There are government scientists and researchers who are skeptical of man-made global warming — they just won’t speak up about it, according to two seasoned climate scientists.
“There are skeptics in NASA and NOAA, a good number. But they are quiet. They know in this administration, they don’t speak out,” John Christy, a veteran climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told AL.com.
“These guys in government are not unbiased and they have pressures from above,” echoed Roy Spencer, also a climate scientist at UAH. “Those organizations, NASA and NOAA, they are part of the executive branch. So the White House has some influence over what direction they go. The heads are political appointees so you have political influence from the top down on scientists. And that’s a problem.”
Christy and Spencer sat down with AL.com to discuss their 25 years of using satellites to measure global temperatures, a method of monitoring the climate the two scientists pioneered more than two decades ago.
Satellite temperature measures have been crucial to the global warming debate, showing that temperatures have not risen nearly as fast as most climate models predicted. Satellite data also shows that global temperatures have been flat for the last 15 to 20 years. Trumpeting such data, however, has upset politicians and environmental groups and earned Christy and Spencer the label of “climate deniers.”
Keep Reading…
Showing posts with label global warming alarmists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming alarmists. Show all posts
Midknight Review has long objected to global warming commentary coming from the ranks of federal agencies and the military. Why? We all know of the crude thuggishness of Obama when "crossed" by his own members. Now, we have confimation of our suspicions:
Daily Caller:
More and more environmentalist are having to admit that earth's warming is not at alarming levels, proving the hoax of the Alarmist warming crowd, and validating true and objective science.
41 share
very strong reader interest
After you read the following "Conclusion," you won’t have a clue. So, let me simplify: the climate models used to sustain the Alarmists' Warming debate, do not match data collected from atmospheric observation. In fact, warming trends are “not statistically different from zero in either [atmospheric] . . . . layers.” So goes statements in the “Conclusion,” presented below. In the preface of the same article, we have this confirming statement: Model overestimation of warming is significant whether or not we account for a level shift, although null rejections are much stronger when the level shift is included. © 2014 The Authors. Environmetrics published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd."
________________
CONCLUSIONS (taken from this Wiley Online Library, here, as it reproduces an critical article from Environmetrics, the official journal of the International
Environmetrics Society. This is as authoritarian a
climate science document as there is. In
the article, we find the authors are
forced to admit certain “matrix estimators” do not support the more drastic
warming trends of the Alarmists. I do
not use the word, “disprove” because
such is not included in the referenced article,
but, of course, that is what is
being suggested. ~ blog editor.
Heteroskedasticity
and autocorrelation robust (HAC) covariance matrix estimators have been adapted
to the linear trend model, permitting robust inferences about trend
significance and trend comparisons in data sets with complex and unknown
autocorrelation characteristics. Here, we extend the multivariate HAC approach
of Vogelsang and Franses (2005) to allow more general deterministic
regressors in the model. We show that the asymptotic (approximating) critical
values of the test statistics of Vogelsang and Franses (2005) are nonstandard and depend on
the specific deterministic regressors included in the model. These critical values
can be simulated directly. Alternatively, a simple bootstrap method is
available for obtaining valid critical values and p-values.
The empirical focus of the
paper is a comparison of trends in climate model-generated temperature data and
corresponding observed temperature data in the tropical troposphere. Our
empirical innovation is to make the trend model robust to the possibility of a
level shift in the observed data corresponding to the PCS that occurred around
1978. With respect to the Vogelsang and Franses (2005) approach, this amounts to
adding a level shift dummy to the model that requires a new set of critical
values that we provide.
As our empirical findings
show, the detection of a trend in the tropical lower troposphere and
mid-troposphere data over the 1958–2012 interval is contingent on the decision
of whether or not to control for a level shift coinciding with the PCS. If the term is included, a time trend regression with
autocorrelation-robust error terms indicates that the trend is small and not
statistically different from zero in either the LT or MT layers. Also, most climate models predict a significantly
larger trend over this interval than is observed in either layer. We find a
statistically significant discrepancy between the average climate model trend
and observational trends whether or not the mean-shift term is included.
However, with the shift term included, the null hypothesis of trend equivalence
is rejected much more strongly (at much smaller significance levels).
