You see them all over the place in climate denier-land. They are the denier darlings.
There are very few people still alive in our world with actually background from climate-related sciences, who still to some degree, deny AGW or who plays down the role and impact of C02 as a driver for climate change. Most of the denier "experts" are expert in a different field of science or a fake, a crank, a clown or a blown up authority paid to present the usual piss stream of propaganda lies and myths on behalf of the oil industry funded think tank who puts money on them.They will milk this old tired cow til it drops dead.
FAKE EXPERTS:
These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge.
Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.
“For example, the common idea that there will always be two opposing views does not always result in a rational conclusion. This was behind how tobacco firms used science to make their products look harmless, and is used today by climate change deniers to argue against the scientific evidence. “This ‘balance routine’ has allowed the cigarette men, or climate deniers today, to claim that there are two sides to every story, that ‘experts disagree’ – creating a false picture of the truth, hence ignorance.”
(Is there an argument?..Ohh, the science can't be settled then!)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
Here are Heartland Institute president Joe Bast talking down the dangers of tobacco smoking:
https://www.scribd.com/document/220221584/Joe-Bast-op-ed-on-smoking
Heartland playing down the dangers of second hand smoking:
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/the-big-lie-of-secondhand-smoke
If you wondered what deniers favorite think tank, The Heartland Institute have to say about tobacco today, here it comes, and im not kidding, but do this sound familiar to you:
"The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science".
"The anti-smoking movement is hardly a grassroots phenomenon: It is largely funded by taxpayers and a few major foundations with left-liberal agendas."
“The association between (second hand) tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
https://www.heartland.org/Alcohol-Tobacco/Smokers-Lounge/index.html
More on The Heartland Institute, the mother of all climate lies.
Climate deniers of today have the same fake experts as the tobacco industry. Just so they can say, "listen, we have scientists who disagree, so the science is not settled."
Here are the climate denier darlings:
Blogger and creationist Roy Spencer, creationist Timothy Ball, blogger and lobbyist Richard Lindzen, the former evangelical pastor John Christy, notorious lier and oil shill Patrick Michaels and lobbyist blogger Judith Curry.
Why is it deniers only use these, over and over and over again?
Could it be they are all directly linked to oil industry funded think tanks? Could it be because their conclusions and findinds always are convenient for the oil industry? Lets have a closer look.
Roy Spencer.
Funded by George C. Marshall Institute og Heartland Institute? Check!
Directly linked to the fossil-fuel-industry? Check!
Crank-expert? Check!
Creationist? Check!
Here are 6 reasons why Spencer is completely useless and irrelevant on climate matters.
1) Roy Spencer is a Creationist, which means he is anti-science. Roy Spencer has signed the The Cornwall Alliance creationist petition - declaring that "God" would never allow global warming / climate change to happen.
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."
http://cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
http://cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
https://www.realskeptic.com/2014/01/29/dr-roy-spencer-please-keep-religion-science/
Roy Spencer has essentially made up his mind about global warming. His research is not to consider if global warming is natural, it’s to show that global warming is natural. This completely changes how one should assess his research and anything he writes about global warming and climate change. Many accuse climate scientists of being biased but this seems like a classic example of explicit bias. Essentially it seems that Roy Spencer’s research is aimed at confirming his view that global warming and climate change are simply a consequence of some natural process and are not anthropogenic. I think everyone should bear this in mind when considering Roy Spencer’s views on global warming and climate change.
2) In the book The Evolution Crisis, creationist Spencer denies evolution:
"I was finally convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, because the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexities of the world. [...] Science has scared us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to get rid of the need for a creator and designer.
http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php
3. In this guest essay on the website of the creationists in The Cornwall Alliance, the creationist Spencer writes:
"But there is no way to know whether “The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities…”, because there is no fingerprint of human-caused versus naturally caused climate change. To claim the changes are “unprecedented” cannot be demonstrated with reliable data, and are contradicted by some published paleoclimate data which suggests most centuries experience substantial warming or cooling."
http://cornwallalliance.org/2014/05/1094/
This is contrary to what all other climate scientists are saying and contrary to basic physics. Because there is a human fingerprint on AGW:
The carbon in atmospheric CO2 contains information about its origin, so researchers can tell that fossil fuel emissions are the biggest source of the increase since pre-industrial times. The carbon from burning fossil fuels has a different isotopic signal than CO2 derived from natural sources. It's like a fingerprint. It's unique and has no other explanations.
4. Creationist Roy Spencer has been involved in making fraudulent research as published in Remote Sensing, which led to the editor quitting.
"the paper by [creationist] [Roy] Spencer and [William] Braswel was "fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal."
Creationist Spencer og Braswel debunked :
"Changes in outgoing radiation are both a consequence and a cause of changes in the earth’s temperature. Spencer and Braswell recently showed that in a simple box model for the earth the regression of outgoing radiation against surface temperature gave a slope that differed from the model’s true feedback parameter. They went on to select input parameters for the box model based on observations, computed the difference for those conditions, and asserted that there is a significant bias for climate studies. This paper shows that Spencer and Braswell overestimated the difference".
5. Creationist Roy Spencer conveniently forgot to factor in sensor degredation in his database for a LONG time until the scientific community forced him to issue the corrections.
But rather than doing a careful analysis of various potential explanations, McNider and Christy, as well as their colleague Roy Spencer, prefer to draw far reaching conclusions based on a particularly flawed comparison: They shift the modelled temperature anomaly upwards to increase the discrepancy with observations by around 50%. Using this tactic, Roy Spencer showed the following figure on his blog recently:
The misleading and fake graph. You will find this is hundreds of denier blogs and videos.
Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception.
So what did he do? Jos Hagelaars tried to reproduce the different steps involved. A comparison of annual data, using a 1986-2005 baseline, would look as follows:
Spencer used a 5 year running mean instead of annual values, which would (should) look as follows:
The next step is re-baselining the figure to maximize the visual appearance of a discrepancy: Let’s baseline everything to the 1979-1983 average (way too short of a period and chosen very tactically it seems):
Which looks surprisingly similar to Spencer’s trickery-graph. But critiquing Roy Spencer comes at a risk: He may call you a “global warming Nazi”. Those nasty CO2 molecules, that’ll teach them!
