Northwest Passage

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

But yeah, it's a summer weekend so much fun to be had. Then again, this morning's paper said it was 'Be Nice to Newhaul Week' coming up, so you still have time.

be nice ? What a mean thing to say

[Exile]

Originally Posted by conachair

Did you even try to research to see if there is any science to back up what he's saying? Couldn't find a single link to any published work in there. Nothing.

A few moments search .

Rubbish.
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...iablilty&btnG=


Textbook blatant cherry pick of an el nino year.

Rest of his views are similarly unreliable.
If you buy into that without even spend just a little time researching some science to back it up it says a lot about your bias.

This popped up in big think today, very relevant - who else holds these views - virtually no climate scientists.Then add in no links to published work to back up his claims. Doesn't that ring a few alarm bells?

Obviously not.

https://youtu.be/bJ5qUx1WOsg?t=69

I didn't post the short, cursory Spencer interview -- obviously designed for laymen -- to "prove" anything, but only to demonstrate that CC is not without controversy as you seem to believe. There are no references to published works because the interview is obviously not a formal scientific paper.

But your larger point about the disparity between majority & minority views amongst scientists in the field is certainly valid. And there's no question it's relevant that the weight of the expert evidence favors the mainstream view. But in the interview Spencer explains why he believes there is so much conformity that has little to do with the science itself, an opinion shared by many. He also emphasizes what should be obvious, namely that significant unknowns about climate science remain unresolved, and that answers will only come from further evidence & proof, not polling.

Notwithstanding, the interview also suggests quite a bit of agreement on many of the fundamentals of CC which I for one found illuminating. There is also agreement, apparently, on the integrity of the actual data, but how that data is interpreted is where the controversy lies. This is why I think all these charts & graphs showing global avg. temps, Arctic ice extent, etc., etc. only take us so far because these events are also part of Earth's natural cycles, and the bulk of their history has not been reliably documented before. But it seems people see the words "record breaking" and immediately conclude it cannot possibly be another natural event and must therefore be a result of human impact. In the case of Arctic sea ice, Spencer points out there have only been accurate measurements since 1979, thanks to satellite technology. Ditto for sea level rise as he also explains -- what's "normal" as a base for comparison?

Believing that climate science is "settled" is not an opinion shared within the scientific community as a whole, but one which we have been inundated with by partisans & politicians, and repeated relentlessly in the media. Whether the science is settled enough to take policy action, however, is obviously a legitimate & important area of debate. But conflating the two is the result of personal & political bias, and not the science itself.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

be nice ? What a mean thing to say

I know. Think you can handle it?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

... this morning's paper said it was 'Be Nice to Newhaul Week' coming up, so you still have time.

I'll be happy to celebrate 'Be Nice to Newhaul Week' right after I celebrate 'Newhaul-documented-all-his-claims-without-being-asked-to week'.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I'll be happy to celebrate 'Be Nice to Newhaul Week' right after I celebrate 'Newhaul-documented-all-his-claims-without-being-asked-to week'.

you do realise his post was a lark right ?

I have documented my assertions quite well .
And with out being badgered to do it I might add
I have written them down therefore I have documented them . ( words and definitions matter)

[Lake-Effect]

The biggest thing I got from that Spencer interview is that he has pretty clearly nailed his colours to the mast. The details he avoided or skated over, the emphasis he added or not, the pro-fossil-fuel publication he was publishing it in...

This is NOT to say that he is doing bad science or that his scientific work is suspect. But when he steps outside of the scientific specifics to answer those questions, apparently from fanbois/"skeptics" who are essentially asking him for anti-CC ammo... he obliges willingly. He has a bias, I won't speculate as to his reasons for it, but it's there.

This is of course entirely consistent with the assertion from some skeptics that most climate scientists are influenced by their own biases, grant pressures, etc to back the "consensus". So OK, let's play that hand. The majority of climate scientists are being influenced by non-scientific biases and pressures. Assuming the majority are also competent... we now have a level playing field where the vast majority of competent but biased climate scientists support CC, and a small handful of competent yet also biased scientists do not...

It's still hard to accept that a small group of outliers have the truth of such a large and complex issue and the vast majority do not. Especially when a prominent outlier has as pronounced and unapologetic a bias as Spencer does.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Exile

.



