This is a placeholder text
Group text
by vk4gsd on 17 October 2014 - 02:10
with links;
Spencer was originally known for his work on satellite measurements. In the early 1990s, Spencer and John Christy published a few papers looking at the discrepancy of satellite measurements of temperature in the troposphere versus surface warming. This was an important problem in climatology and, since then, there has been voluminous literature published on the topic. The consistent finding has been that the discrepancy was due to instrumental error in the satellite measurements and some methodological problems in Spencer and Christy's work. Further adjustment has reduced the disparity to be in line with models.[3][4] The "satellite measurements show no warming" PRATT was latched onto by denialists who continued to use Spencer's dated research and ignore all further research (unless it has to do with the "tropical/tropospheric hot spot" of course[5]). Since planting himself firmly in the denialist camp, Spencer has parroted this claim repeatedly as well.
His more recent argument is based in part on Richard Lindzen's research on cloud feedback. Spencer claims that climate sensitivity is being vastly overestimated because clouds will have a much higher negative net feedback than current estimates. Cloud feedbacks are a favorite topic of deniers due to the fact that there is less literature on the subject than other areas global warming, allowing them to thump the uncertainty tactic continuously. Spencer's arguments for the feedbacks themselves, however, are full of statistical tomfoolery, fiddling with math, and heaps of equivocation.[6][7] He then heaps more bullshit on top of this, shoehorning in the old canards about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). And voila, global warming isn't a problem! Of course, PDO is an oscillation, not a trend, and so cannot account for the current trend of warming.[8]
His book The Great Global Warming Blunder, published as a mainstream work after Spencer took his ball and went home after all the other scientists said mean things about him, includes some truly bizarre stuff. At one point, he outlines the current scientific theory for the ice ages, tiny fluctuations in the Earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles. The theory holds that temperature changes brought about by the orbital perturbations, though not strong enough to trigger glaciation or deglaciation in themselves, trigger feedback mechanisms that lead to wildly fluctuating temperatures - including the release or sequestration of large amounts of CO2 from the ocean and the biosphere. This puts CO2 at the forefront of non-solar climate charge throughout history, and also explains the well-known 500-year "lag" between temperature and CO2 during one climate change recorded in the Vostok ice cores. Spencer clearly and concisely summarises all this - and then declares it all to be nonsense. His reason? Because there's that CO2 lag in the Vostok ice core and he wants it explained![9] Yes, despite having explained it himself, he seems incapable of understanding what he has just written. So what does Spencer think caused the ice ages? He cheerfully admits that he doesn't have a clue.[10] This may be willingly swallowed by idiots, but to a reasonable eye this makes Spencer seem either hideously mendacious or an ignorant fool.
Most remarkable is his attempt to disprove anthropogenic global warming through a computer model. The model he chooses is a "simple-box" or "zero-dimensional" model, which assumes that the Earth is a well-mixed ocean of uniform depth, with four variables controlling the climate: roughly speaking, the "feedback value", the value of the PDO expressed in W/m2, the depth of the thermocline and the temperature deviation from the "equilibrium" at the start of the experiment. This is, in itself, fine, so long as Spencer recognises that the simpler the model, the less its results can be applied to the real world. However, he sidesteps this issue completely by supplanting it with another. When it comes to these four variables, he shamelessly states:
|
“”Since we don’t know how to set the four [parameters] on the model to cause it to produce temperature variations like those in [the 20th century temperature record], we will use the brute force of the computer’s great speed to do 100,000 runs, each of which has a unique combination of these four settings.[11] |
Sounds OK, to a layman. But on closer attention this is ridiculous. A model must, obviously, attempt to predict the nature of the real world; the more real-world information it includes, the more accurate a prediction it will make. Yet Spencer leaves all four variables to float aimlessly, at different values, for 100,000 runs. From those 100,000 runs, he culls the four that most approximate the twentieth century and then... finds the average of the differing values. Surprise, surprise, he "discovers" that his model perfectly recreates the twentieth century warming. Um, so what? He has learnt nothing from this exercise, and the model he's created has no relation to the real world. Good scientists (and even good students who studied science in high school) know that the number of independent variables should be kept to a minimum - instead of one, we have four. Real scientists interested in creating a model attempt to fill those parameters with real data - we can, for instance, go out and measure the depth of the thermocline - not allow a computer to stuff a random number in there and then cherry-pick the result they want. Not merely are Spencer's values not physically reasonable (his "average" figure for the depth of the thermocline is 700m, when, in a simple model like his, it should be more like 100-200m - closer to 100), he arbitrarily decides to attribute .6 of the .8 degrees C of observed warming to the climate returning to its "equilibrium", effectively eliminating "global warming" altogether.[12] This makes it difficult to believe that Spencer is being deliberately dishonest, as doing this, and announcing it openly, only makes Spencer look like a moron.
