[Vision2020] More Junk Climate Science Hoodwinking the Public...Or "How to cook a graph in three easy lessons"

[Ted Moffett]

[Vision2020] A Skeptical Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-April/069550.html

>From post above by Paul Rumelhart:

"We rebel skeptics?"

For one thing, many of the "skeptics" are trying to disprove the
anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, so your statement that "we rebel
skeptics are not trying to disprove the AGW hypothesis" I quoted at the
bottom here, is simply false.

Perhaps more importantly, your comment misrepresents the hard work of
thousands of scientists who have worked for decades on understanding our
planet's climate.  *As if scientists, who are skeptics by training, have not
been rigorously and skeptically* *analyzing and testing the fundamental
physics regarding CO2 atmospheric impacts (and other climate variables), for
over a century?  Now "rebel skeptics" are rebelling against conformist
scientists, who are no longer skeptics?*

Why should I trust Warren Meyer's analysis or presentation of climate
science, that I have gathered in part relies on MIT's Richard Lindzen's
climate science theories (that have been peer reviewed and found to be
faulty)?  You wrote you thought Meyer did "rather well" with presenting
science.  Really?

Meyer is exposed as presenting questionable, actually, faulty, analysis on
climate science by Bennet Kalafut (what a name!) a PhD student in physics (*
Bio:
*PhD student, single-molecule biophysicist *Education/Experience:
*MS, physics, U. of Arizona; BS, physics and mathematics, magna cum laude,
Tulane University
http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/46102/bennett_kalafut.html )
on his blog at the following website.  I'll offer an excerpt:

http://stochasticgain.blogspot.com/search/label/Warren%20Meyer

"I just caught Meyer claiming--despite my link to his original post, and
despite the link to Lindzen in his, that he never claimed that climate
models "use" feedbacks, that I'm making a straw man argument, and that he
didn't use an obviously bad analysis of feedback from a set of Lindzen
slides as reference. It's "I don't know what Kalafut's talking about, it's a
straw man argument!" in a way to make me seem like a liar and a loon. Again:
Not cool. Mr Meyer: you've been caught. Perhaps your understanding of the
science has matured in a year, but that doesn't retroactively correct your
past blunders nor does that retroactively turn criticism of your past
statements into straw-man arguments."

------------------
For those who are interested in climate science from a reliable source, I
recommend the following websites, from the
American Institute of Physics, on the history of the science regarding CO2
impacts in our atmosphere, etc.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
------------------

I would dismiss your "rebel skeptics" efforts with a shrug and a laugh, if
it were not for the fact that the junk science promoted (for whatever
reasons) in general is blocking efforts to address human impacts on climate,
that have a high degree of probability, according to well researched and
rigorous science, of causing profound changes to our planet.

The public, and many politicians and corporations, are being hoodwinked into
accepting continued and increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, by clever
pseudo-scientific garbage, some of which is exposed in the analysis "How to
cook a graph in three easy lessons" from well published climate
scientist Raymond Pierrehumbert (
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/raymond-t-pierrehumbert/
 ):

How to cook a graph in three easy lessons

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 4/1/10, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

Keep in mind
that we rebel skeptics are not trying to disprove the AGW hypothesis,
we're merely, well, skeptical of some of the claims and some of the
science.  Read or watch more to find out some reasons why.

Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100402/c344d2c9/attachment.html