ANOTHER DEBUNK:
In 2014, the truth came out: Spencer’s UAH team had made a huge mistake in the calibration of their data. Instead of negligible upper-atmosphere warming, they found that the upper atmosphere had been warming at +0.14 degrees per decade, double the 1880-2014 rate of 0.07 degrees per decade. The other major satellite data set, RSS, also found a calibration error, meaning the Earth warmed 140% faster since 1998 than previous conclusions indicated. At the same time, the ground-based data from NOAA, NASA, the Hadley center and BEST all displayed agreement with one another. Once the 2014, 2015 and 2016 data are also included, the graph shows the scientific truth: the models are very much in line with what we observe.
"In fact out of all the temperature datasets — land, sea, weather balloons, and two from satellites (UAH and RSS) — only one dataset had shown unexpectedly slow warming in recent years, the RSS data. Unsurprisingly, that is the dataset deniers like Ted Cruz have glommed on to — despite the fact that it was widely believed the RSS data was being misanlayzed."
Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.
To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data.
The correctly adjusted graph:
So rather than, say, providing the public the best science, Spencer sees his “job” as persuading the public not to support efforts to reduce carbon pollution. So it’s no surprise that Spencer chose such a misleading headline, despite the fact that his own chart’s running 13-month average clearly shows that temperatures are rising.
If you’re wondering why Spencer plots a 13-month running average when 13 months do not actually correspond to anything relevant to homo sapiens, well, you’ll have to ask him. It is slightly easier to do the math. In any case, here is the more meaningful 12-month running average.
https://thinkprogress.org/satellites-confirm-global-warming-ce6d636c469f/
John Christy and Spencer were wrong — dead wrong — for a very long time, which created one of the most enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did. As RealClimate explained a few years ago:
We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming, and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.
Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide.
But what would you expect from a guy who contributed the chapter “The Global Warming Fiasco” to a 2002 book called Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths, published by Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leading provider of disinformation on global warming that was funded by ExxonMobil?
____________________________
Spencer and Christy’s data set has undergone many major corrections to address various errors and biases. This is how science always progresses, but those who believe that adjustments to surface temperature measurements are part of a conspiracy (including Roy Spencer) always seem to neglect the major adjustments to the satellite data. In fact, in its early days, Spencer and Christy’s data set seemed to indicate the atmosphere was cooling, before a series of big adjustments were made. [..] Much of Spencer and Christy’s contrarian research has not withstood subsequent scientific scrutiny.
More new science destroys creationist Spencers outdated junk:
The existence of bias in recent global mean temperature estimates has been confirmed by multiple means. This bias leads to an underestimation of recent temperature trends. The evidence is as follows. Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. Kevin Cowtan, Robert G. Way (2014)
The new dataset shows substantially increased global-scale warming relative to the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998. The new dataset shows more warming than most other midtropospheric data records constructed from the same set of satellites. It is also shown that the new dataset is consistent with long-term changes in total column water vapor over the tropical oceans, lending support to its long-term accuracy.
Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment Press Release: 2016 Tropospheric Temperatures. A new press release from Dr. Carl Mears using the Temperature Total Troposphere (TTT) dataset shows that 2016 is the warmest year since the satellite record began in 1979. The previous record, set during the last major El Niño in 1998, was broken by 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit.
5.) The only "contrarian" peer-reviewed paper Spencer ever made on climate is one he co-authored, a paper that attempted to support Richard Lindzen's long debunked Iris-theory:
"The increase in longwave cooling is traced to decreasing coverage by ice clouds, potentially supporting Lindzen's “infrared iris” hypothesis of climate stabilization".
Lindzen Iris theory long debunked.
A brutal debunk of creationist Spencer.
Tons of lies and more lies? Check!
Creationist Spencer lies debunket. Even more lies debunked.
Creationist Spencer debunked again.
Roy Spencer's Great Blunder, part 1
A debunking of creationist Spencers 13 big lies.
A mishmash of myths Most of Spencer’s white paper consists of repeating a variety of long-debunked myths. It’s laid out in the form of 13 basic climate questions that Spencer tries to answer. Fortunately, SkepticalScience.com has a database of over 200 climate myths, and summaries of what the peer-reviewed scientific research says about each. This makes it possible to handle Spencer’s 13-point Gish Gallop by simply referring to the relevant myth rebuttals.
6. Just the fact he is a Heartland crank.
In other words. Spencer has never delivered anything relevant to climate research in the peer-reviewed literature. Nada. NOTHING. That's probably why he only blogs his "findings". It is striking that he is communicating only through bloggs and YouTube, as lecturer at oil funded think tank conventions or as guest writer for creationists. Never with verifiable science through academic circles, in conversation with other researchers or through peer-reviewed articles in serious publications, magazines or journals. He is a big oil-financed think-tank creationist fringe blogger. And only that.
__________________________________________
Creationist Spencer earned his doctorate in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981 and went on to serve as a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., where he and Christy received an award for their work monitoring global temperatures with satellites. Spencer became a research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville in 2001.
While his personal website notes that his research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies and not oil companies, he does have a leadership role in groups with financial ties to Big Oil. They include:
* George C. Marshall Institute. Spencer currently serves as a director at the George C. Marshall Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit that receives substantial funding from oil and gas interests -- including Exxon, which has given the group at least $840,000 since 1998,according to Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets.org database. The Marshall Institute used to restrict its funding to private foundations and individual donors, but in the late 1990s, after it began working to cast doubt on global warming, the group made the decision to accept money from corporations and their foundations.
The Marshall Institute's former executive director, Matthew B. Crawford, wrote an essay for the New York Times back in 2009 that accused the group -- which he did not name -- of distorting facts in pursuit of its ideological agenda:
But certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style -- that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning.