He has noticeably upped his crankiness levels in recent years, claiming that he has turned mostly to publishing books and articles in the popular press because his work has been kept out of the peer reviewed literature by the evil warmists. A rather egregious instance was his smear on Andrew Dessler (a climatologist who published work on clouds contrary to Spencer's claims) in which Spencer claimed that the shadowy cabal at the IPCC had pushed through Dessler's paper to hype global warming at the Cancun conference in 2010.[13]
In 2011, he managed to get a paper pushing the PDO/ENSO line into the geography-oriented journal Remote Sensing. The reaction from other scientists? Same ol', same ol' Spencer.[14] Predictably, he immediately cried persecution.[15] Somewhat less predictably, the editor of the journal resigned about a month after the paper's publication.[16][17]
by vk4gsd on 17 October 2014 - 02:10
heartland;
Heartland Institute
From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search
 |
Learn more about corporations VOTING to rewrite our laws. |
 |
Learn more from the Center for Media and Democracy's research on climate change. |
 |
|
This article is part of the Coal Issues portal on SourceWatch, a project of CoalSwarm and the Center for Media and Democracy. See here for help on adding material to CoalSwarm. |
 |
Learn more about the threat drilling for methane gas poses to fresh water. |
 |
This article is part of the Tobacco portal on Sourcewatch funded from 2006 - 2009 by the American Legacy Foundation. |
 |
This article is part of the Center for Media & Democracy's spotlight on front groups and corporate spin. |
The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit "think tank" that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation. A July 2011 Nature editorial points out the group's lack of credibility:
- "Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. ... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters."[1]
| Koch Wiki |
|---|
|
The Koch brothers -- David and Charles -- are the right-wing billionaire co-owners of Koch Industries. As two of the richest people in the world, they are key funders of the right-wing infrastructure, including the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the State Policy Network (SPN). In SourceWatch, key articles on the Kochs include: Koch Brothers, Koch Industries, Americans for Prosperity, American Encore, and Freedom Partners. |
Nonprofit status
The Institute is a 501(c)(3), EIN #363309812, ruling date 12/1984.[5]
A public charity, *barely*
Heartland barely misses being classed more restrictively as a private foundation - according to its 2009 Form 990, "public support" made up just 33% of contributions for 2009 and 36% for 2008. (The bulk of support would have come from large donors.) (If public support falls below 33 1/3% for 2 years, it becomes a private foundation.)
A no-show in Illinois nonprofits database
The Institute did not appear in a mid-2011 search of the Illinois Attorney General's Charitable Database, for as yet unknown reasons.
Audience and products
Main audience is lawmakers
The Institute sees its primary audience as "the nation’s 8,300 state and national elected officials and approximately 8,400 local government officials."[19]
5 publications and a documents database
For five of the Institute's priority policy areas, Heartland produces 20-page tabloid-sized monthly newspapers which are primarily distributed to elected officials, journalists and donors. (The five publications are Budget & Tax News, Environment & Climate News, Health Care News, Infotech & Telecom News and School Reform News.[19] Heartland also hosts PolicyBot, which it refers to as the "Internet's most extensive clearing-house for the work of free-market think tanks." The database contains 22,000 documents from 350 U.S. right-wing think tanks and advocacy groups.[20]
Heartland's publications such as Health Care News publish three months after events, and rely on college students and other freelance writers to develop content and obtain data and expert quotes without oversight.[citation needed]
Leaked documents
An anonymous donor called "Heartland Insider" released documents in February 2012 of the Heartland Institute's budget, fundraising plan, and Climate Strategy for 2012.
