; far more plausible.

[Seth]

Nope, that's just a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy, a favorite of Marxist propagandists. Just because he received money from someone doesn't speak to the accuracy of his claims. You'd need to rebut the actual data and conclusions, which nobody has done.

I'm not a Marxist, and it's a lie that nobody has rebutted it.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01 ... aggerated/

The above cite has nothing to do with solar variations.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ny6 ... edit?pli=1

The above cite doesn't mention solar variation and is solely the opinion of one individual.

http://climateconomysociety.blogspot.no ... riggs.html

The above cite does not refute the insolation theory, it merely accuses the author of cribbing formulas from prior research without proper attribution.

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress. ... r-climate/

The above cite criticizes the research as inappropriately applying an equation on feedback in electronic circuits to climate feedback, but shows no proofs that the equation is not applicable, the author merely dismisses the theory out of hand.

http://rbutr.com/rbutr/WebsiteServlet?r ... Id=4952341

The above cite provides no information at all, merely links to some of the citations examined above.

In other words, there is no critically robust scientific evidence presented that the theory that changes in insolation can be responsible for temperature variations is wrong.

And I didn't say you were a Marxist, I said that the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy is a favorite of Marxist propagandists, which it is.

[Seth]

So Seth, medical climate researchers in the past who received a lot of money from the tobacco industry, IPCC and various government agencies worldwide and published material which attempted to minimise maximize the harm done by smoking carbon emissions were entirely innocent, and their research is just as objective and useful as any other scientists?

Get real...

This idea suffers the exact same problem as any other conspiracy theory; far too many people involved. Do you honestly expect us to believe thousands of scientists from a multitude of fields are all in on some big scheme together without a whistle-blower in sight?

There are plenty of whistle blowers out there, but they get attacked with circumstantial ad hominem fallacies when they blow their whistles, and yes, if you follow the money it's perfectly plausible that an AGW religious cult has come into being among climate scientists, who know upon which side of the bread is the butter. After all, some of the top climate scientists have been caught in lies and have been shown to have been manipulating results to amplify the effects of the alleged AGW. Now NOAA appears to be involved in tweaking historical temperature records to change the slope of the line to support the AGW theory, even as, 17 years later, the "warming" has stopped.

The observable facts seem to be denying the predictions of the various climate models, which makes the climate models faulty, not the climate. Now it may be that the religious fervor of the AGW cult has caused scientists to do sloppy work full of confirmation bias driven by a desire to not be pilloried and marginalized by the climate research AGW cult, but the actual evidence that's been coming in doesn't seem to match what the models predicted, which suggests that the models are faulty and therefore any reliance on them or their root assumptions may also be faulty.

That's as absurd as believing 9/11 was a massive conspiracy and for the same reason.
But believing in one or two scientists being paid by vested interests to sow manufactured doubt against the established science; far more plausible.

Now all you have to do is prove it.

[piscator]

So Seth, medical climate researchers in the past who received a lot of money from the tobacco industry, IPCC and various government agencies worldwide and published material which attempted to minimise maximize the harm done by smoking carbon emissions were entirely innocent, and their research is just as objective and useful as any other scientists?

Get real...

Gunfire is not too good for your hearing, Seth...

[piscator]

The above cite has nothing to do with solar variations.

The cite has everything to do with Monckton, Soon, Legates & Briggs flawed approach of using a formula which is not valid in the required range of input or output for the task at hand, namely, input/output of solar variations. Your other objections are similarly flawed, as with the NYT information we can now simply assume Monckton, Soon, Legates & Briggs were paid by polluters to misapply their electronics in bad faith. Furthermore, bloggers who continue to cite their creation of bad faith as applicable to solar forcing are tainted as well.
You've not specifically rebutted the multiple accusations from sources around the world that you hold sexual congress with buffaloes, BTW. Would you care to at present?

[Seth]

[
Gunfire is not too good for your hearing, Seth...

That's why I love my Silynx C4OPS communications headset! Low-profile in-ear headphone/microphones provide 22dB of overall protection and up to 45dB of impulse noise-cancelling protection at SPLs of 150 - 190 dB while still giving 360 degree stereo "supernormal" hear-thru sound location accurate to +- 18 degrees for continuous and +- 41 degrees for short-duration sounds, while also giving audio compatibility, PTT and "whisper mode" functionality with my tactical radio system. Used it at a Taylor Swift concert last summer, worked great to protect from 15,000 screaming teenage girls. Gotta find an adapter so I can use it with my iPod Touch, phones and radios when I'm on the motorcycle.

[Seth]

The above cite has nothing to do with solar variations.

The cite has everything to do with Monckton, Soon, Legates & Briggs flawed approach of using a formula which is not valid in the required range of input or output for the task at hand, namely, input/output of solar variations.

So they say. I see no proof of their claims however, just rank opinions and circumstantial and tu quoque ad hominem attacks.

Your other objections are similarly flawed, as with the NYT information we can now simply assume Monckton, Soon, Legates & Briggs were paid by polluters to misapply their electronics in bad faith.

Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.