* Cornwall Alliance. Spencer is a member of the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance, a conservative Christian public-policy group that promotes a free-market approach to environmental stewardship and whose "Resisting the Green Dragon" campaign portrays the climate-protection movement as a sort of false religion. The Cornwall Alliance has close ties to a conservative policy group called the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which has received over $580,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org. Paul Driessen, who played a guiding role in forming the group now known as the Cornwall Alliance, also served as a consultant for ExxonMobil and CFACT, which has also received at least $60,500 from Chevron and $1.28 million from the the foundation of the Scaife family, whose wealth comes in part from Gulf Oil, as Think Progress reports.
* Encounter Books. Spencer is the author of three books critical of mainstream climate science: Climate Confusion, published in 2008, and The Great Global Warming Blunder and The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama's Global Warming Agenda, both released last year. All of those works were published by Encounter Books, which is a project of the conservative nonprofit Encounter for Culture and Education. That group's major funders include the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, which in turn is controlled by one of the owners of Kansas-based Koch Industries, among the world's richest privately held companies with extensive holdings in oil refineries and pipelines. The Kochs have played a critical role in funding climate-denial efforts, contributing $24.9 million to organizations that have worked to cast doubt on mainstream climate science.
* Tech Central Station. Spencer served as a columnist and a member of the science roundtable for Tech Central Station. Until 2006, TCS was run by DCI Group, a lobbying and public-relations firm that has represented ExxonMobil.
So while Spencer may have "never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service," he has certainly served the oil industry's interest in amplifying doubt about climate change and downplaying the scientific consensus that it's real and caused in large part by human activity.
By Sue Sturgis on September 7, 2011
-------------------------------------
BONUS
ROY SPENCER CONFIRMING THE GHE AND OUR C02 CAUSES WARMING:
Roy Spencer on the greenhouse effect:
“Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
"I have not yet seen any compelling evidence that there exists a major flaw in the theory explaining the basic operation of the Earth’s natural Greenhouse Effect."
Roy Spencer 5 August 2010
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/
"Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface
He even calls out for deniers to stop questioning the GHE because it makes them look like idiots....hilarious:
"Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad. "
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Linked to oil funded think tanks? Check!
Crank? Check!
“Dr. Christy is listed as a "Roundtable Speaker" for the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He is also listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute.”
The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a "non-profit" organization funded by the profits from oil and gas interests and right-wing funders (listed later). It has received substantial funding from Exxon's Exxon Education Foundation
John Christy and Spencer were wrong — dead wrong — for a very long time, which created one of the most enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did. As RealClimate explained a few years ago:
We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming, and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.
Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide.
But what would you expect from a guy who contributed the chapter “The Global Warming Fiasco” to a 2002 book called Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths, published by Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leading provider of disinformation on global warming that was funded by ExxonMobil?
No, you cant expect to find a correlation if you dont use the same elements. 3 apples + 2 cucumbers is not 5 bananas.
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=243
Graph shows a comparison between the average of an ensemble of 102 model calculations and observations (average of 3 satellite measurements and 4 balloon measurements). They have clearly not understood that they compare different sizes, so that they can not dismiss model calculations based on such.
The model calculations shown by Christy are derived from the Dutch data portal ClimateExplorer. However, model calculations of temperatures at different heights above the ground in this web portal can not be found, only the temperature near the ground. The satellite measurements and balloons, on the other hand, represent the average temperature in a volume that stretches from the ground to a height of about 15 km.
In addition to various statistical sizes, Christy uses different physical measures in comparison when comparing temperatures at the surface with the temperature of 15 km of the atmosphere. Increased greenhouse effect causes the lower part of the atmosphere (troposphere, which goes up to about 10km) to get warmer while the above layers of the stratosphere become colder. Does anyone see the problem with this comparison?
Not only that. The satellite measurements are also model calculations,. In fact, they base on similar models that show that CO2 provides global warming. Ironically, neither Spencer nor Christy have realized this fact. In addition, the satellite curve is sewn together by different satellites with short lifespan, and the measurements from the different satellites are scattered. It is not so easy to put them together to a reliable temperature curve. They have been corrected several times.
In other words, the figure of Christy and Spencer reveals basic deficiencies in understanding both statistics and physics.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/03/the-true-meaning-of-numbers/#more-20158
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates
Climate scientists, using current science, are successful in predicting temperatures.
Another Christy debunk
The Guardian:
Christy and Spencer have also been affiliated with various conservative fossil fuel-funded think tanks. And Spencer is on the Board of Advisors of the Cornwall Alliance – a religious group that essentially believes God wouldn’t let damaging climate change happen.
Spencer and Christy made a valuable scientific contribution by creating their atmospheric temperature data set. However, given how few climate scientists dispute the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, it’s useful to examine their research and comments with a critical eye. When we do, it becomes clear that they have less in common with Galileo than with the scientists who disputed the links between smoking and cancer.
Noen studier om satelittdata:
The role of satellite remote sensing in climate change studies
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1908
A Comparative Analysis of Data Derived from Orbiting MSU/AMSU Instrument
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1
Timothy Ball
Linked to oil industry? Check!
Creationist? Check!
Crank and fake expert? Check!
"Ball was a former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. The University of Winnipeg never had an office of Climatology. His degree was in historical geography and not climatology."
But surely, he is not a creationist right? RIGHT?
Ball admitting he is a creationist:
"Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148 years after it was first proposed, Darwinian evolution is the only view allowed in schools. Why? Such censorship suggests fear of other ideas, a measure of indefensibility."
Tim Ball is apparently too LUDICROUS to be taken seriously:
Judge finds written attack on climate scientist too ludicrous to be libel.
The Hotwobber blog saw it coming a long way:
Climate science denial dismissed - Judge finds Tim Ball too wacky to be believed
By the way - I did predict that Tim Ball was trying for the insanity defense, back in April last year. He must be very pleased his efforts have come to this!
B.C.