But your larger point about the disparity between majority & minority views amongst scientists in the field is certainly valid. And there's no question it's relevant that the weight of the expert evidence favors the mainstream view. But in the interview Spencer explains why he believes there is so much conformity that has little to do with the science itself, an opinion shared by many. He also emphasizes what should be obvious, namely that significant unknowns about climate science remain unresolved, and that answers will only come from further evidence & proof, not polling.



Notwithstanding, the interview also suggests quite a bit of agreement on many of the fundamentals of CC which I for one found illuminating. There is also agreement, apparently, on the integrity of the actual data, but how that data is interpreted is where the controversy lies. This is why I think all these charts & graphs showing global avg. temps, Arctic ice extent, etc., etc. only take us so far because these events are also part of Earth's natural cycles, and the bulk of their history has not been reliably documented before. But it seems people see the words "record breaking" and immediately conclude it cannot possibly be another natural event and must therefore be a result of human impact. In the case of Arctic sea ice, Spencer points out there have only been accurate measurements since 1979, thanks to satellite technology. Ditto for sea level rise as he also explains -- what's "normal" as a base for comparison?



Believing that climate science is "settled" is not an opinion shared within the scientific community as a whole, but one which we have been inundated with by partisans & politicians, and repeated relentlessly in the media. Whether the science is settled enough to take policy action, however, is obviously a legitimate & important area of debate. But conflating the two is the result of personal & political bias, and not the science itself.

I think your post glosses over the the fact that there is extremely high agreement in scientific circles on the basics of the science behind atmospheric warming due to increased levels of CO2. The science has been known for more than 100 years and so far there is no credible dispute on the basic science. As you correctly point out even Spencer agrees. If you want to learn the science I recommend scienceofdoom.com. It is well written and documents the science to extreme detail.

There is more uncertainty on the actual impact of CO2. Spencer claims that some undocumented atmospheric effect is going to mitigate the warming, the Cornwall folks say that God will save us. There are lots of science based models and most depict a pretty bleak future, some downright terrible. Most observations over the last 50-100 years agree the planet is warming and that warming is close to what the science predicts; the outlier is Spencer.

I find that most people who argue against the science do so because they don’t want to accept what they feel are draconian solutions or they want to protect an entrenched financial interest. I personally think people should learn the science first and then perhaps they would be better informed on shaping acceptable solutions.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The biggest thing I got from that Spencer interview is that he has pretty clearly nailed his colours to the mast. The details he avoided or skated over, the emphasis he added or not, the pro-fossil-fuel publication he was publishing it in...

Maybe, but Spencer's colors have been nailed to the mast from the get-go, and he's never tried to hide it or otherwise pull any punches. I don't see it as any different from say the equally transparent political biases of Hansen or Mann. Fairly looking at scientists' biases is appropriate & necessary, but it doesn't go to the ultimate truth of whether one or the others' theories are scientifically valid. I thought Spencer displayed some humility in which he acknowledged just that, expressing his view that climate is such a complex area that it's all too easy for any scientist to be wrong. That is only his opinion of course, but one which seemed credible to me given what we know about the field.

This is NOT to say that he is doing bad science or that his scientific work is suspect. But when he steps outside of the scientific specifics to answer those questions, apparently from fanbois/"skeptics" who are essentially asking him for anti-CC ammo... he obliges willingly. He has a bias, I won't speculate as to his reasons for it, but it's there.

No question that he has a bias, but there's no shortage of scientists on the other side stepping outside scientific boundaries. I assume you saw Dr. Hayhoe's tweet that SailOar posted, no? As Spencer said, preconceptions are not only very human but also consistent with the nature of scientific inquiry. His particular preconception -- or hypothesis -- is that natural forces more likely control the climate and so he sets off from there to try and prove it. The other side starts with the preconception/hypothesis that fossil fuels/CO2 are the culprit and looks for evidence in support. That's why I stress the difference between individual bias and corrupt individual bias as a critical distinction. In the end though, it's the scientific evidence which will ultimately determine the matter (or not).

This is of course entirely consistent with the assertion from some skeptics that most climate scientists are influenced by their own biases, grant pressures, etc to back the "consensus". So OK, let's play that hand. The majority of climate scientists are being influenced by non-scientific biases and pressures. Assuming the majority are also competent... we now have a level playing field where the vast majority of competent but biased climate scientists support CC, and a small handful of competent yet also biased scientists do not...

