Global Warming

Global Temperature Trend Propaganda Video: Who Needs Peer Review?

New activist climate scientists' video criticizes satellite data they dislike

|

BestThermometer
Dreamstime: Meryll

I repeat, once again, that I believe that the balance of the evidence suggests that man-made global warming could become a significant problem for humanity as this century unfolds. OK, that is now out of the way. So let's turn to a sleazy attempt by some climate scientists (activists?) to undercut scientific findings by other researchers that call into question their assertions about global temperature trends.

University of Alabama at Huntsville climate scientists John Christy and Roy Spencer have been reporting data from NOAA satellites that measure the temperature of the mid-troposphere since 1979. Their data show that global average temperature has been essentially flat for the past 18 years. This is very inconvenient for rival researchers whose climate models have projected that significant warming should have occurred during this period as humans continue to burn more fossil fuels and load up the atmosphere with global-warming carbon dioxide. In addition, there is a significant mismatch between the surface temperature data sets that show higher rates of warming than do the satellite data.

So what to do? What good scientists would do is try to reconcile the datasets and debate the issues in the scientific journals. Well, that's messy, slow, and the results are not pre-determined. So what a trio of climate scientists—Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, and Ben Santer—have evidently decided to do is participate in a video project funded by an climate activist foundation whose chief aim is to cast doubt on the satellite data.

Why now? Because various government agencies are shortly going to declare that 2015 is the warmest year ever in the historical surface temperature records. The climate scientists in the video evidently fear that "climate deniers" will dismiss these dire declarations by pointing to the satellite data which show a considerably slower rate of warming. Solution: Deny data that contradicts their preferred narrative. This is not science!

Over at Breitbart, Christy responds to the video: 

There are too many problems with the video on which to comment, but here are a few.

First, the satellite problems mentioned here were dealt with 10 to 20 years ago. Second, the main product we use now for greenhouse model validation is the temperature of the Mid-Troposphere (TMT) which was not erroneously impacted by these problems.

The vertical "fall" and east-west "drift" of the spacecraft are two aspects of the same phenomenon – orbital decay.

The real confirmation bias brought up by these folks to smear us is held by them.  They are the ones ignoring information to suit their world view.  Do they ever say that, unlike the surface data, the satellite datasets can be checked by a completely independent system – balloons? Do they ever say that one of the main corrections for time-of-day (east-west) drift is to remove spurious WARMING after 2000?  Do they ever say that the important adjustment to address the variations caused by solar-shadowing effects on the spacecraft is to remove a spurious WARMING?  Do they ever say that the adjustments were within the margin of error?

In addition, another group, Remote Sensing Systems, established explicitly to independently evaluate the satellite temperature data finds the same overal temperature trend as the folks at the University of Alabama. See Christy's version of the mismatch between model projections and satellite and weather balloon temperature trends below.

Satellite Trend
UAH

If these researchers have any real arguments showing that the satellite data are wrong, the place to prove that is in the peer-reviewed scientific literature—not a propaganda video.

NEXT: "Hazy prattle from Benjamin Carson seemingly never ends": North Korea's Take on GOP Debate

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I repeat, once again, that I believe that the balance of the evidence suggests that man-made global warming could become a significant problem for humanity as this century unfolds.

    Citation needed.

    Not to bust your balls too much Ron as you are less alarmist than most, but ‘the movement’ has a consistent practice of moving the goal posts, even unconsciously.

    1. What about natural climate change?

      1. Look, global warming must be caused by man, because human activity must cause global warming. Except when it doesn’t like for the last 17 years or so.

        1. It’s what plants crave!

          1. Well, I’ve never seen no plants grow out of no toilet!

        2. “….
          the satellite data are one small part of a vast amount of data that overwhelmingly show our planet is warming up: retreating glaciers,
          huge amounts of ice melting at both poles,
          the “death spiral” of arctic ice every year at the summer minimum over time,
          earlier annual starts of warm weather &
          later starts of cold weather,
          warming oceans,
          rising sea levels,
          ocean acidification,
          more extreme weather,
          changing weather patterns overall, earlier snow melts, & lower snow cover in the spring?

          Despite the claims of people like Roy Spencer (yes, this Roy Spencer); Ted Cruz; Lamar Smith (R-Texas); and James Inhofe (R-Okla.), we know the Earth is warming up, and we know humans are the reason why. ”

          Spencer & Christy have been chastised repeatedly for a “formulaic Error” in their models for satellite data ‘interpolation’ which mandates a partial reading of the ‘stratosphere’ (artificially cools the readings.

          * their own web site, earth based temps are more reliable.

          The last 20 year period has been the hottest in recorded history.

          Hundreds of ice cores from around the world were examined to undermine the assertion.
          Not only was the assertion reinforced, it was extended.
          The last 20 years has been the hottest 20 years in THOUSANDS of years.
          Also,
          CO2 is higher than at any time in 800,000+ years.
          Methane is at higher concentrations than at any time in well over 1 million years.

        3. If you scroll down a few comments you will see the critique of Christy/Spencers frequent formulaic errors in the complex computer models that interpolate satellite data….none of which is temperature data.

          Christy/Spencer have gotten quite wealthy while selling their ‘hiatus’ theory based on these faulty computer models..the the ‘slight cooling’ which was the next set of press releases & paid interviews & news articles that sold the fraud.
          *
          15 of the world’s hottest years have been since 2001.
          *
          The last 20 years have been the hottest in recorded history!
          Once that was declared, science teams around the world challenged the results:
          **The 1st team reporting, examined 100’s of ice cores from all over the world, results verified & extended the conclusions.
          The last 20 Years have been the hottest in THOUSANDS of Years.
          **The 2nd team reporting examined TREE rings & determined that the last 20 year period was the hottest in nearly 1000 years, to the extent of the tree rings.
          **Next soil cores, & again the hottest 20 year period in thousands of years.
          Arctic Ice has been receding for well over 40 years.
          Antarctic Land Ice has also been receding for decades.
          ALL N. State agriculture departments are reporting FIRST HARD FALL FROST nearly 1 month later than a century ago & the LAST HARD SPRING FROST about 3 weeks earlier.