Regarding the question of
preferred specification (that is, whether to include a shift or not), where the
researcher suspects a break has occurred, results ought to be robust to
controlling for the possibility. In the multivariate tests, when we fix the
break at 1977:12, the shift terms are not significant in either level, but when
we use the grid search method, the shift is significant at 10% in the LT layer
and at 5% in the MT layer. Because breaks are harder to identify than trends,
these findings indicate the importance of controlling for the possibility that
one is present.
The testing method used
herein is both powerful and relatively robust to over-rejections under the null
hypothesis caused by strong serial correlation. The power of the test is
indicated by the span of test scores in Table 8 in which relatively small changes in modeled
trends translate into smaller p-values. Using the data-mining method
provides a check on the extent to which the results depend on the assumption of
a known shift date.
As such, our empirical
approach has many other potential applications on climatic and other data sets
in which level shifts are believed to have occurred. Examples could include
stratospheric temperature trends that are subject to level shifts coinciding
with major volcanic eruptions and land surface trends where it is believed that
the measuring equipment has changed or was moved. Generalizing the approach to
allow more than one unknown break point is left for subsequent work.
Global Warming as a crisis that man can prevent or reverse? Here is a summary as you practice a little "critical thinking" for the first time (?) in your lives. The conclusions are yours. The summary is mine.
60 share
very high reader interest
<<<< One of the most recognized Alarmist picture, depicting a lone polar bear (as if close to extinction - he is not), clinging to his last hope for life, as if he forgot how to swim. The picture is as much a scam as is the anti-intellectual Alarmist Movement. After all, they are the ones who push this picture.
Here is a summation of the
arguments I see as germane to the issue of global warming as a crisis that we
can control or reverse. I ask the reader
to challenge what I briefly state, then
follow that challenge with a second challenge,
in essence, debating with
yourselves. Whichever argument you
cannot defeat is your truth.
I begin with this claim: The Alarmists’ view of global warming is man made (the opinion is man-made or invented). I do
not believe in consensus science, nor do
I believe in a theory that cannot consistently predict outcomes. I know that consensus science has been wrong
in the past, in my lifetime, on many occasions, in matters of the environment (acid rain, the hunger bomb, the ozone whatever, the mini ice age), health, economics and social/domestic
structure. I know that alarmists padded
the books for more than a decade, with
that story breaking in 2009. I expect
government generated warming charts to say the exact same thing when dealing
with warming rates and historical evaluations,
and they do not I know that 30%
of climate scientists do not believe in the alarmists' views (there is more than one) of warming while
believing, at the same time, that warming is happening. I
do not believe that warming has occurred in 12 of the past 16 years. I believe that the current warming rates
began near the turn of the 1900's, back
in the day before we became an industrialized nation. I believe that warming is occurring
throughout our solar system giving posit to the claim that the Sun is the primary cause of our excessive warming trends. I believe that warming, on our planet, is regional,
not global. I believe that Al
Gore, is a moron, with no moral
core. I believe that Central Planning
pays its supporters and punishes its detractors, that the 70 percenters, those climate
scientists who are Alarmists, are not
free to challenge and are more motivated by the funding they receive than
truth. And I believe that the 97% figure
used to frame faux unanimity within the warming community is a totally fabricated
number, I believe that Alarmist Warming
is a potential money pit for the Socialist Pigs who are running the
industrialized world. And I believe that Millennial and Xer generations have
lost the ability to think critically,
i.e., to criticize their own positions in the name of a search for
truth; they have no sense for the dialectic*
pursuit of truth, they (too often) gobble up
what they read and do so without bothering to question their sources or “the
facts.” Instead,
they pretend that this process of intellectual compliance is, somehow, related to "critical
thinking." Their problem? They are lazy, intellectually.
My readers are typical to the
national population, and have made their
feelings clear. Warming as a preventable
event is in the hands of Mother Earth,
not man; warming as a political
priority is at the bottom of every list I seen over the course of the past five
years, at least, in our country. Australia Spain
Make note that his particular post is an ongoing project for today, Saturday, June 28. I will be adding Google links and more commentary (perhaps), throughout the course of the morning. ~ Editor.
More proof of the utter hoax that is "globull" warming
44 share
Figure 1.
RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and
trend (thick bright blue line), September 1996 to May 2014, showing no trend
for 17 years 9 months.
The
hiatus period of 17 years 9 months (showing little or no global warming -
editor) is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record
and still show a zero trend. But the length of the pause in global warming,
significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing
discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the less exciting
real-world temperature change that has been observed . . . text taken from Watts Up With That.
Editor’s notes:
In order words, using satellite
records going back as far as those records exist, there has been no rise in the global averages
for temperature.
This is
not the conclusion of a right-wing nutjob.
No, not at all, unless,
of course, one thinks the
satellite date is the handiwork of a vast,
Rightwing conspiracy.
Global Warming News From Special Report for Tuesday, the 6th: Krauthammer attacks the junk science of regional warming, also called "global" warming.
39 share
Krauthammer:
“The science is unstable. Because in the case of climate, the models are changeable because climate is so complicated. The idea that we who have trouble forecasting what’s going to happen on Saturday in the climate, could pretend to be predicting what’s going to happen in 30 to 40 years is absurd.
And, you always see that no matter what happens, whether it’s a flood or it’s a drought, whether it’s warming or cooling, it’s always a result in what we are ultimately talking about here – human sin with pollution of carbon. It’s the oldest superstition around. It was in the Old Testament. It’s in the rain dance of native Americans. If you sin the skies will not cooperate.
The purveyors of wealth transference are losing the Alarmist Warming Debate, and for good reason:
18 shares
<<< Not exactly accurate of the Greenie's model, but, it just may be close to their model when put into effect in the real world. Note: if the trade involves a compliant U.S. company and an international "violator," CO2 emissions remain the same while related job growth moves out of country, to the violators who have, now, be validated by the Greenies. Genius !!!!
While the article was excellent, I found many of the "comments" to be just as informational. Here are a few examples:
Comment from Bill Yader:
You haven’t been paying attention. Use a 60 year sine curve (30 warming, 30 cooling) and superimpose a 0.6C/century positive trend and you will reproduce 80+% of the temperature fluctuations over the past 160 years. You don’t need CO2 concentrations. You need solar cycles and ocean cycles (ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc) to explain why a 60 year sine curver is so representative of Earth’s temperatures. The positive linear trend is due to the warming from the end of the LIA.
Beyond the last 160 years, you have to factor in some of the 200 and 1,000 year fluctuations identified in geologic and ice core records. Those still need to be better understood.
Skeptics do not deny that the Earth has warmed since the LIA ended 160 years ago, we challenge the theory that CO2 has anything to do with that warming.
- See more at: http://www.masterresource.org/2012/04/earth-day-2012-top-10-positives/#sthash.w8zVmgWV.dpuf
Climate models have proved, at least now and for the foreseeable future, that future climates cannot be predicted. Real scientific research is needed, at a reduced level from global warming research, to advance our understanding of the physical sustems controlling climate. The recent era of conspiracy, fighting transparancy, and “science” by press release has done imeasurable harm to all science. Therefore, this article [the positives of global warming ~ editor] is entirely justifiable and a much, much truer statement of the past, present, and probable future climate that all the alarmist Lysinkoism. Thank you.
CO2 economics is all about getting consumers to pay the cost of closing factories in the industrialized west where costs are high and moving them to the 3rd world where costs are low. Carbon trading [as in "cap and trade" ~ editor] doesn’t reduce carbon, it only moves where it is produced. Along with it goes the jobs. However, the carbon returns on the wind. The jobs do not.
I would like to thank everyone for these comments.
It really helps the debate to have David Appell and Dan Kirk-Davidoff provide links to research that Chip can then review. Thank you in particular.
On the ‘skeptic model,’ I have been told that the microphysics of climate is far too complex to model period. So we can’t have ‘our’ model beat ‘their’ model. Their oversimplified model must be exposed by theoretical disputes and by empirical anomolies.
This (imperfect) analogy may have flaws, but today, and perhaps for more decades, the climate can no more be modeled than the economy can be modeled.
Daily Kos allowed for this survey on global warming. Because it appears in the Daily Kos, you would think the results would be wildly different. Me thinks the alarmists are losing the debate. This survey makes my point.
| The total number of people who voted in this poll: 32,049 |
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)