I don't find this argument very persuasive. There are too many other powerful variables in play which affect group-think when it comes to such a highly politicized issue, to say nothing of the heady power & ego of believing you're "saving the Earth." Or, on the flip-side, if you are a skeptic the shaming from accusations of "not caring about the environment." These are factors which affect scientists as much as anyone else, in addition to other factors such as grant money, recognition, etc. But I do agree that, in analyzing it as laymen, we should presume that both sides are honest & competent, save a very few obvious exceptions which are easy to dismiss. I think it's also critical to differentiate between corrupt individuals vs. a process that may have been corrupted by politicization, grant money, and group-think. Pointing this out doesn't necessarily mean that the majority position is wrong. It does mean, however, that the minority view should not be ignored. Taking both sides seriously is really the best and probably only way to finally get to some truth, whether it merely ratifies the majority position or not.

It's still hard to accept that a small group of outliers have the truth of such a large and complex issue and the vast majority do not. Especially when a prominent outlier has as pronounced and unapologetic a bias as Spencer does.

I don't think any of the more prominent skeptics claim to have the truth, and I'm not sure many scientists in the majority would claim that either. Spencer all but says that. If the skeptics did, then they might more fairly be called "deniers," although I still think that's just a way of dumbing the issue down (and disparaging people you don't agree with). I also don't think trying to weigh the respective biases of each side gets us anywhere, absent more compelling evidence of obvious corruption that is. I do agree with you on what appears to be a lopsided disparity, until you scratch the surface a bit and look at what they're actually agreeing & disagreeing on. Even when it comes to the ultimate issue of whether it's fossil fuels or natural forces, I don't think there's many scientists who say it's absolutely one or the other. We mostly hear that from pseudo-scientists on the internet and those in the media, and then it's naturally -- but often falsely -- ascribed to the scientists themselves.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I think your post glosses over the the fact that there is extremely high agreement in scientific circles on the basics of the science behind atmospheric warming due to increased levels of CO2. The science has been known for more than 100 years and so far there is no credible dispute on the basic science. As you correctly point out even Spencer agrees. If you want to learn the science I recommend scienceofdoom.com. It is well written and documents the science to extreme detail.

There is more uncertainty on the actual impact of CO2. Spencer claims that some undocumented atmospheric effect is going to mitigate the warming, the Cornwall folks say that God will save us. There are lots of science based models and most depict a pretty bleak future, some downright terrible. Most observations over the last 50-100 years agree the planet is warming and that warming is close to what the science predicts; the outlier is Spencer.

I find that most people who argue against the science do so because they don’t want to accept what they feel are draconian solutions or they want to protect an entrenched financial interest. I personally think people should learn the science first and then perhaps they would be better informed on shaping acceptable solutions.

I agree, but the "science" you are urging people to learn also includes minority views of the "science" from properly credentialed & qualified experts such as Spencer (and others). Except it doesn't seem like you've learned that part of it from your post. Spencer doesn't dismiss the connection between human-caused increased levels of CO2 and warming (the basic science which has been known for 100 years), but believes it's not consequential as compared to other natural factors. Until you can credibly dismiss his theories and those of other skeptics using scientific arguments, your opinions on the motivations of those who remain skeptical may be relevant but aren't all that convincing.

[AllenRbrts]

In my post I stated that Spencer does agree that CO2 from man made sources are warming the planet and I did acknowledge he has a “theory” that natural forces might counteract. His theory he puts forward is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. He doesn’t give any data behind his theory or even try to explain it. Here is a graph of it... perhaps it could explain some of the warming in the 90s but seems unlikely to explain recent events. I fail to understand why Dr Spencer is given much credibility on this when he has no actual explanation, where on the other side there is reams of information ATTACH]196345[/ATTACH]

[newhaul]

The real interesting part about all of this is we are now cooling back down
But over the past 30 years Dr Spencer said his models showed us warming at a rate of .1℃ per decade which is what is considered natural warming ( not influenced by man )
the agw crowd said the warming was .3℃ per decade with mans influence .
The actual measurements show that over the last however many decades of reliable records we are actually warming at .13℃ per decade. That points to natural not man caused warming .