      2. THERE is NO natural cycle that explains the rapid, significant warming of air temperatures reported by ALL satellite data, by all ground based temperature sites by all weather balloons.

        THERE is NO natural cycle to explain why, after thousands of years of cooling, the earth’s oceans & seas have suddenly started to warm…not just on the surface but deep oceans. As read by Digital Buoys.

        THERE is NO natural cycle to explain ALL fresh water lakes, measured by localities & science teams, are warming nearly twice as rapidly as air temps.

        THERE is NO natural cycle to explain that permafrost (permanent frost) is melting across Alaska, Northern Canada, Russia & Siberia…damaging roads, house foundations & power lines.

    2. Yeah, no proof that any of the warming over the last century or so is man-made rather than part of a natural cycle, and plenty of reason to believe things would actually be better for humanity with a milder climate.

      1. There are no scientific bases for thinking that a warmer climate would be beneficial for our world.
        Yes CO2 does stimulate plant growth & death, but inhibits nutrient content in Fruits & Grains….grains which the world has grown dependent upon……Zinc deficiency will increase…already the world suffers from zinc deficiency diseases.
        You forget that with warmer temps come rapidly changing weather patterns & greater difficulty in farming which is dependent upon stable weather patterns to determine planting.
        More severe storms…..which have doubled over the last decade alone.
        More Heat waves….last year tens of thousands died during the middle eastern drought/heat wave from Egypt to Pakistand & India.
        We have prospered with CO2 in the range of 290ppm for thousands of years.
        We started digging up & burning carbon based fuels (cause it was easy) in the 1700’s by the millions of tons & then the billions of tons & then the tens of billions of tons.

        visit
        . http://www.clearpath.org
        a conservative pro business web site ….. investing in clean renewable energy will spur world economic activity, tens of thousands of new jobs & much greater security….with widely diverse energy sources means freedom from terrorist attacks….and … every dollar we spend on energy will not be going to a country that sources terror.

    3. *citation needed* — ooooh, that’s clever.

      To state the obvious, he’s voicing an opinion and the citations he would have to cite are all the columns he’s been writing here. His opinion should be obvious to even the laziest of those needing citations, that the bulk of the evidence shows warming of some sort.

      For you to pretend to not understand that is hopelessly silly. Your opinion is presumably the opposite, that the evidence does not show warming, and the unstated response is that you should show your citations as much as Ron should show his.

      As for your last remark (“the movement’ has a consistent practice of moving the goal posts, even unconsciously”), well, guess what — citation needed.

      1. As for your last remark (“the movement’ has a consistent practice of moving the goal posts, even unconsciously”), well, guess what — citation needed.

        See: Guy that wrote a book literally titled The End Of Doom writing that his belief that something “could become a significant problem for humanity as this century unfolds”.

        1. If that’s what passes for a citation in your part of the world …..

          1. I’m pretty sure Rob himself has written articles about the goalpost shifting that alarmist have taken part in.

            But I can also admit I’m too lazy to look for those.

            1. Ron.

              Stupid fat thumbs.

            2. I think we’re going to end up in a situation where (citations be damned!), Scarecrow is going to prove Ron’s belief is right, AGW could kill us all, by *not* buying his book where he advances the idea that ecological alarmist predictions have frequently been wrong and AGW is probably not going to kill us all.

              At least, that’s what my models indicate. In any case, if Scarecrow buys the book and averts worldwide catastrophe, I want my cut of the royalties.

      2. It doesn’t matter what gets cited. This is the “Wikipedia Fallacy”, wherein all that matters is what a bunch of people are saying and smugly agreeing to.

        Scientific reasoning doesn’t work on consensus.

    4. There are more references than you can shake a stick at. If this is a serious question, then you can start with the latest IPCC assessment report. You can easily google it.

      1. There are more references than you can shake a stick at.

        How does the IPCC know what Ron believes?

        I would say that I don’t have to look at the Officially Published NFL Rule Books every year to know if the goal posts have moved except…

        Seriously, you guys are worse than Vegans.

        1. you guys are worse than Vegans

          Maybe some of us just don’t appreciate slackers like yourself pretending to be on our side.

          1. If we’re all doomed, how do you pick sides? If you’re on the side that’s doomed, isn’t that de facto the losing side? If you devote your entire life to fighting/preventing the doom and fail, while I devote my entire life to preparing several generations to prevent, avoid, and otherwise survive the doom of their own accord who(se side) won?

            1. probably the people who just try and enjoy their infinitesimal point of existence

    5. I was skeptical of the whole AGW thing to the point of doubting there was any evidence of warming at all. When I saw Ron first say he had changed his mind a little on his own skepticism, admitted that maybe there was something there, my immediate thought was “oh, crap, they got him. And I used to like the guy.”

      But I realized that was not the proper reaction and I had to swallow my pride a bit to admit to myself that maybe Ron knows a little more about this than I do and maybe if he’s a little less skeptical perhaps I should be, too.

      From what I’ve seen, climate is pretty extremely complicated and there’s no way we can have very many people capable of knowing all that much about it. In fact, it’s so complicated I have some doubt there’s even one person capable of that much understanding. I’m pretty sure most people claiming to know a lot about global warming can be taken with a grain of salt.

      That’s what makes me a skeptic – “You don’t know what you’re talking about” has a high probability of being a true statement regardless of who it’s directed at. That includes me, so I keep a little part of my brain reserved for a little voice that tells me whenever I get to running my mouth, “You know you’re probably full of shit, right?”