Supreme Court Justice Ronald Skolrood criticized Ball (a long-retired
geography professor from the University of Winnipeg) at length. Justice
Skolrood wrote:
YouTube-user Potholer54 uses updated climate science to debunk Tim Ball the crank. Dont laugh, this is too funny.
http://theidiottracker.blogspot.no/2016/08/rancid-wine-in-cracked-bottles-tim-ball.html
WILLIE SOON
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
"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,” the New York Times reported in February 2015"
DENIER LOBBYIST BLOGGER JUDITH CURRY
Judith A. Curry is chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She runs a climate blog and has been invited by Republicans on several occasions to testify at climate hearings about uncertainties in climate understanding and predictions. Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused climate outreach communication for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence. Curry is a regular at Anthony Watts' denier blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit, another denier site. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/04/judy-currys-attribution-non-argument/#comment-677575
https://skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_blog.htm
https://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry
Patrick Michaels
Linked to oil/koch-brothers funded think tank? Check!
The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank founded by Charles G. Koch and funded by the Koch brothers.
In 1988, James Hansen testified before the U.S. Senate on the danger of anthropogenic global warming. During that testimony he presented a graph — part of a paper published soon after. This graph had three lines on it, representing three scenarios based on three projections of future emissions and volcanism. Hansen was right on the money, and the models he used proved successful. Unfortunately, when Patrick Michaels made his testimony before Congress in 1998, ten years later, he saw fit to erase the two lower lines, B and C, and show the Senators only Line A. He did so to make his testimony that Hansen’s predictions had been off by 300% believable. He lied by omission. This lie was picked up by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear (one of many omissions, confusions, and falsehood in that book — see here).
Patrick J. Michaels also known as Pat Michaels, is a largely oil-funded global warming skeptic who argues that global warming models are fatally flawed and, in any event, we should take no action because new technologies will soon replace those that emit greenhouse gases.
In this video Michaels is admitting he is funded (40%) by the oil industry:
A review of claims made by the Cato Institute's Patrick Michaels over the last quarter century shows that he has repeatedly been proven wrong over time. Michaels is one of a few contrarian climate scientists who is often featured in the media without disclosure of his funding from the fossil fuel industry.
WoW really? Richard Lindzen a Heartland hired crank? Check.
Directly linked to fossil fuel industries? Check!
Working for creationists? Check!
Linked to tobacco inustry? Check!
“He's been wrong about nearly every major climate argument he's made over the past two decades. Lindzen is arguably the climate scientist who's been the wrongest, longest.”
Lindzens Iris-theory is debunked a long time ago:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/infrared-iris-effect-negative-feedback.htm
Lindzens sensitivity nonsense debunked:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htm
New science on climate sensitivity throws Lindzens climate sensitivity theories out the window:
A new study by Kate Marvel, Gavin Schmidt, Ron Miller, and Larissa Nazarenko at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies [...] drew upon previous research by Drew Shindell and Kummer & Dessler, who identified a flaw in studies taking the energy budget approach. Those studies had assumed that the Earth’s climate is equally sensitive to all forcings.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/apr/11/climate-change-research-quality-imbalance
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jan/12/nasa-study-fixes-error-in-low-contrarian-climate-sensitivity-estimates
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n4/full/nclimate2888.html
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%282002%29083%3C0249%3ANEFI%3E2.3.CO%3B2
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282002%29015%3C0003%3ATIHANO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282002%29015%3C3719%3AEONCDF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523.full
Lindzen bommer fælt med sine spådommer:
Lindzens predictions are not very accurate:
More Lindzen debunks:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism
https://www.inverse.com/article/11643-climate-change-denying-mit-prof-richard-lindzen-is-suddenly-popular-still-wrong
https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
But Heartland are not the only ones to put money on Lindzen:
Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change. Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, two contrarian scientists who appeared for Peabody at hearings in Minnesota last month on the social cost of carbon, were also included in the bankruptcy filings.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding
Roy Spencers og Richard Lindzens syn på AGW og CO2s rolle er som snydd ut av nesen til Peabodys Energys eget syn. La oss se hvor godt synspunktene samsvarer:
Roy Spencers and Richard Lindzens view on AGW and C02 is comically close to Peabody coals view:
Just last year, Peabody wrote to the White House Council on Environmental Quality describing carbon dioxide as;
“a benign gas that is essential for all life” and denying the dangers of global warming.
After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving. Richard Lindzen
“While the benefits of carbon dioxide are proven, the alleged risks of climate change are contrary to observed data, are based on admitted speculation, and lack adequate scientific basis,” the company wrote in the 24 March 2015 letter
"There are benefits to more CO2 in the air, and probably to a little bit of warming. Roy Spencer
Men det er sikkert helt "tilfeldig" at Spencer og Lindzen står på lønningslisten til USAs største kullkompani og "tilfeldigvis" har et syn på AGW som er fordelaktig for Peabody. Helt sikkert.
The truth behind Peabody's campaign to rebrand coal as a poverty cure
The world’s largest privately-held coal company has a long history of attacking climate science. Now it is working to change the conversation from a climate crisis to one of global poverty – with coal as the solution
Here we see Lindzen working for creationist madcap fake university PragerU and their right wing nut anti science petrolium propaganda:
The truth behind PragerU is very very dirty and ugly:
The man behind PragerU is the homophobic, paranoid, conspiranoid abortionist and creationist Dennis Prager. Read all about his scary agenda here.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/01/fracking-titans-bankrolling-right-wing-indoctrination-effort-schools-investigation
"The Wilks brothers manage Interstate Explorations, an oil and gas field services company based out of Texas, and recently sold shares in the fracking and oil services enterprise Frac Tech, making them worth $1.4 billion each. In total, the Wilks family has donated $6,550,000 to PragerU.
"The religious right seems to believe that the education system is the perfect battlefield to win this 'culture war' taking place in America," writes Shea. "While conservatives continue to push for privatization, efforts on public schools center on curriculum. Whether by pushing creationism, lowering comprehensive sexual education standards, or refusing Common Core, with resources like Prager University and financial supporters like the Wilks, their efforts have been enormously strengthened."
Here are some great videos which debunks the PragerU right wing creationist madcap batshit anti science nonsense:
There are very few people still alive in our world with actually background from climate-related sciences, who still to some degree, deny AGW or who plays down the role and impact of C02 as a driver for climate change. Most of the denier "experts" are expert in a different field of science or a fake, a crank, a clown or a blown up authority paid to present the usual piss stream of propaganda lies and myths on behalf of the oil industry funded think tank who puts money on them.They will milk this old tired cow til it drops dead.