The point is while most here feel that Spencer is an outlier he is closer to correct than the pro agw people were.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

In my post I stated that Spencer does agree that CO2 from man made sources are warming the planet and I did acknowledge he has a “theory” that natural forces might counteract.

This is not what I'm reading, at least from the recently posted interview. More like agreement that CO2 plays a role but theorizes that this role is inconsequential. He also doesn't sound convinced that all of the added CO2 is from man-made sources.

His theory he puts forward is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. He doesn’t give any data behind his theory or even try to explain it. Here is a graph of it... perhaps it could explain some of the warming in the 90s but seems unlikely to explain recent events.

He talked about cloud cover playing a much larger role than previously thought. At least in the interview. Not sure how or if this is related to the PDO, but maybe that's another one of his theories. Are you sure you read the interview?

I fail to understand why Dr Spencer is given much credibility on this when he has no actual explanation, where on the other side there is reams of information ATTACH]196345[/ATTACH]

That goes to the weight of the evidence, not its veracity. One explanation might be that there are reams of scientists on the other side producing it.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

In my post I stated that Spencer does agree that CO2 from man made sources are warming the planet and I did acknowledge he has a “theory” that natural forces might counteract. His theory he puts forward is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. He doesn’t give any data behind his theory or even try to explain it. Here is a graph of it... perhaps it could explain some of the warming in the 90s but seems unlikely to explain recent events. I fail to understand why Dr Spencer is given much credibility on this when he has no actual explanation, where on the other side there is reams of information ATTACH]196345[/ATTACH]

perhaps because he has been proven by actual measurements to be correct.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

That goes to the weight of the evidence, not its veracity. One explanation might be that there are reams of scientists on the other side producing it.

that delves into landscheidt's studies
https://landscheidt.wordpress.com/20...or-amp-events/

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

[Spencer's] particular preconception -- or hypothesis -- is that natural forces more likely control the climate and so he sets off from there to try and prove it. The other side starts with the preconception/hypothesis that fossil fuels/CO2 are the culprit and looks for evidence in support.

This is both misleading and backwards. The "other side" has pretty compelling evidence that human activity has and is increasing the level of CO2 and that warming is occuring because of that.

Spencer is pushing his "natural forces" hypothesis as a plausible justification for his bias against the conclusions around AGW. But until someone produces the same quality of work that identifies and quantifies those "natural forces", and can show how they cause, contribute to, or will counteract the unprecedented rapidity of the CO2 increase and/or the observed warming, it's little more than hand-waving. I hope Spencer and all other competent scientists continue to do quality work, and then we will have a better idea of the relative contributions of human vs other contributions. But we shouldn't just be standing around waiting for it, if there are factors within our control now.

There are too many other powerful variables in play which affect group-think when it comes to such a highly politicized issue, to say nothing of the heady power & ego of believing you're "saving the Earth." Or, on the flip-side, if you are a skeptic the shaming from accusations of "not caring about the environment." These are factors which affect scientists as much as anyone else, in addition to other factors such as grant money, recognition, etc. But I do agree that, in analyzing it as laymen, we should presume that both sides are honest & competent, save a very few obvious exceptions which are easy to dismiss. I think it's also critical to differentiate between corrupt individuals vs. a process that may have been corrupted by politicization, grant money, and group-think.

Of course I do not accept the idea that the scientific process or institutions are seriously corrupt or corrupting, and that the few outliers who oppose the findings obtained by and endorsed by the "process" are therefore somehow less tainted than the majority.

All I see above are attempts to whittle away at the validity of the prevailing conclusions. It remains a puzzlement why you continue to ascribe perverse motivations to science, but ignore that selfish motives are far more prevalent in the organizations aligned against the findings of CC: the fossil fuel industry and their lobbies, and political organizations. Unlike scientific organizations, the very definitions of business, lobbies and politics put self-interest foremost, and they have orders of magnitude more money at stake. "Rich scientist" is mostly an oxymoron. Rich oilman, rich politician...not so much.

Even when it comes to the ultimate issue of whether it's fossil fuels or natural forces, I don't think there's many scientists who say it's absolutely one or the other.

We don't need to know absolutely. It's sufficient to know with a high degree of certainty whether something within our control has made the difference or not. AGW has spoilt what would have otherwise been newhaul's predicted cooling period.