Say It Ain't So: CFCs, Not CO2 May Be to Blame for Global Warming Patterns

Headholio said:

Roy Spencer is a right wing Alabama hillbilly AGW denier.
It is funny that these debates always end up being with completely ignorant people (gladiator), or debunking the one or two fringies who are always popping up with misleading articles. Lu and Spencer are those fringies, and their angles are pretty solidly debunked.

Why focus on these clowns and not on the thousands of far more credible scientists who make up the consensus? You've just got to face the facts that man made climate change is scientific fact, proven a thousand times over. Its completely settled and a solid fact.


Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet | Climate Asylum

Click to expand...

Denier or not, I think Roy Spencer did demonstrate that the current climate models SEEM to overestimate the effect of CO2 in warming the atmosphere.

Of course, he also confirmed that there is an upward trend in Global Temperature and we are headed in a bad direction even if it is at a slower rate than some estimate.

mrplunkey said:

Yeah, we know. You just "demo" them.

Click to expand...

redsamurai said:

I'm lucky if I have time to play a good one or two PC games a year.

Click to expand...

nydj66 said:

Denier or not, I think Roy Spencer did demonstrate that the current climate models SEEM to overestimate the effect of CO2 in warming the atmosphere.

Of course, he also confirmed that there is an upward trend in Global Temperature and we are headed in a bad direction even if it is at a slower rate than some estimate.

Click to expand...

His demonstration is based on faulty modeling.

Overall the guy is NOT well respected in climate science. He is a propagandist.

Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths

Headholio said:

His demonstration is based on faulty modeling.

Overall the guy is NOT well respected in climate science. He is a propagandist.

Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths

Click to expand...

Plenty of ostracized scientists turned out to be correct.

And of course he's not going to be well respected. If the researchers who believe in climate change are well-funded and produce hoards of Ph.D.s and post-docs who then apply for more funding which in turn crank-out more Ph.D.'s and post-docs, what else would you expect?

Here's something to consider: The climate community has engaged in self-perpetuating groupthink since the 1970's. Isn't it amazing that there's even anyone left in science to disagree with them?

The problem now is the all the companies who profit from "GREEN" products/services/processes etc etc. Funding causes that push the global warming propaganda is in their best $$$ interest.

mrplunkey said:

Plenty of ostracized scientists turned out to be correct.

And of course he's not going to be well respected. If the researchers who believe in climate change are well-funded and produce hoards of Ph.D.s and post-docs who then apply for more funding which in turn crank-out more Ph.D.'s and post-docs, what else would you expect?

Here's something to consider: The climate community has engaged in self-perpetuating groupthink since the 1970's. Isn't it amazing that there's even anyone left in science to disagree with them?

Click to expand...

It's funny how you turn this very same argument around to suit yourself when you feel like it. The problem in this case is that the money shelled out by industry over the past few decades to get researchers to at least shed some doubt on other positively correlated research as it pertains to man and his effect on the climate, is quite substantial. In fact this debate would have been over in the early 80's if not for said lobbying efforts.

UA_Iron said:

The problem now is the all the companies who profit from "GREEN" products/services/processes etc etc. Funding causes that push the global warming propaganda is in their best $$$ interest.

Click to expand...

^^^ this

Odd how Wooden Al made around $100M from climate fear mongering, isn't it?

-SD- said:

Global Warming---> Climate Change---> Climate Cycling--> ?

Click to expand...

General temperature-related faggotry.

mrplunkey said:

Plenty of ostracized scientists turned out to be correct.

And of course he's not going to be well respected. If the researchers who believe in climate change are well-funded and produce hoards of Ph.D.s and post-docs who then apply for more funding which in turn crank-out more Ph.D.'s and post-docs, what else would you expect?

Here's something to consider: The climate community has engaged in self-perpetuating groupthink since the 1970's. Isn't it amazing that there's even anyone left in science to disagree with them?

Click to expand...

It doesn't work on the buddy system. A theory can either be backed up or not. Unlike talk radio, you don't just get to choose an idea, and teach it.

When I say Spencer isn't well respected, its not because he isn't in the cool kids club, its simply because he chooses to ignore facts, and cherry picks information to paint the picture he wants, without considering all the data.

There's nothing wrong with having an incorrect theory. Spencer apparently had some unique ideas about ozone, cosmic rays etc. They were checked out and were discredited. That's ok, but that's not Spencer's problem. He's a propagandist.

Again, AGW is settled science. There is no debate.

Headholio said:

It doesn't work on the buddy system. A theory can either be backed up or not. Unlike talk radio, you don't just get to choose an idea, and teach it.

When I say Spencer isn't well respected, its not because he isn't in the cool kids club, its simply because he chooses to ignore facts, and cherry picks information to paint the picture he wants, without considering all the data.

There's nothing wrong with having an incorrect theory. Spencer apparently had some unique ideas about ozone, cosmic rays etc. They were checked out and were discredited. That's ok, but that's not Spencer's problem. He's a propagandist.

Again, AGW is settled science. There is no debate.

Click to expand...

It's most definitely a buddy systems, but in practice is looks more like the fashion industry. As a matter of fact, research is more like the fashion industry than the fashion industry.

Health care and computing are too.

I personally believe that the more degrees of freedom an industry has, the more fashion-like it becomes. Once we lose our grasp on the handful of metrics we can measure and our brains process, the more we fall back on emotional (and usually irrational ) decision-making tools.

I'll be back later to chat. Gotta put all my data into the cloud, order some emu oil, learn how to do proximal one-third nailing of a tibia and complete a research grant application to study big data.

It's what all the cool kids are doing.