FAKE EXPERTS:
These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge.
Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.
“For example, the common idea that there will always be two opposing views does not always result in a rational conclusion. This was behind how tobacco firms used science to make their products look harmless, and is used today by climate change deniers to argue against the scientific evidence. “This ‘balance routine’ has allowed the cigarette men, or climate deniers today, to claim that there are two sides to every story, that ‘experts disagree’ – creating a false picture of the truth, hence ignorance.”
(Is there an argument?..Ohh, the science can't be settled then!)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
Here are Heartland Institute president Joe Bast talking down the dangers of tobacco smoking:
https://www.scribd.com/document/220221584/Joe-Bast-op-ed-on-smoking
Heartland playing down the dangers of second hand smoking:
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/the-big-lie-of-secondhand-smoke
If you wondered what deniers favorite think tank, The Heartland Institute have to say about tobacco today, here it comes, and im not kidding, but do this sound familiar to you:
"The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science".
"The anti-smoking movement is hardly a grassroots phenomenon: It is largely funded by taxpayers and a few major foundations with left-liberal agendas."
“The association between (second hand) tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
https://www.heartland.org/Alcohol-Tobacco/Smokers-Lounge/index.html
More on The Heartland Institute, the mother of all climate lies.
Climate deniers of today have the same fake experts as the tobacco industry. Just so they can say, "listen, we have scientists who disagree, so the science is not settled."
Here are the climate denier darlings:
Blogger and creationist Roy Spencer, creationist Timothy Ball, blogger and lobbyist Richard Lindzen, the former evangelical pastor John Christy, notorious lier and oil shill Patrick Michaels and lobbyist blogger Judith Curry.
Why is it deniers only use these, over and over and over again?
Could it be they are all directly linked to oil industry funded think tanks? Could it be because their conclusions and findinds always are convenient for the oil industry? Lets have a closer look.
Roy Spencer.
Funded by George C. Marshall Institute og Heartland Institute? Check!
Directly linked to the fossil-fuel-industry? Check!
Crank-expert? Check!
Creationist? Check!
Here are 6 reasons why Spencer is completely useless and irrelevant on climate matters.
1) Roy Spencer is a Creationist, which means he is anti-science. Roy Spencer has signed the The Cornwall Alliance creationist petition - declaring that "God" would never allow global warming / climate change to happen.
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."
http://cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
http://cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
https://www.realskeptic.com/2014/01/29/dr-roy-spencer-please-keep-religion-science/
Roy Spencer has essentially made up his mind about global warming. His research is not to consider if global warming is natural, it’s to show that global warming is natural. This completely changes how one should assess his research and anything he writes about global warming and climate change. Many accuse climate scientists of being biased but this seems like a classic example of explicit bias. Essentially it seems that Roy Spencer’s research is aimed at confirming his view that global warming and climate change are simply a consequence of some natural process and are not anthropogenic. I think everyone should bear this in mind when considering Roy Spencer’s views on global warming and climate change.
2) In the book The Evolution Crisis, creationist Spencer denies evolution:
"I was finally convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, because the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexities of the world. [...] Science has scared us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to get rid of the need for a creator and designer.
http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php
3. In this guest essay on the website of the creationists in The Cornwall Alliance, the creationist Spencer writes:
"But there is no way to know whether “The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities…”, because there is no fingerprint of human-caused versus naturally caused climate change. To claim the changes are “unprecedented” cannot be demonstrated with reliable data, and are contradicted by some published paleoclimate data which suggests most centuries experience substantial warming or cooling."
http://cornwallalliance.org/2014/05/1094/
This is contrary to what all other climate scientists are saying and contrary to basic physics. Because there is a human fingerprint on AGW:
The carbon in atmospheric CO2 contains information about its origin, so researchers can tell that fossil fuel emissions are the biggest source of the increase since pre-industrial times. The carbon from burning fossil fuels has a different isotopic signal than CO2 derived from natural sources. It's like a fingerprint. It's unique and has no other explanations.
4. Creationist Roy Spencer has been involved in making fraudulent research as published in Remote Sensing, which led to the editor quitting.
"the paper by [creationist] [Roy] Spencer and [William] Braswel was "fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal."
Creationist Spencer og Braswel debunked :
"Changes in outgoing radiation are both a consequence and a cause of changes in the earth’s temperature. Spencer and Braswell recently showed that in a simple box model for the earth the regression of outgoing radiation against surface temperature gave a slope that differed from the model’s true feedback parameter. They went on to select input parameters for the box model based on observations, computed the difference for those conditions, and asserted that there is a significant bias for climate studies. This paper shows that Spencer and Braswell overestimated the difference".
5. Creationist Roy Spencer conveniently forgot to factor in sensor degredation in his database for a LONG time until the scientific community forced him to issue the corrections.
But rather than doing a careful analysis of various potential explanations, McNider and Christy, as well as their colleague Roy Spencer, prefer to draw far reaching conclusions based on a particularly flawed comparison: They shift the modelled temperature anomaly upwards to increase the discrepancy with observations by around 50%. Using this tactic, Roy Spencer showed the following figure on his blog recently:
The misleading and fake graph. You will find this is hundreds of denier blogs and videos.
Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception.
So what did he do? Jos Hagelaars tried to reproduce the different steps involved. A comparison of annual data, using a 1986-2005 baseline, would look as follows:
Spencer used a 5 year running mean instead of annual values, which would (should) look as follows:
The next step is re-baselining the figure to maximize the visual appearance of a discrepancy: Let’s baseline everything to the 1979-1983 average (way too short of a period and chosen very tactically it seems):
Which looks surprisingly similar to Spencer’s trickery-graph. But critiquing Roy Spencer comes at a risk: He may call you a “global warming Nazi”. Those nasty CO2 molecules, that’ll teach them!
