Coldest Winter in 100 Years

[Liability]

Anthony Watt? Why don't you just post it under Exxon would have you believe?

Suddenly Olde Fossil is concerned about the integrity of reported data.

Wow.

This appears to be a first!

 

[OregonStream]

Spencer & Christy seem to have a record of questionable analyses. See the "How to Cook a Graph" link here. What he calls a "global cooling event" caused by low clouds is usually thought of as a fluctuation from at least two ocean cycles being in their cool phases, and solar minimum. How does he know the low cloud effect (if it exists) isn't just a response to that? But I'd love to see a version of this in the peer reviewed literature. Is there one? That would be a greater test of his confidence in this stuff. It's easy to post supposition on a blog.

 

[Sinatra]

Anthony Watt? Why don't you just post it under Exxon would have you believe?

I suggest you educate yourself Old Rocks - you yourself have utilized the works of Dr. Roy Spencer in your own posts!!

You grow more glaringly ignorant with each failed attempt in here. C'mon now, you can do better.

Here is a start on who Dr. Roy Spencer is. It appears he might know just a bit more on this subject than you...


Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.


About Dr. Roy Spencer « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[saveliberty]

Spencer & Christy seem to have a record of questionable analyses. See the "How to Cook a Graph" link here. What he calls a "global cooling event" caused by low clouds is usually thought of as a fluctuation from at least two ocean cycles being in their cool phases, and solar minimum. How does he know the low cloud effect (if it exists) isn't just a response to that? But I'd love to see a version of this in the peer reviewed literature. Is there one? That would be a greater test of his confidence in this stuff. It's easy to post supposition on a blog.

Peer review? You mean the global warmers who try to exclude this type of thing from being published? Gee, what type of review would that yield? Starting the denial phase already OregonStream? You sound more like Old Rocks all the time.

 

[Sinatra]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Three-cases-global-forcing-feedback.jpg

 

[edthecynic]

Why is it the warmest decade?

1. Scientists took raw data and increased the temperature results.
2. Assuming you can believe any data at this point, it peaked in 1998 and has been on a cooling trend since then.
3. ALL of the consequneces we are suppose to be suffering from due to warming are not happening.

Proof?

So you are stating that the scientists in Australia, South Africa, Russia, Europe, the US, Canada, Japan, China, Brazil, Argentina, and every other nation that has scientists, are falsifing information?

I have some nice tin hats that you might want to buy.

What kind of idiot owns multiple tin hats? I am stating that all your scientist buddies were using the same manipulated data set. See how that causes a problem?

The only people who were actually caught manipulating the data set were deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH. They were caught red-handed using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift.

You deniers are claiming CRU manipulated the data set by using REAL TEMP DATA.

 

[Sinatra]

+

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Three-cases-global-forcing-feedback.jpg

 

[OregonStream]

Spencer & Christy seem to have a record of questionable analyses. See the "How to Cook a Graph" link here. What he calls a "global cooling event" caused by low clouds is usually thought of as a fluctuation from at least two ocean cycles being in their cool phases, and solar minimum. How does he know the low cloud effect (if it exists) isn't just a response to that? But I'd love to see a version of this in the peer reviewed literature. Is there one? That would be a greater test of his confidence in this stuff. It's easy to post supposition on a blog.

Peer review? You mean the global warmers who try to exclude this type of thing from being published? Gee, what type of review would that yield? Starting the denial phase already OregonStream? You sound more like Old Rocks all the time.

Show me one proven case of peer review obstruction, not just talk of pressuring certain journals into more diligently honoring their basic scientific standards.

 

[OregonStream]

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies...

According to at least one member here, government funded research isn't trustworthy. Or is it only trustworthy when it appears convenient? And as noted at the RC link, Spencer may have published some interesting peer-reviewed work, but there seems to be some disconnect between that and occurs in his press releases and blogs.

 

[OregonStream]

Not only that but they are also dishonest in that their models cannot take the verifiable data that we have, feed it into their equations, and arrive at the climate we have NOW. Yet they continue to insist that their models are reliable to forecast the climate that will exist if we do not employ draconian measures now to curb anthropogenic generated greenhouse emissions.

This is just nuts.

There's plenty of model code and validation data on the web. And "draconian measures"? Not yet. Only if dedicated contrarians succeed in further delaying a transition. Then you'll see much more support for tighter restrictions. For now, an ounce of prevention is still worth something.

 

[Sinatra]

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies...

According to at least one member here, government funded research isn't trustworthy. Or is it only trustworthy when it appears convenient? And as noted at the RC link, Spencer may have published some interesting peer-reviewed work, but there seems to be some disconnect between that and occurs in his press releases and blogs.

___

No real disconnect at all.

The earth's climate is incredibly complicated, and so much of what has been deemed "fact" by the global warmers is mere conjecture - and Spencer is among those in the scientific community who remarks on that.

His work, which includes many years among various and highly credible scientific institutions, is to top notch - even the stuff I may not agree with is well done, and unlike the Global Warmer Junta that has spent years attempting to promote their own agenda, Spencer has no ties to Big Oil, no ties to GE, no ties to United Nations grants, etc.

He is the real deal.

 

[OregonStream]

His work, which includes many years among various and highly credible scientific institutions, is to top notch - even the stuff I may not agree with is well done, and unlike the Global Warmer Junta that has spent years attempting to promote their own agenda, Spencer has no ties to Big Oil, no ties to GE, no ties to United Nations grants, etc.

He is the real deal.