      1. “You don’t know what you’re talking about” has a high probability of being a true statement regardless of who it’s directed at.

        And the probability increases as claims are made and assumptions implied.

      2. I think it should be pretty obvious to everyone that, on the whole, the earth has been warming for a while (pretty much since the last ice age).

        What isn’t obvious, and what hasn’t really been proven, is that there’s some massive correlation between increased CO2 and surface temps.

        Of course, even if there was a smoking gun proof of the correlation, at least Ron admits that the alarmists wish list of demands won’t do a damn thing and will only make people poorer.

        1. I think that something is even more important than “is the planet warming”. “Would warming be a bad thing?”

          Ron rarely, if ever, seriously attempts to address how a slight warming would or wouldn’t be a boon for mankind. It is just assumed that man=bad. For some reason loss of land in the Maldives is worse than people dying from the cold.

          Most of the doomsayers, including Ron, barely consider the existence of the “giant ball of fire in the sky” which drives the climate much more than a few hundred parts per million of CO2.

          1. ?what is slight warming ?
            .the last 20 years have been the hottest in THOUSANDS of years.
            .We have sound evidence of those things that led to post glacial warmings,
            none are present today.
            We have satellites that measure INCOMING solar radiation.
            & measure Escaping solar radiation.

            **As CO2 / Methane / Water Vapor / Nitrous Oxide (trace greenhouse gases) have INCREASED i
            **LESS & LESS escaping solar radiation has occurred.
            Trapped solar radiation is what is heating our atmosphere.

            Is it man made?

            **When Carbon fuels are burned at power plants/auto engines, there is an easily detectable chemical signature.

            **The CO2 in our atmosphere HAS that distinct chemical signature !

            THIS is man made global warming.
            .
            FACTS:
            **Earth based digital temperature stations (40,000 -+) ALL report rising world temperatures
            .at rates NOT REFLECTING ANY NATURAL PROCESS.
            **Digital Ocean Buoys, in every sea, report an END to 1000’s of years of ocean cooling & a steady climb in ocean temperatures.higher sea temps = rising sea levels !!
            Which threatens ports, port cities, power grids, airports, hundreds of millions of people who live within 3 feet of sea level.
            **Fresh Water Lakes around the world (reported by localities & science teams) are rising at twice the rate of atmospheric temperatures.
            **Soil Temperatures around the world are warming at over twice the rate of atmospheric warming rates.
            **All satellites now agree that world temperatures are rising.

          2. if we get to the point of warming being a real problem (as opposed to a hypothetical future one) wont it be cheaper to do things in a way that dont contribute to it?

        2. “…(pretty much since the last ice age)…”

          Actually, give that we are in an ice age (more accurately an interglacial period of an ice age) it is entirely safe to conclude that the world has cooled since the “last ice age.” Logic dictating that in order to leave the “last” (ie. prior) ice age the Earth must have warmed enough for both poles to be ice free.

          You did know that the definition of an ice age is glacial ice at one or both poles, didn’t you? I mean, it would be foolish for someone ignorant of basic scientific definitions to attempt to opine on such matters.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

    6. He does not need a citation. It is a belief, and clearly declared as such.

      It is entirely equivalent to my belief that the balance of the evidence supports the existence of a supreme creator being. The only real difference is that I have established and respected great thinkers of wide stripes – from Voltaire to CS Lewis who stand in agreement with me.

      Bailey’s crewe is a touch more lacking.

    7. Happy to see climatologist Andrew Dessler make a fantastic comment, talking about the SKEPTICS who misrepresent or misinterpret the data:
      *The physics is obviously all screwed up”
      These people accept the satellite data completely uncritically,
      *because it tells them what they want to hear.
      Never mind that CHRISTY/SPENCER have admitted frequent formulaic Errors.
      *Forcing the satellite to measure COLD stratospheric temps as well.biasing the results to indicate little or no global warming which is WRONG.
      And remember,
      the satellite data are one small part of a vast amount of data that overwhelmingly show our planet is warming up:
      retreating glaciers,
      huge amounts of ice melting at both poles,
      the “death spiral” of arctic ice every year at the summer minimum over time,
      earlier annual starts of warm weather
      and
      later starts of cold weather,
      warming oceans,
      rising sea levels,
      ocean acidification,
      more extreme weather, (twice as much extreme weather over the last decade worldwide)
      changing weather patterns overall,
      earlier snow melts,
      and lower snow cover in the spring.

  2. Chipotle to close all stores to teach employees how to wash hands.

    http://nbc4i.com/2016/01/15/ch…..od-safety/

    1. Shitpotle, amirite?

      1. +1 pair of bloody underwear.

    2. This whole deal has made my locally grown proponents coworkers extremely uncomfortable. They don’t like evidence that centrally grown food is safer due to ease of safety controls and oversight.

      1. “Yeah, but it’s the slow accumulation of toxins from all those fertilizers and pesticides organic farmers totally don’t use. That’s what you have to worry about. Compared to that, norovirus and e. coli is a treat.”

      2. The thought that big government needs big business is too dangerous for them.

    3. Chipotle spent so much time pursuing the GMO phantom that they lost sight of actual food safety.

      1. It is a funny coincidence that this didn’t really start until they switched to their “all non-GMO” ingredients.

  3. “…climate scientists (activists?)” = largely redundant

  4. It was made by the Yale Climate Connection and part funded by the Grantham Foundation. The Grantham Foundation is the creation of a UK born US based hedge funder called Jeremy Grantham (and his wife Hannelore) and has since 1997 been at the forefront of promoting climate alarmism.

    But, hey, the Kochs and other petrol moguls are totally dominating the discussion on global warming. It’s only fair if the warmistas get their bite at the apple, too.