ANOTHER DEBUNK:
In 2014, the truth came out: Spencer’s UAH team had made a huge mistake in the calibration of their data. Instead of negligible upper-atmosphere warming, they found that the upper atmosphere had been warming at +0.14 degrees per decade, double the 1880-2014 rate of 0.07 degrees per decade. The other major satellite data set, RSS, also found a calibration error, meaning the Earth warmed 140% faster since 1998 than previous conclusions indicated. At the same time, the ground-based data from NOAA, NASA, the Hadley center and BEST all displayed agreement with one another. Once the 2014, 2015 and 2016 data are also included, the graph shows the scientific truth: the models are very much in line with what we observe.
"In fact out of all the temperature datasets — land, sea, weather balloons, and two from satellites (UAH and RSS) — only one dataset had shown unexpectedly slow warming in recent years, the RSS data. Unsurprisingly, that is the dataset deniers like Ted Cruz have glommed on to — despite the fact that it was widely believed the RSS data was being misanlayzed."
Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.
To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data.
The correctly adjusted graph:
So rather than, say, providing the public the best science, Spencer sees his “job” as persuading the public not to support efforts to reduce carbon pollution. So it’s no surprise that Spencer chose such a misleading headline, despite the fact that his own chart’s running 13-month average clearly shows that temperatures are rising.
Sorry deniers, even satellites confirm record global warming
If you’re wondering why Spencer plots a 13-month running average when 13 months do not actually correspond to anything relevant to homo sapiens, well, you’ll have to ask him. It is slightly easier to do the math. In any case, here is the more meaningful 12-month running average.
https://thinkprogress.org/satellites-confirm-global-warming-ce6d636c469f/
John Christy and Spencer were wrong — dead wrong — for a very long time, which created one of the most enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did. As RealClimate explained a few years ago:
We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming, and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.
Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide.
But what would you expect from a guy who contributed the chapter “The Global Warming Fiasco” to a 2002 book called Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths, published by Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leading provider of disinformation on global warming that was funded by ExxonMobil?
____________________________
Spencer and Christy’s data set has undergone many major corrections to address various errors and biases. This is how science always progresses, but those who believe that adjustments to surface temperature measurements are part of a conspiracy (including Roy Spencer) always seem to neglect the major adjustments to the satellite data. In fact, in its early days, Spencer and Christy’s data set seemed to indicate the atmosphere was cooling, before a series of big adjustments were made. [..] Much of Spencer and Christy’s contrarian research has not withstood subsequent scientific scrutiny.
More new science destroys creationist Spencers outdated junk:
The existence of bias in recent global mean temperature estimates has been confirmed by multiple means. This bias leads to an underestimation of recent temperature trends. The evidence is as follows. Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. Kevin Cowtan, Robert G. Way (2014)
The new dataset shows substantially increased global-scale warming relative to the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998. The new dataset shows more warming than most other midtropospheric data records constructed from the same set of satellites. It is also shown that the new dataset is consistent with long-term changes in total column water vapor over the tropical oceans, lending support to its long-term accuracy.
Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment Press Release: 2016 Tropospheric Temperatures. A new press release from Dr. Carl Mears using the Temperature Total Troposphere (TTT) dataset shows that 2016 is the warmest year since the satellite record began in 1979. The previous record, set during the last major El Niño in 1998, was broken by 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit.
5.) The only "contrarian" peer-reviewed paper Spencer ever made on climate is one he co-authored, a paper that attempted to support Richard Lindzen's long debunked Iris-theory:
"The increase in longwave cooling is traced to decreasing coverage by ice clouds, potentially supporting Lindzen's “infrared iris” hypothesis of climate stabilization".
Lindzen Iris theory long debunked.
A brutal debunk of creationist Spencer.
Tons of lies and more lies? Check!
Creationist Spencer lies debunket. Even more lies debunked.
Creationist Spencer debunked again.
Roy Spencer's Great Blunder, part 1
A debunking of creationist Spencers 13 big lies.
A mishmash of myths Most of Spencer’s white paper consists of repeating a variety of long-debunked myths. It’s laid out in the form of 13 basic climate questions that Spencer tries to answer. Fortunately, SkepticalScience.com has a database of over 200 climate myths, and summaries of what the peer-reviewed scientific research says about each. This makes it possible to handle Spencer’s 13-point Gish Gallop by simply referring to the relevant myth rebuttals.
6. Just the fact he is a Heartland crank.
In other words. Spencer has never delivered anything relevant to climate research in the peer-reviewed literature. Nada. NOTHING. That's probably why he only blogs his "findings". It is striking that he is communicating only through bloggs and YouTube, as lecturer at oil funded think tank conventions or as guest writer for creationists. Never with verifiable science through academic circles, in conversation with other researchers or through peer-reviewed articles in serious publications, magazines or journals. He is a big oil-financed think-tank creationist fringe blogger. And only that.
__________________________________________
Creationist Spencer earned his doctorate in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981 and went on to serve as a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., where he and Christy received an award for their work monitoring global temperatures with satellites. Spencer became a research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville in 2001.
While his personal website notes that his research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies and not oil companies, he does have a leadership role in groups with financial ties to Big Oil. They include:
* George C. Marshall Institute. Spencer currently serves as a director at the George C. Marshall Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit that receives substantial funding from oil and gas interests -- including Exxon, which has given the group at least $840,000 since 1998,according to Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets.org database. The Marshall Institute used to restrict its funding to private foundations and individual donors, but in the late 1990s, after it began working to cast doubt on global warming, the group made the decision to accept money from corporations and their foundations.
The Marshall Institute's former executive director, Matthew B. Crawford, wrote an essay for the New York Times back in 2009 that accused the group -- which he did not name -- of distorting facts in pursuit of its ideological agenda:
But certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style -- that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning.
* Cornwall Alliance. Spencer is a member of the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance, a conservative Christian public-policy group that promotes a free-market approach to environmental stewardship and whose "Resisting the Green Dragon" campaign portrays the climate-protection movement as a sort of false religion. The Cornwall Alliance has close ties to a conservative policy group called the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which has received over $580,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org. Paul Driessen, who played a guiding role in forming the group now known as the Cornwall Alliance, also served as a consultant for ExxonMobil and CFACT, which has also received at least $60,500 from Chevron and $1.28 million from the the foundation of the Scaife family, whose wealth comes in part from Gulf Oil, as Think Progress reports.
