[Vision2020] The scientific debate on climate change: 67 comments

[Ted Moffett]

Thanks for the Mediamatters article on the climate science issues
discussed...

Roy Spencer has been sliced and diced so many times in peer review among
some of the most brilliant climate scientists on the planet, he should be
promoting food processors, not being given massive media coverage as though
his scientific theorizing undermines the work of thousands of climate
scientists over decades.
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: ted Moffett


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>wrote:

> What are the websites where you are finding this "information"? Websites
> like "American Thinker," where you can read other articles like one which
> opens with this quote: "Leftists seem to harbor a profound ignorance of
> geography, history, and other hard facts which anyone involved in politics
> ought to know. How exactly do they get away with it?" Nothing biased about
> that statement!
>
> On the Spencer website there are responses to the article that make some
> interesting points including one person who states that the graphs (models
> vs. empirical data) are "broadly consistent" since they are in the same
> graph quadrant. Meaning the empirical data suggests global warming, just
> not at the rate that the models suggest.
>
> Here is another interesting commentary on these studies:
> http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/08/01/climate-science-once-again-twisted-beyond-recog/185135
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>> The point is that the climate models are predictions, and those
>> predictions are not turning out well in precise areas, and that means they
>> have a problem.  They should be comparing the predicted data with the
>> observed data and trying to find out exactly where they are wrong.  Are
>> they inflating the positive feedback values for clouds?  Are they not
>> putting enough emphasis on solar changes?  Are they not taking ENSO into
>> account, are they not taking the jet stream into account?  Whatever the
>> problem is, if they want skeptics to accept their climate models as
>> accurate, they have to show how well they predict future data.  This isn't
>> some kind of egregious task set before them, it's basic science.  Their
>> climate models are in effect hypotheses, and the observations will either
>> validate those hypotheses or fail them.
>>
>> So why, when you do a google search for climate models vs. observations,
>> do you turn up mostly Spencer and Curry's work, but not that of more
>> mainstream climate scientists?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>   ------------------------------
>>  *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>> *To:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>> *Cc:* Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>; Moscow Vision 2020 <
>> vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:18 AM
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The scientific debate on climate change: 67
>> comments
>>
>> Is the point that it might take an extra generation for the polar ice
>> caps to melt? When you are talking about climate change I fail to see how
>> "less dire" isn't still DIRE.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>wrote:
>>
>> The observations I'm talking about are temperature measurements.  They
>> tend to be much less dire than the predictions.  Here is one example:
>> http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-observations-for-tropical-tropospheric-temperature/
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>   ------------------------------
>>  *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>> *To:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>> *Cc:* Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>; Moscow Vision 2020 <
>> vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:52 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The scientific debate on climate change: 67
>> comments
>>
>> Observations? Skeptic observations? What is the observable data you
>> allude to?
>>
>> On Jun 18, 2013, at 4:48 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> That's cute.  If you erased the words "SKEPTIC MODELS" and replaced them
>> with "OBSERVATIONS" and then drew, say, the Incredible Hulk in the other
>> corner it might be a funnier cartoon.  Or maybe Iron Man, or even the
>> boxing kangaroo from the old bugs bunny cartoons.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>   ------------------------------
>>  *From:* Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
>> *To:* Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:24 PM
>> *Subject:* [Vision2020] The scientific debate on climate change: 67
>> comments
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=15488
>> The scientific debate on climate change<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/05/the-scientific-debate-on-climate-change/>
>> Filed under:
>>
>>    - Climate Science<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/>
>>
>> — david @ 24 May 2013
>> by Jill and David Archer
>>  -----------------------------------------
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>>  =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130625/6379c3da/attachment.html>