Not sure any of the above means he couldn't be ideologically biased in any way. But are allowing serial errors to persist in their satellite data analysis and shameless cookery "top notch"?

 

[saveliberty]

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies...

According to at least one member here, government funded research isn't trustworthy. Or is it only trustworthy when it appears convenient? And as noted at the RC link, Spencer may have published some interesting peer-reviewed work, but there seems to be some disconnect between that and occurs in his press releases and blogs.

Talk about convenient, you discredited this person before you even checked the references. That is far more telling than whether it was a government source or not.

 

[OregonStream]

Talk about convenient, you discredited this person before you even checked the references. That is far more telling than whether it was a government source or not.

Who said "Your studies are funded by government sources that want the benefits of power derived from this lie". I think that's more of a blanket discrediting than referencing serious specific issues.

 

[saveliberty]

Talk about convenient, you discredited this person before you even checked the references. That is far more telling than whether it was a government source or not.

Who said "Your studies are funded by government sources that want the benefits of power derived from this lie". I think that's more of a blanket discrediting than referencing serious specific issues.

Since the environment wasn't important enough to save at the climate conference and most of the discussions were about payments, I draw the logical conclusion power is the reason for the issue. Is it not true that the studies you cited were government funded? Data is being hidden and opposition silenced, I consider that a lie in the world of science. The statement is accurate.

 

[Sinatra]

Talk about convenient, you discredited this person before you even checked the references. That is far more telling than whether it was a government source or not.

Who said "Your studies are funded by government sources that want the benefits of power derived from this lie". I think that's more of a blanket discrediting than referencing serious specific issues.

Since the environment wasn't important enough to save at the climate conference and most of the discussions were about payments, I draw the logical conclusion power is the reason for the issue. Is it not true that the studies you cited were government funded? Data is being hidden and opposition silenced, I consider that a lie in the world of science. The statement is accurate.

Exactly!!!!

When people come in here and say they support Cap n Tax - they are simply supporting the international shake down - which is what it really is.

If the climate was in such dire condition, why the private planes, limos, etc. that created a HUGE carbon footprint? Nope - it was about money and power. The movement uses feeble minded do-goodism liberals who wish to make their small lives account for something "bigger" - the same ones who run around saying "We can save the planet!"

No, you cannot save the planet - but you can help to initiate the transfer of wealth in the TRILLIONS of dollars to corrupt governments around the globe who will give empty promises of producing less carbon.

Jobs will be lost in America, quality of life goes down, and future opportunities diminish as the corrupt UN attempts to diminish the U.S. and "redistribute" to other parts of the world.

Fuck that.

 

[OregonStream]

Since the environment wasn't important enough to save at the climate conference and most of the discussions were about payments, I draw the logical conclusion power is the reason for the issue. Is it not true that the studies you cited were government funded? Data is being hidden and opposition silenced, I consider that a lie in the world of science. The statement is accurate.

So because a bunch of politicians couldn't get their act together and make commitments regarding their responsibilities (despite the scientific conference leading up to the political one), then the whole issue is about power and money? The fact that no government is stepping up and taking the lead is pro-"warmist"? Are those "logical" inferences? And unless I missed something, you've yet to show any proof of inappropriate data manipulation.

 

[Sinatra]

+

Who said "Your studies are funded by government sources that want the benefits of power derived from this lie". I think that's more of a blanket discrediting than referencing serious specific issues.

Since the environment wasn't important enough to save at the climate conference and most of the discussions were about payments, I draw the logical conclusion power is the reason for the issue. Is it not true that the studies you cited were government funded? Data is being hidden and opposition silenced, I consider that a lie in the world of science. The statement is accurate.

Exactly!!!!

When people come in here and say they support Cap n Tax - they are simply supporting the international shake down - which is what it really is.

If the climate was in such dire condition, why the private planes, limos, etc. that created a HUGE carbon footprint? Nope - it was about money and power. The movement uses feeble minded do-goodism liberals who wish to make their small lives account for something "bigger" - the same ones who run around saying "We can save the planet!"

No, you cannot save the planet - but you can help to initiate the transfer of wealth in the TRILLIONS of dollars to corrupt governments around the globe who will give empty promises of producing less carbon.

Jobs will be lost in America, quality of life goes down, and future opportunities diminish as the corrupt UN attempts to diminish the U.S. and "redistribute" to other parts of the world.

Fuck that.

 

[Big Fitz]

When in doubt, trust the ones who aren't being paid, first.

Can I bill Madame Botox and her entourage for taking that trip on my dime? I think I deserve to be repaid.

 

[edthecynic]

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies...

According to at least one member here, government funded research isn't trustworthy. Or is it only trustworthy when it appears convenient? And as noted at the RC link, Spencer may have published some interesting peer-reviewed work, but there seems to be some disconnect between that and occurs in his press releases and blogs.

___

No real disconnect at all.

The earth's climate is incredibly complicated, and so much of what has been deemed "fact" by the global warmers is mere conjecture - and Spencer is among those in the scientific community who remarks on that.

His work, which includes many years among various and highly credible scientific institutions, is to top notch - even the stuff I may not agree with is well done, and unlike the Global Warmer Junta that has spent years attempting to promote their own agenda, Spencer has no ties to Big Oil, no ties to GE, no ties to United Nations grants, etc.

He is the real deal.

"Top notch" for someone presented as an "expert" on satellite data who has no idea what sign to use to correct for diurnal satellite drift and just happened to guess the sign that made the data colder.
An "honest" mistake any unbiased "expert" would make.