* Encounter Books. Spencer is the author of three books critical of mainstream climate science: Climate Confusion, published in 2008, and The Great Global Warming Blunder and The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama's Global Warming Agenda, both released last year. All of those works were published by Encounter Books, which is a project of the conservative nonprofit Encounter for Culture and Education. That group's major funders include the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, which in turn is controlled by one of the owners of Kansas-based Koch Industries, among the world's richest privately held companies with extensive holdings in oil refineries and pipelines. The Kochs have played a critical role in funding climate-denial efforts, contributing $24.9 million to organizations that have worked to cast doubt on mainstream climate science.
* Tech Central Station. Spencer served as a columnist and a member of the science roundtable for Tech Central Station. Until 2006, TCS was run by DCI Group, a lobbying and public-relations firm that has represented ExxonMobil.
So while Spencer may have "never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service," he has certainly served the oil industry's interest in amplifying doubt about climate change and downplaying the scientific consensus that it's real and caused in large part by human activity.
By Sue Sturgis on September 7, 2011
-------------------------------------
BONUS
ROY SPENCER CONFIRMING THE GHE AND OUR C02 CAUSES WARMING:
Roy Spencer on the greenhouse effect:
“Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
"I have not yet seen any compelling evidence that there exists a major flaw in the theory explaining the basic operation of the Earth’s natural Greenhouse Effect."
Roy Spencer 5 August 2010
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/
"Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface
He even calls out for deniers to stop questioning the GHE because it makes them look like idiots....hilarious:
"Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad. "
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Linked to oil funded think tanks? Check!
Crank? Check!
“Dr. Christy is listed as a "Roundtable Speaker" for the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He is also listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute.”
The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a "non-profit" organization funded by the profits from oil and gas interests and right-wing funders (listed later). It has received substantial funding from Exxon's Exxon Education Foundation
CHRISTY HAS BEEN WRONG FOR DECADES
It surprises no one that Christy is wrong here. Christy, and University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) colleague Roy Spencer, famously screwed up the satellite temperature measurements of the troposphere.John Christy and Spencer were wrong — dead wrong — for a very long time, which created one of the most enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did. As RealClimate explained a few years ago:
We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming, and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.
Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide.
But what would you expect from a guy who contributed the chapter “The Global Warming Fiasco” to a 2002 book called Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths, published by Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leading provider of disinformation on global warming that was funded by ExxonMobil?
The old and tired misleading Christy-graph debunked again:
No, you cant expect to find a correlation if you dont use the same elements. 3 apples + 2 cucumbers is not 5 bananas.
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=243
Graph shows a comparison between the average of an ensemble of 102 model calculations and observations (average of 3 satellite measurements and 4 balloon measurements). They have clearly not understood that they compare different sizes, so that they can not dismiss model calculations based on such.
The model calculations shown by Christy are derived from the Dutch data portal ClimateExplorer. However, model calculations of temperatures at different heights above the ground in this web portal can not be found, only the temperature near the ground. The satellite measurements and balloons, on the other hand, represent the average temperature in a volume that stretches from the ground to a height of about 15 km.
In addition to various statistical sizes, Christy uses different physical measures in comparison when comparing temperatures at the surface with the temperature of 15 km of the atmosphere. Increased greenhouse effect causes the lower part of the atmosphere (troposphere, which goes up to about 10km) to get warmer while the above layers of the stratosphere become colder. Does anyone see the problem with this comparison?
Not only that. The satellite measurements are also model calculations,. In fact, they base on similar models that show that CO2 provides global warming. Ironically, neither Spencer nor Christy have realized this fact. In addition, the satellite curve is sewn together by different satellites with short lifespan, and the measurements from the different satellites are scattered. It is not so easy to put them together to a reliable temperature curve. They have been corrected several times.
In other words, the figure of Christy and Spencer reveals basic deficiencies in understanding both statistics and physics.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/03/the-true-meaning-of-numbers/#more-20158
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates
Climate scientists, using current science, are successful in predicting temperatures.
Another Christy debunk
The Guardian:
Christy and Spencer have also been affiliated with various conservative fossil fuel-funded think tanks. And Spencer is on the Board of Advisors of the Cornwall Alliance – a religious group that essentially believes God wouldn’t let damaging climate change happen.
Spencer and Christy made a valuable scientific contribution by creating their atmospheric temperature data set. However, given how few climate scientists dispute the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, it’s useful to examine their research and comments with a critical eye. When we do, it becomes clear that they have less in common with Galileo than with the scientists who disputed the links between smoking and cancer.
Noen studier om satelittdata:
The role of satellite remote sensing in climate change studies
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1908
A Comparative Analysis of Data Derived from Orbiting MSU/AMSU Instrument
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1
Timothy Ball
Linked to oil industry? Check!
Creationist? Check!
Crank and fake expert? Check!
"Ball was a former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. The University of Winnipeg never had an office of Climatology. His degree was in historical geography and not climatology."
But surely, he is not a creationist right? RIGHT?
Ball admitting he is a creationist:
"Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148 years after it was first proposed, Darwinian evolution is the only view allowed in schools. Why? Such censorship suggests fear of other ideas, a measure of indefensibility."
Tim Ball is apparently too LUDICROUS to be taken seriously:
Judge finds written attack on climate scientist too ludicrous to be libel.
The Hotwobber blog saw it coming a long way:
Climate science denial dismissed - Judge finds Tim Ball too wacky to be believed
By the way - I did predict that Tim Ball was trying for the insanity defense, back in April last year. He must be very pleased his efforts have come to this!
“… despite Dr. Ball’s history as an academic and a scientist, the Article is rife with errors and inaccuracies, which suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth.”Later in the judgment, Justice Skolrood wrote,
“the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science.”https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/883327726509322240
YouTube-user Potholer54 uses updated climate science to debunk Tim Ball the crank. Dont laugh, this is too funny.
http://theidiottracker.blogspot.no/2016/08/rancid-wine-in-cracked-bottles-tim-ball.html
WILLIE SOON
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
"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,” the New York Times reported in February 2015"
Except for two grants from the Mount Wilson Observatory, all of Soon's research since 2002 has been funded by fossil fuel interests, according to Harvard-Smithsonian records. The 11 Soon papers range from denial of human-caused global warming to articles that downplay the role of climate change in ecological impacts.