The 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy states that the Institute got $200,000 in 2011 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation, and nearly a million from an anonymous donor. Goals of the organization included:
- working with David E. Wojick on "providing [K-12 school] curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain - two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science";
- "sponsor[ing] the NIPCC [Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change] to undermine the official United Nation's IPCC [International Panel on Climate Change] reports" including paying "a team of writers $388,000 in 2011 to work on a series of editions of Climate Change Reconsidered"; and
- funding climate change deniers Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 a month), James Taylor who has written a lot about Climategate through his Forbes blog, and Anthony Watts ($90,000 for 2012) to challenge "warmist science essays that counter our own," including funding "external networks (such as WUWT [Watts Up With That?] and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts)."[24]
The Institute later confirmed the authenticity of some of the released documents, but maintained in a Feb. 15, 2012 press release that the Climate Strategy was "a forgery apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute."[25]
Scientist Peter Gleick Admits to Leaking Climate Documents
On February 19th, just weeks after the documents were released, Peter H. Gleick of the environmental group Pacific Institute admitted to the Huffington Post that he lied to obtain climate documents. In the article The Origin of the Heartland Documents Gleick verified that the documents were not altered. Glecik says he obtained an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy. In an attempt to verify these documents, Gleick solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name. It was these documents that Gleick forwarded to a set of environmental journalists. [26]
Gleick offered his "personal apologies to all those affected," and said his judgment was clouded by his "frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists … and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved." [27]
Heartland Sends Threatening Emails
In the days and weeks following the release of the leaked documents, Heartland has been on an aggressive campaign to rid the information from the public domain. Heartland has targeted a number of bloggers who have reported on the matter. Under the premise that the leaked documents are a "fake memo" which were not created by anyone associated with the Heartland Institute, Heartland officials cited no laws while they "respectfully demanded" that the content be removed from DeSmogBlog.com in an email they titled, "Stolen and Faked Heartland Documents." This was the first in a series of emails sent out to bloggers across the internet where legal action was threatened. [28] [29]
In an attempt to explain why Heartland is doing this, co-founder of the Heartland Institute Joseph Bast writes “We realize this will be portrayed by some as a heavy-handed threat to free speech. But the First Amendment doesn’t protect Internet fraud, and there is no right to defamatory speech." [30]
Gary Wamsley, A 71-year-old veteran received a threatening email from Joseph Bast after sending what Wamsley calls "a strongly worded email to the president and all the board members of the Heartland Institute," concerning his feelings on science education.
In the initial email Wamsley writes, "You should be ashamed of yourself. The United States already has a problem in keeping up with the rest of the world in science education and now you want to play a role in further destroying our nation as well as our planet...I did not spend 30 years in the military to protect the likes of you."
Bast replied asking Wamsley to apologize for the "intemperate and very offensive letter." He also writes, "since your letter is threatening, I’ve forwarded it to our legal counsel, forensics team, and the FBI. It is important that you not delete the email from your sent file, or any other emails you may have exchanged with other people while preparing it, since this could be evidence in criminal and civil cases." [31]
The climate scientists who had their emails stolen in a similar matter known as "Climategate" have turned Heartland's nonsense threats of legal action around on them. A letter sent to the Heartland Institute by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund uses the threatening language of the Heartland Institute. The letter says, "[We] view the malicious and fraudulent manner in which the Climatic Research Unit documents were obtained and/or thereafter disseminated, as well as the repeated blogs about them as providing the basis for civil actions against those who obtained and/or disseminated them and blogged about them. The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund fully intends to pursue all possible actionable civil remedies to the fullest extent of the law." [32]
Operation Angry Badger
Leaked documents show that the Hearland-Institute is planning to spend $612,000 supporting Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and four GOP Senators in their probable recall elections in a pro-Walker campaign they are calling “Operation Angry Badger.”
In the leaked documents Heartland wrote: "The recall elections of 2012 amount to a referenda on collective bargaining reform at the state level, making them of national interest. Successful recalls would be a major setback to the national effort to rein in public-sector compensation and union power."
The documents propose a $612,000 campaign to include print ads, mailers, web ads, and blog posts that would promote the "successes" of Wisconsin Act 10 and portray Wisconsin teachers as overpaid and schools as underperforming. [33] [34]
Campaign Against Climate Science
The leaked documents offer a glimpse into the Heartland Institute’s campaign against climate science. The documents suggest that Heartland is planning new push to undermine the teaching of global warming in public schools
The leaked documents outline plans to promote a curriculum that would cast doubt on the scientific finding that fossil fuel emissions endanger the long-term welfare of the planet. One particular document says, “Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective.” [35]
by Hundmutter on 17 October 2014 - 14:10
FWIW I don't claim to know the rights and wrongs of 'global warming', but to be quite fair to Piers Corbyn, a man for whom
I have always had a lot of respect, and who is, after all. himself an Astrophysicist and one who these days makes a good living
from weather prediction consistently better than the UK govt's Meteorological Office, I would point out that his arguments
against CO2 being the direct cause do appear to be based on serious studies. You can read about the Climate Debate from
his viewpoint on the Weather Action website.
I am sure as hell that the Russia Today news service does not do justice to everyone it has quotes from, and a few seconds
that allow no context for the quote tell us little of his full views, whether it was RT that cut it down or the maker of the vid posted by Travels.
While i am perhaps swayed by the argument that CO2 - more specifically man-made CO2 - is not, or may no longer be , the main
threat to this planet and its ice caps, I still feel that the CO2 influenced temperature rises of recent years must have some additional
cause to [or be speeded up by] the natural / volcanic / solar activities , simply because we now have so many darn CARS - not to mention
the railways and factories of the last century or two.
by Mountain Lion on 19 October 2014 - 15:10
Travels, how is that gas guzzling Jeep running these days...
I can't believe you are not saving the planet and driving a Prius..
by Mountain Lion on 22 October 2014 - 23:10
Weather channel Co-founder says global warming is a total lie.
by Mountain Lion on 15 November 2014 - 12:11
Coldest November Weather in Decades Infiltrates Wyoming to Texas From the North Pole
By Meghan Mussoline, Meteorologist
November 15, 2014; 4:55 AM ET
More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on linkedin
Temperatures plunged by as much as 60 degrees Fahrenheit across the Rockies and Plains early this week, and the unrelenting cold has remained entrenched across these areas all week.
It has been as much as 30-50 degrees below normal this week from Wyoming and Colorado all the way southward to Texas.
"This is exceptional cold," AccuWeather.com Senior Meteorologist Henry Margusity said. "It's the coldest air we've seen in decades during November."
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/wyoming-colorado-exceptional-cold-nuri/37351786?
by GSDtravels on 15 November 2014 - 13:11
Oh look! It's the look out your window argument! Do you realize how moronic that is? No, obviously, you don't.
I find it ironic that you posted this:
If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything.
Malcom X
by Mountain Lion on 15 November 2014 - 16:11
I think it is disgraceful that you continue to perpetuate a HOAX.
by GSD Admin on 15 November 2014 - 23:11
2014 warmest on record.
2013 4th warmest.
2012 9th warmest
2011 9th warmest at that time.
Last 24 years have given us the 20 warmest years on record, what a hoax this is.
| Rank | Year | Global Avg Temp (F) [3] |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2010 | 58.28 |
| 2 | 1998 | 58.22 |
| 3 | 2005 | 58.15 |
| 4 | 2007 | 58.06 |
| 5 | 2002 | 58.05 |
| 6 | 2009 | 58.04 |
| 7 | 2003 | 58.03 |
| 8 | 2006 | 58.02 |
| 9 | 2011 | 57.98 |
| 10 | 2004 | 57.90 |
| 11 | 2001 | 57.89 |
| 12 | 2008 | 57.75 |
| 13 | 1995 | 57.70 |
| 14 | 1997 | 57.68 |
| 15 | 1999 | 57.65 |
| 16 | 1990 | 57.64 |
| 17 | 1991 | 57.64 |
| 18 | 2000 | 57.64 |
| 19 | 1988 | 57.59 |
| 20 | 1987 | 57.54 |
by Mountain Lion on 16 November 2014 - 00:11
Aren't you GSD always complaing about posters not supplying a link to data posted on this site? Where is your link to the data you posted?
Here is my link to an article supplying definitive proof global warming stopped 16 years ago.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top