  5. Ha! I was just reading a piece on all the different tricks deniers use to get you to believe their bullshit and the author cited one Bailey, R. writing in some Cato rag as an example of one of their tricks. See, if you didn’t know Cato = Koch = Bullshit, QED, you might be tempted to read the piece and might want to respond to it and that’s how they trick you into engaging with them. As soon as you see it’s a Koch piece, you know it’s bullshit and you don’t even have to bother reading it.

    Two paragraphs later, the author is revealing one of the other denier tricks – citing the source of funding for government scientists as if that’s any evidence of bias, trying to trick you into believing that where a scientist gets his money has any relevance whatsoever to whether or not he’s doing valid unbiased research.

    Those tricky, tricky deniers!

    1. Two paragraphs later, the author is revealing one of the other denier tricks – citing the source of funding for government scientists as if that’s any evidence of bias, trying to trick you into believing that where a scientist gets his money has any relevance whatsoever to whether or not he’s doing valid unbiased research.

      The source of funding is indeed evidence of bias, if the source is anything other than blessed government. Otherwise it is tainted with evil profit motives, and nothing that comes of it can be trusted.

      1. Not true! Funding from goodthinkers such as Buffet and Soros is totally legit!

  6. I believe that the balance of the evidence suggests that man-made global warming could become a significant problem for humanity as this century unfolds

    With all due respect to our libertarian overlords, this sentence is awful. Apart from weasel words (‘suggests’, ‘could’, ‘significant’), it has a huge assumption in it: viz. that global warming is man-made. It is entirely possible that there’s global warming happening (on some time scale) which isn’t man-made.

    1. Considering the historical temperature record before “man”, it’s incredibly common for the Earth to slowly change temperature.

      What you see before man, Earth changes temperature.

      What you see after man, Earth changes temperature.

      Shocking.

      1. What you see before man is forest fires.
        What you see after man is forest fires.
        (Subtext: therefore, man does not cause forest fires).

        Shocking : )

    2. What is it with people on this thread not understanding “opinion”. I disagree with Ron’s opinion but he is the most intellectually honest AGW supporter(non-denier?) that I can think of. This is him STATING HIS FUCKING OPINION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ARTICLE!

      Jeebus H Buddah.

      For my part Ron, the most important part of you article is:

      This is not science.

      THAT is the entire problem. People like Mann have so destroyed the integrity of the science, the process, and the data that no real conclusions can be drawn. I like that you are focusing on the Satelite data, the only data that hasn’t been raped. And my OPINION is that it isn’t enough of a sample to make an coherent hypothesis. It will be, in 50 years, to maybe make a general prediction or two. But right now, even the side I agree with, does not have enough clean data to say anything with any certainty p< 500.

  7. “I repeat, once again, that I believe that the balance of the evidence suggests that man-made global warming could become a significant problem for humanity as this century unfolds.”

    Could, yes. Or could not.

    I understand your ‘balance of the evidence’ test and this article is a good skeptic’s view of the activists treatment of the evidence. My scales tip the other direction because I don’t trust the bulk of the evidence. Activists have been caught lying and rigging the numbers too many times (really, all it takes is one) and they clearly have a non-scientific agenda.

    I would argue that because they have been caught rigging numbers it is the surface temps that should be thrown out and the satellite data more trustworthy (satellite data more difficult to rig?).

    1. Actually, when I think about it, my ass would have been kicked right out of school had my profs caught me doing 1/10th of the shit the warmistas have done. That they are still able to call themselves ‘scientists’ and have a platform from which to speak is a demonstration of just how much damage they have done to science.

      1. Good point, Suthenboy. In my college physics labs, the TAs had to sign our data sheets or lab notebooks so that we couldn’t fudge numbers to make the experiment writeups come out right.

        I would have gotten a couple of better lab grades if I could have used modern peer reviewed data correction techniques.

        1. Same here.

          Data correction = getting the result desired = not science.

    2. The satellite data would definitely be easier to “rig” if one were inclined. Fewer scientists are involved in the data analysis and the work is highly technical and specialized. To be clear, I do not think that’s what happening here.

      Also, I’m unaware of anyone being caught “rigging numbers” in the surface data. There have been adjustments as there have been for satellite data, although on a much smaller scale in terms of effect.

  8. I believe that the balance of the evidence suggests that man-made global warming could become a significant problem for humanity as this century unfolds

    He’s just avoiding being shunned at cocktail parties.

  9. Suggestion to Reason’s science correspondent: there is more to science than what can be copy/pasted from global warming alarmist articles.

  10. It was the alarmists who kept saying that studies and arguments against their position were invalid unless they appeared in peer reviewed articles.

  11. If these researchers have any real arguments showing that the satellite data are wrong, the place to prove that is in the peer-reviewed scientific literature – not a propaganda video.

    If one’s interest is propaganda, the best way to argue against the satellite data is a propaganda video.

    The science is settled. The chief concern is to convince the hoi polloi that they must submit to the edicts of Leviathan and be grateful to their betters for saving the world from certain destruction.

  12. Fair enough.

    I would point out this, since you mention Remote Sensing. Carl Mears also said this:

    “My particular dataset (RSS tropospheric temperatures from MSU/AMSU satellites) show less warming than would be expected when compared to the surface temperatures. All datasets contain errors. In this case, I would trust the surface data a little more because the difference between the long term trends in the various surface datasets (NOAA, NASA GISS, HADCRUT, Berkeley etc) are closer to each other than the long term trends from the different satellite datasets. This suggests that the satellite datasets contain more “structural uncertainty” than the surface dataset.”

    I would also use your concluding argument toward Lamar Smith: if you have a problem with NOAA studies showing no pause, you might want to depend on peer reviewed studies in respectable journals line Nature, rather than a government subpoena of emails. But then, you defended Smith.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..otherwise/

    1. What you see before man, Earth changes temperature.

      What you see after man, Earth changes temperature.

      Shocking.

      1. All of the high “science” discussion he does below but he doesn’t comment on this simple logic…

        Shocking.

        1. Sorry. But it made no sense.

          It’s like saying “bacteria existed before man, and it will exist after man arrives.” So all of the reasons that harmful bacteria spread due to man (see bubonic plague) may as well not be addressed.

          Silly.

          1. My point is this, the Earth changes temperature. Man is there or it isn’t, it still changes temperature.

            You can track that bacteria spreading due to one human’s action. You can’t even track the why of the Earth’s temperature changes from before there was man, let alone if man actually changes temperature.

            The only 2 real ways to track if humans actually change the temperature (using “greenhouse gases”) are thus: Either kill all humans and observe the Earth to see, now, what the temperature does, or take a statistical analysis of the changes since man has released “greenhouse gases” and compare it to all other temperature history and see if there is a statistical change.

            The biggest reason your side is so hard to believe is obvious here. You hate even admitting that the Earth changed temperature on its own, let alone do you want to study that time period. After all, that would require you to admit some uncertainty on the subject and you simply don’t like it that people don’t obey you!

            Too hard? Too bad, the one making the extraordinary claims is the one who has to prove it, and as for doing that, you’ve failed miserably.

            1. Alrighty then!

            2. Climate scientists study past climates all the time. Studying events like the PETM raises confidence in predictions that antroprogenic CO2 will significantly increase temperatures.

              1. Let’s assume that more CO2 in the atmosphere increases Global temperature. As you point out, during PETM, there was massive volcanic activity that released CO2.

                http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

                Here you will see why there are absolutely massive problems in the way that the CO2 from the past 100 years of volcanic activity are measured. That, on top of the fact that there are relatively few volcanoes in the past 100 years, make human CO2 releasing look massive.

                http://www.worldclimatereport……all-wrong/

                For problems in the models not taking into account past volcanic eruptions.

                Not to mention during the past the Earth was warmer, and had more CO2 in the atmosphere. So… all humans happen to be doing is releasing trapped CO2 back into the atmosphere, right? So… how is that bad? Apparently, the (very) long term trend in temp and carbon is downward, then wouldn’t releasing it into atmo be a good idea?

                But this also assumes that “scientists” know precisely why certain times in the past were warmer and cooler… and as they can’t even reliably predict temp now, I find that difficult to believe.

                1. Yes, humans are releasing trapped carbon back into the atmosphere. But we are doing so extremely rapidly. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased 40% so far due to human activity. We know from past events such as the PETM that increasing CO2 means increasing temperature.

                  1. We know from past events such as the PETM that increasing CO2 means increasing temperature

                    We “know” correlation, perhaps.

                    So, why is the current amount of CO2 somehow more righteous than the past amount?

            3. Dude, they have fucking consenus on their side.

              How can you fight with the science of that?

    2. peer reviewed studies in respectable journals line Nature

      I believe I posted a link to a Nature article from a few years back the other day on the subject of how scientists seemed to be coming to the conclusion that the pause was caused by the oceans absorbing a lot more than they had previously thought. (Which raised in my mind the question of just how vigorously you can defend the reliability of these climate models when something like this went unmodeled.) But the question I raised was – how are they now explaining these scientists who claimed to have studied the pause enough to know what caused it now that it’s been revealed there was no pause? If it’s just a matter of having the numbers wrong, I can understand scientists looking for something that’s not there, but some of them said they actually found the thing that wasn’t there. Is anybody even laughing at them, or are we all just pretending we never saw that?

      1. The Consensus has many tentacles slithering off the same central conclusion.

  13. I’m not sure what makes this video “sleazy” or how it “undercut[s] scientific findings” in some nefarious way.

    If people like Ted Cruz are going to say that satellites are the best data we have, it is perfectly fair to show that the satellite record has undergone many large corrections in the last twenty years–corrections far greater in magnitude than the global surface temperature data sets like CRUtemp or NASA GISS. In other words, we should doubt the satellite data. It is a difficult analysis fraught with difficult problems. I don’t recall anyone saying we should ignore the satellite data completely, in fact the researcher from RSS said that all data should be considered.

    This statement: “Solution: Deny data that contradicts their preferred narrative.” is not evident in the video as far as I can see.

    The video also does a good job of pointing out the cherry-picking of people who say “no warming in 18 years.”

    1. Indeed. Seems Ronald is a tad bit defensive. The video points out mistakes in the past (so?), and in the end even quotes Mears as saying all the data sets should be used, both surface and satellite.

      1. all the data sets should be used

        If a data set is not valid, then it should be thrown out not used.

        1. Disagree. If you look at the video, it speaks of how the initial data sets used by Spencer and Christy were indeed not valid, and had to be corrected. And they were. By your way of thinking, Christy shouldn’t have contained. As one of the scientists says in the video, no need to be to harsh on them, everyone makes mistakes.

          1. *continued.

          2. You can’t correct faulty data. You throw it out and start over.

            But thanks for illustrating the point.

            1. You can’t correct faulty data. You throw it out and start over.

              That’s old science. This is new science. You see, they know what the data is supposed to be because they are like super smart and stuff. All they need is a consensus, and the data is fixed. See?

              1. It would be galling if I expected any sort of intellectual honesty. But I don’t. The only part that really upsets me is that they claim to speak for intellectualism or scientific inquiry. No, you are just peddling a new variety of Lysenkoism.

              2. “That’s old science. This is new science.”

                Old Science: In limnology we took a number of readings in whatever body of water we were looking at. Whatever the raw data was, temp, oxygen content, light, ph, etc. we wrote that down. We would have three or four teams compile data sets and compare them. If we had anomalies, they stayed there. If any of the data was suspect we would start all over.

                We didn’t ‘adjust’ shit.

                New Science: Studies show what we want them to show, and no, you can’t see our raw data. Fuck you, pay up before the sky falls.

              3. Last I recall all the corrections, every single one of them, was in one direction: to make the numbers higher. When I was doing my meager schooling to go into aerospace and electrical engineering this was considered a clear indicator of manipulation and grounds for your ass being handled to you.

                The point is that ground date is unreliable because the stations are unreliable (too many sit next to heat sinks) and the satellite data needs to be tweeked, in one direction only, because it too isn’t showing what the warmists want. The models have all been wrong too. But hey, the problem is with those of us that remember that the scientific principle postulates that if your predictions don’t pan out, then you need to go back to the drawing board and not keep pretending you have a leg to stand on.

                The AGW cultist will get me to reconsider when they throw everything they have so far out, start from scratch, and then publish everything so it can be reviewed properly. What’s going on today is neither scientific nor indicative of anything but something nefarious.

                1. It is incorrect that “every single correction” was to “make the numbers higher.” Adjustments to data have very little effect on global temperatures.

                  Satellite data has also been adjusted in both directions. These adjustments are far larger than adjustments for surface data.

                  1. Yes, it’s kind funny. That NOAA study by Thomas Karl that said there was no pause over the last decade or so and is the subject of so much consternation among skeptics, also had the effect is lowering slightly the amount of warming on the earth long term. You would think that if he wanted to misrepresent warming, he would have misrepresented that as well.

            2. You can’t correct faulty data. You throw it out and start over.

              Jeesh. You’re obviously not a climate scientist.

            3. Depends on what you mean by “faulty.” In the satellite data, for example, the altitude was miscalculated. This was shown to be true and a physical cause (friction in this case) was identified. Once the true altitude was determined, the data can be adjusted. Choosing to “start over” is not practical and destroys good information.

              Similar things occur in the surface record. Equipment changes and time of observation changes are known factors that have empirically demonstrated effects on temperature. It would be foolish to throw out such data.

              1. It would be foolish to throw out such data.

                Fuck your bullshit data. Start over.

                Your convenience is your own problem.

                1. Declaring data “Bullshit” because of…reasons…isn’t a convincing argument.

                  Of course, throwing out all temperature data would leave only qualitative facts–higher sea levels, earlier springs, increased ice melt, etc. Doesn’t really move the needle with regards to the theory either way.

                  1. Yes, “reasons” like it’s wrong. You know, trivial stuff like that.

                  2. Of course, throwing out all temperature data would leave only qualitative facts–higher sea levels, earlier springs, increased ice melt, etc.

                    Those are quantitative.

                  3. Doesn’t really move the needle with regards to the theory either way.

                    If the “theory” is unmoved by data concerning its entire premise, then it is more properly called a “pseudo-science”.

                    1. Who says it is unmoved by data? If you discount all temperature data, you have other data. And you have the well-described physical properties of greenhouse gases.

                    2. But now you’re shifting the goalposts. Is the “theory” about temperature, or about “other data”?

                    3. It is about both. But you want to exclude temperature data.

                    4. No, I want to exclude bad data. Nothing I said was meant to imply that the temperature data was uniquely or uniformly bad.

                    5. It is about both

                      Oh? So there’s gremlins pouring water into the oceans? Extending the growing seasons and/or changing the rotation of the Earth? Putting heaters next to the ice caps?

                      No, it seems to me the lynchpin of the “theory” is temperature.

                2. kbolino, I also have disdain for climate “science” alarmist establishment. But you’re wrong about throwing out data that contains real information but is improperly biased by known errors.

                  In engineering, it’s called calibration. We do it with every device that measures a physical phenomenon: clocks, thermometers, oscilloscopes, antennas, scales, etc.

                  The satellites measured a real phenomenon, but a systematic error was introduced because there was an error in the precise location of the satellite. The satellite doesn’t measure temperature directly, the temperature is derived by some kind of mathematical algorithm/calibration. An error in the calibration was fixed.

                  1. If there’s known factors affecting the accuracy of the measurements, then you can document those factors and what you’re doing to correct them. But that is itself part of the experimental process. I should be able to pick up at any stage of the process and repeat the following steps.

                    Let me rephrase what I’m arguing here. When you take raw numbers and apply an irreversible transformation to them, you are throwing away “real information”. Whether it’s irreversible because of the underlying mathematical properties of the operations or it’s irreversible because you failed to document in full detail what you did is irrelevant. The resulting product is worthless.

                    1. The resulting product is worthless.

                      Speaking of overly broad…

                      The resulting product is worthless if someone can’t replicate the process you used to obtain it.

                    2. Nothing irreversible is done to surface temperature records and all adjustments are described in the peer-reviewed literature.

          3. Re: Jackass Ass,

            it speaks of how the initial data sets used by Spencer and Christy were indeed not valid, and had to be corrected.

            Just like Mr. Brady corrected his wife and then corrected his daughters…

  14. Its like watching a tribal rain-charmer attack the newfangled barometer out of frustration.

  15. This is not science!

    This is a big chunk of why skeptics are skeptical.

    1. Yep. They’ve thrown away the scientific method and adopted consensus. That’s not science. That’s politics.

  16. Hi all: Just going to add two links here. The first is a post in which I discuss alleged chicanery in making temperature adjustments (all temperature data is adjusted) and where I note that RSS, i.e., Mears, also finds that the climate models are running too hot.

    The second is where I ask what evidence would convince you that man-made climate change is real?

    1. And while I am at it, here’s a third post in which I link to all the various people who refute the evidence for climate change that I cited.

    2. Hi Ron.

    3. all temperature data is adjusted

      This is the problem.

      If the data is adjusted, then it is by definition not valid when treated as the authoritative original source of information. Whatever factors were used to make the adjustments are more data that need to be included alongside the raw numbers so that anyone can replicate the process of adjustment.

      1. kbolino, you’re overstating your case. Not all adjustments are bad. Almost all data from a device is adjusted: it’s called calibration. No two scales will give you the same weight for a known reference weight. After you weigh the reference, you know that every measurement from that scale needs to be adjusted up or down. This is what happened with the satellite data.

        I do agree that many of the adjustments done by the alarmist “scientists” are suspect. That doesn’t mean that all of them are.

        1. Why do the adjustments have to be done on the satellite?

          How do you recalibrate a scale? Do you adjust the zero-point? Well, how do you know it’s accurate outside of that point? Do you calibrate at two points (say 0 and 50kg)? How do you know it’s accurate in between and outside that range? Let’s not get into the quandary of “known weights” and simply strive for consistency. Do you test the scale repeatedly at, say, 5kg increments to ensure it’s accurate across the range of measurements you’re taking? Let’s suppose an adjustment has to be made. Is it additive or multiplicative? What if it needs to be both?

          That’s just a scale. Never mind what is presumably a very complex instrument operating in a very remote and hostile environment. You’re absolutely correct that “not all adjustments are bad”, and I never said any such thing. But here we don’t even have the luxury of “known weights”. All of the numbers are suspect, because there’s no way to validate them. Any and all processes must be completely transparent, and the results of any opaque process must be ignored.

          1. You’re right, all of those things you mention with scales are done, and it depends on a lot of factors, like the kind of sensor and the range over which it gives a reliable signal. But, it can be done and is all the time to very high precision.

            Just because a sensor is in space doesn’t mean it’s in a particularly hostile environment. It’s actually a pretty smooth and predictable environment. Orbital dynamics are well known and measurements of speed and location are amazingly accurate. The math models are very good and can be repeatably calibrated by measurements. So, they figured this stuff out and have a pretty good dataset.

            You definitely need a second measurement for validation. For the satellite measurements, they have balloons. From what I’ve read, the satellite guys have been very transparent.

            1. From what I’ve read, the satellite guys have been very transparent.

              I’ve read the same things, and didn’t mean to imply otherwise. However, while transparency is a necessary condition for advancing the state of the art, it is not a sufficient condition for drawing broad conclusions.

    4. Hi Ron

      The climate is always changing so that’s a non-sequitur. Even if it is man-made, why is that presumed to be bad? Just because man did it? I’ve been following this topic for the better part of 20 years and the non-answer to those questions is why I can no longer take the alarmists seriously. It’s just a circle jerk of question begging and predisposition to large state managed solutions. This has not been science for a very long time.

      Welcome back.

  17. One more thing, here is an analysis by folks at the libertarian Niskanen Center of my chapter on climate change -Can We Cope with the Heat? – in The End of Doom.

    1. What would convince me? That is easy: falsification of my theory, i.e. actual climate change.

      The warmists have had their theory falsified repeatedly. They responded by adjusting their theory into an unfalsifiable one. This is not science, it is fraud.

      When they can come up with a theory that makes accurate predictions I will hop on board.

      1. When they can come up with a theory that makes accurate predictions I will hop on board.

        I find your lack of faith to be… disturbing.

      2. Models that consistently get it not just wrong, but so ridiculously wrong as the be laughable, are an indication that the hypothesis is wrong or the process is not understood. me I am going with the first despite the obvious fact the later certainly bears out, because these warmist were not accidentally labeled watermelons. The agenda is political, and this apocalyptic crisis is the means to an end.

      3. When they can come up with a theory that makes accurate predictions I will hop on board.

        TL:DR; “When railroading time comes you can railroad – but not before.”

        IMO, it’s in the exact same “Ideas so good, they have to be mandatory.” vein of libertarianism. By the time you’re able to predict anything 50-100 yrs. into the future with any certainty, you’ll intrinsically have intrinsically produced the technology to reduce home temperatures and automobile inefficiencies concomitantly and the reductions in those inefficiencies will be de facto desirable.

        The financial markets the world over are full of publications demonstrating people can’t reliably outsmart the market. Hell, reason just wrote an article demonstrating that science rather than being a heady endeavor limited only by the mind(s) advances at a basal level and in a manner akin to physical evolution. But, for some reason, climate zealots want to put the cart 8-10 ft. in front of where they theorize a horse will be.

    2. I thought this analysis by libertarian Niskanen Center was worth reading, regarding any pause. Their concluding statement:

      “The “no warming in 17 years” meme is rather easy for mainstream climate scientists to shoot down. Conservatives should cease and desist. There are better arguments at their disposal to counter costly policy initiatives meant to address climate change.”

      1. Link

        http://niskanencenter.org/blog…..arming-go/

        Maybe Lamar Smith should have read it.

        1. So an organization nobody’s ever heard of should be an authoritative source despite being unable to do anything except parrot other people’s words.

          Seems legit.

      2. Re: Jackass Ass,

        “The “no warming in 17 years” meme is rather easy for mainstream climate scientists to shoot down.

        Indeed – by pretending it never existed, despite the emails from the different East Anglia University climate scientists who were bitching about the lack of warming.

      3. So what you’re saying is that there was no pause, but the pause happened because the oceans absorbed extra heat?

        Contradictions, how do they work?

  18. So what a trio of climate scientists – Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, and Ben Santer – have evidently decided to do is participate in a video project funded by an climate activist foundation whose chief aim is to cast doubt on the satellite data.

    Which is basically the equvalent of participating in a video that purports to show that all those women who shot them down in the many bars they visited had to be lesbians all.

    Had to be.

    Remind me again how is it that climate change “science” is not just another New Age religion but real science?

  19. They don’t even try to hide their sleazy-ness. It is well known that the biases in the satellite data have been accounted for. It is not controversial. So you would think that these three alarmists would worry about being easily disproved by their colleagues. But the target of this video is not the scientific community. It is the hoards of non-technical progressives that NEED this issue to fulfill their dreams of an enormous government.

    The real scandal is not that these three would do this. (They are some of the worst of the worst.) It’s that no one else in the scientific establishment stands up against this and calls it out as bullshit. The climate establishment utterly authoritarian and will allow no dissent.

    1. The biases in the surface record have been accounted for as well.

      1. Yes, they’ve been accounted for but that’s not relevant to my comment. The point is that the mainstream climate scientists/alarmists should call out their own for obfuscation/bullshit just as they do for the evil “deniers”. The fact that three very prominent members of the field could engage in such a bad-faith exercise of obfuscation and not get called out on it by other members of the field is very damning.

        BTW, the adjustments to the surface record are many and varied, some based on calibration, some based on smoothing/estimating/stats/, some based on, well, a wink and a nod it seems. The satellite adjustments are very straightforward by comparison.

        1. The statements in the video are scientifically accurate. The video debunks the claim that satellite data are superior. That isn’t obfuscation.

          Satellite adjustments are anything but straightforward.

        2. The satellite adjustments are very straightforward by comparison.

          This is just not an informed statement. Adjustments to space-based MSU (microwave sounding unit) data to extract temperature are far mor complex than surface data homogenization.

  20. Well, the video is not intended as a scientific criticism. It’s a response to Ted Cruz’s political claims that global warming is a myth. But even with that, I find this defense against the video extremely weak. It does not address the primary points raised in the video:

    1) surface temperatures, whatever their shortcomings, measure temperatures. Satellites measure radiance. The satellite temperatures are WAY more dependent on modeling and homogenization than the ground-based temperatures and yet we are told we should ignore ground temperatures in favor of satellite ones? Somehow when ground-based temperatures are homogenized with resultant tiny changes, it’s witchcraft. But when satellite data are changed with huge resultant changes, that’s good science?

    2) Christy’s defense of their criticism is basically “well, I don’t wet the bed *anymore*”. For years, he claimed that the globe was cooling. Then he claimed it wasn’t warming. This was all due to errors in his analysis. Yeah, it was ten years ago. He still proclaimed those badly erroneous analyses with the same confidence he’s claiming his current one. For all the criticism of the temperature data, they have never changed as radically as the satellite data have.

    The satellite data are important but the idea that we should reject the ground-based data in favor of it is ridiculous given the long history here.

    1. ” Yeah, it was ten years ago. He still proclaimed those badly erroneous analyses with the same confidence he’s claiming his current one. ”

      Yep, he was wrong.

      As was Mann, with his now thoroughly discredited Hockey Stick.

      As was the climate mafia at large, who made predictions, claimed the “science is settled”, and were proved by reality to be wrong.

      If we can’t talk to people who have been wrong, we can just stop talking about this now.

      What any reasonable person should take away from this is that the science most assuredly is *not* settled.

  21. “man-made global warming could become a significant problem for humanity as this century unfolds.”

    This was always the reasonable position. It could.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas, putting more into the atmosphere should warm things up, to a first order approximation (in a decidedly non linear system).

    The question has always been how much will it warm?

    And the answer is, we don’t know, and the current climate models are abject failures in accurately predicting how much.

    And the bozos who claimed that “the science is settled” had their heads up their asses. They were not only wrong in their predictions, they were wrong in the confidence they assigned to those predictions.

  22. The Jerry Sandusky of climate science strikes again!

    At least this time it’s just a bogus video and not legal terrorism, trying to sue your detractors into silence.

  23. The Earth is inexorably cooling. Continental drift is a direct consequence of that process. One day in the far distant future it will be a solid lifeless hunk of metal and rock. At least until the Sun goes red giant, then things will get just a tad warmer.

    Or so science says.

  24. it did make me wonder just how reliable the satellite data are;
    I know that satellite measurements can be difficult to calibrate.
    Worse, satellites don’t actually measure temperature directly; they measure how much energy the Earth radiates, and that’s converted into a temperature.
    The conversion is dependent on a lot of theoretical computer models, which have been criticized frequently.

    How accurate are the models? .It turns out this is a good thing to wonder.
    *****Satellite measurements are not the most reliable method to get temperature.

    The key thing to take away from this is that satellites measure radiance: energy radiated by the atmosphere as microwaves. They come from the air, but also from the surface, clouds, and more.

    Scientists then use models of what’s emitting these microwaves to disentangle all that and convert it to a temperature.

    But those models are sometimes not terribly accurate at all. Christy & Spencer’s computer models have frequently been riddled with formulaic errors, forcing them to measure stratospheric temps as well …which are colder,
    **** Which makes it appear to read that there is little global warming, which is the ERROR.

    The best measurements have been and still are from thermometers at various stations across the globe, on land, over sea, and in the air. These data need adjusting sometimes too, but not nearly as much as satellite data. Thermometers more reliable.

  25. “So what to do? What good scientists would do is try to reconcile the datasets and debate the issues in the scientific journals. Well, that’s messy, slow, and the results are not pre-determined. So what a trio of climate scientists – Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, and Ben Santer – have evidently decided to do is participate in a video project funded by an climate activist foundation whose chief aim is to cast doubt on the satellite data.”

    Sugest to author a quick use of The Google before putting fingers to keyboard. This topic of satellite data has been addressed and infinitum in the peer-reviewed literature. Publishing in peer-review doesn’t preclude from also participating in public education, which is what this video project is. Everything of scientific relevance in the video has already been examined in the literature. The video packages this information in a format digestable by the general public.

  26. Solution: Deny data that contradicts their preferred narrative.

    Intellectually dishonest statement. The scientists in the video don’t deny the satellite data, they’re articulating the weaknesses of the data sets.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.