He not only took a lot of money, he hid that he took it. He keeps taking it. He knew what he was doing, regardless of his public statements since. Between the duplicity about funding and his inability to get the science right, he has no credibility. Others should be believed long before Soon or his ‘friends’.
DENIER LOBBYIST BLOGGER JUDITH CURRY
Judith A. Curry is chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She runs a climate blog and has been invited by Republicans on several occasions to testify at climate hearings about uncertainties in climate understanding and predictions. Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused climate outreach communication for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence. Curry is a regular at Anthony Watts' denier blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit, another denier site. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/04/judy-currys-attribution-non-argument/#comment-677575
https://skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_blog.htm
https://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry
Patrick Michaels
Linked to oil/koch-brothers funded think tank? Check!
The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank founded by Charles G. Koch and funded by the Koch brothers.
In 1988, James Hansen testified before the U.S. Senate on the danger of anthropogenic global warming. During that testimony he presented a graph — part of a paper published soon after. This graph had three lines on it, representing three scenarios based on three projections of future emissions and volcanism. Hansen was right on the money, and the models he used proved successful. Unfortunately, when Patrick Michaels made his testimony before Congress in 1998, ten years later, he saw fit to erase the two lower lines, B and C, and show the Senators only Line A. He did so to make his testimony that Hansen’s predictions had been off by 300% believable. He lied by omission. This lie was picked up by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear (one of many omissions, confusions, and falsehood in that book — see here).
Patrick J. Michaels also known as Pat Michaels, is a largely oil-funded global warming skeptic who argues that global warming models are fatally flawed and, in any event, we should take no action because new technologies will soon replace those that emit greenhouse gases.
In this video Michaels is admitting he is funded (40%) by the oil industry:
A review of claims made by the Cato Institute's Patrick Michaels over the last quarter century shows that he has repeatedly been proven wrong over time. Michaels is one of a few contrarian climate scientists who is often featured in the media without disclosure of his funding from the fossil fuel industry.
WoW really? Richard Lindzen a Heartland hired crank? Check.
Directly linked to fossil fuel industries? Check!
Working for creationists? Check!
Linked to tobacco inustry? Check!
“He's been wrong about nearly every major climate argument he's made over the past two decades. Lindzen is arguably the climate scientist who's been the wrongest, longest.”
Lindzens Iris-theory is debunked a long time ago:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/infrared-iris-effect-negative-feedback.htm
Lindzens sensitivity nonsense debunked:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htm
New science on climate sensitivity throws Lindzens climate sensitivity theories out the window:
A new study by Kate Marvel, Gavin Schmidt, Ron Miller, and Larissa Nazarenko at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies [...] drew upon previous research by Drew Shindell and Kummer & Dessler, who identified a flaw in studies taking the energy budget approach. Those studies had assumed that the Earth’s climate is equally sensitive to all forcings.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/apr/11/climate-change-research-quality-imbalance
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jan/12/nasa-study-fixes-error-in-low-contrarian-climate-sensitivity-estimates
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n4/full/nclimate2888.html
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%282002%29083%3C0249%3ANEFI%3E2.3.CO%3B2
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282002%29015%3C0003%3ATIHANO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282002%29015%3C3719%3AEONCDF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523.full
Lindzen bommer fælt med sine spådommer:
Lindzens predictions are not very accurate:
More Lindzen debunks:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism
https://www.inverse.com/article/11643-climate-change-denying-mit-prof-richard-lindzen-is-suddenly-popular-still-wrong
https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
But Heartland are not the only ones to put money on Lindzen:
Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change. Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, two contrarian scientists who appeared for Peabody at hearings in Minnesota last month on the social cost of carbon, were also included in the bankruptcy filings.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding
Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change.
Analysis of Peabody Energy court documents show company backed trade groups, lobbyists and think tanks dubbed ‘heart and soul of climate denial’.
Roy Spencers and Richard Lindzens view on AGW and C02 is comically close to Peabody coals view:
Just last year, Peabody wrote to the White House Council on Environmental Quality describing carbon dioxide as;
“a benign gas that is essential for all life” and denying the dangers of global warming.
After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving. Richard Lindzen
“While the benefits of carbon dioxide are proven, the alleged risks of climate change are contrary to observed data, are based on admitted speculation, and lack adequate scientific basis,” the company wrote in the 24 March 2015 letter
"There are benefits to more CO2 in the air, and probably to a little bit of warming. Roy Spencer
Men det er sikkert helt "tilfeldig" at Spencer og Lindzen står på lønningslisten til USAs største kullkompani og "tilfeldigvis" har et syn på AGW som er fordelaktig for Peabody. Helt sikkert.
The truth behind Peabody's campaign to rebrand coal as a poverty cure
The world’s largest privately-held coal company has a long history of attacking climate science. Now it is working to change the conversation from a climate crisis to one of global poverty – with coal as the solution
Here we see Lindzen working for creationist madcap fake university PragerU and their right wing nut anti science petrolium propaganda:
The truth behind PragerU is very very dirty and ugly:
The man behind PragerU is the homophobic, paranoid, conspiranoid abortionist and creationist Dennis Prager. Read all about his scary agenda here.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/01/fracking-titans-bankrolling-right-wing-indoctrination-effort-schools-investigation
"The Wilks brothers manage Interstate Explorations, an oil and gas field services company based out of Texas, and recently sold shares in the fracking and oil services enterprise Frac Tech, making them worth $1.4 billion each. In total, the Wilks family has donated $6,550,000 to PragerU.
"The religious right seems to believe that the education system is the perfect battlefield to win this 'culture war' taking place in America," writes Shea. "While conservatives continue to push for privatization, efforts on public schools center on curriculum. Whether by pushing creationism, lowering comprehensive sexual education standards, or refusing Common Core, with resources like Prager University and financial supporters like the Wilks, their efforts have been enormously strengthened."
Here are some great videos which debunks the PragerU right wing creationist madcap batshit anti science nonsense:
