Spencer on AGW: "If you're paid to find something, you're going to find it,"

Uhh – one from an admitted physics-challenged viewer of the action on this blog
BUT
How are GHGs a source of heat ? I thought the heat largely came from that big, bright thingy in the sky that motors by daily ??
Or am I missing something again on all this ?

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Dr. Christy’s presentation was geared toward a layman. And, seeing how the science of climatology is so inextricably linked to politics, it’s appropo for him to comment on the relationship between the two. After all, the IPCC is an international government body established to show the impact of man’s activities on the climate, i.e., it was taken as a given that AGW was true.
But that paragraph on Dr. Chameides left me incredulous.
I hope it was just sloppy reporting on the part of the journalist to say, “’ignoratio elenchi’ or logical fallacy.” The wording imples that the meaning of the term “ignoratio elenchi” is “logical fallacy” which is not the case. It should have been worded “ignoration elenchi” or ignorance of refutation, which is a form of logical fallacy. Another form of logical fallacy of which we are are too familiar is “ad hominem” or argument against the man.
But to speak of clouds or greenhouse gases as sources of heat is of a level I’d expect from a poorly thinking high school student trying to ‘wing it’ when answering a teacher’s question.

The effect is that this is an op-ed disguised as news where the reporter is telling us what to think rather than simply reporting. This is what journalism has come to. The mind boggles.
I guess they learned from the masters: Gore and Hansen.
Why is it that when a study or paper has funding from a company or person that once had a cousin who worked for a week at an oil company, suddenly they are all in the pocket of big oil and will find any results they are paid to find?
But anyone working for a government organisation is somehow beyond reproach?
Whatever one’s views on AGW, one has to at least admit that if the AGW theory disappeared tonight, then there are going to be a lot of out of work scientists by tomorrow morning.

…what magicians call “ignoratio elenchi” or logical fallacy.”We’ve looked at every possible form of heat, including clouds, and the only source of heat is greenhouse gases,” he said.
‘Magicians’ like Aristotle, Boole and Frege, presumably. Here is a brief account of ‘ignoratio elenchi
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignoratio.html
I didn’t know clouds were a form of heat.! I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now.

G Alston,
Actually, Roy Spencer is a world renowned scientist and climate specialist at UAH.
Dr. Spencer has a PhD in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin-
Madison, and has been involved in global warming research for close to
twenty years. He has numerous peer reviewed scientific articles
dealing with the measurement and interpretation of climate variability
and climate change. Dr. Spencer is also the U.S. Science Team Leader
for the AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. Dr. Spencer
is currently a Principal Research Scientist at the University of
Alabama in Huntsville.
Mike Ramsey

Bill Chameides, – ”We’ve looked at every possible form of heat, including clouds, and the only source of heat is greenhouse gases,”
The funny thing is Spencer is the only one who is actually looking for the heat sources. The warmers are not actually looking, carefully measuring, tracking heat sources over time – they are just running computer models.
Where is the study using satellite data from the atmosphere which shows GHGs are trapping more heat than they used to? There’s a small study here and there looking at one small part or the other and even then it is only one or two years worth of data.
Spencer is the only one looking for the actual global warming signatures over time.

Bill Marsh: Nice take.
Spencer is annoyingly finding a cause, self-interest, to explain behavior that Chameides protests is motivated by higher Reason and an uncompromising fealty to Truth.
This can be maddening where good reasoning is a sufficient explanation for the behavior and one’s motivation unalloyed with the cares of life. Logic is no help here without human observation and sympathy.
I’ve toured Duke (not UAH) and I’d bet money, rafts of it, is a bigger temptation for the latter than for the former.

There was a high profile case in Fort Collins, Colorado of a kid who spent 20 years in jail for a murder in which there was no physical evidence or motive linking the boy. The conviction was based entirely on the testimony of a highly paid expert who said that the boy’s artwork indicated a propensity to violence.
He was released earlier this year after DNA tied the murder to someone else.

With the (im)proper use of statistics, you can prove anything.
Evanjones:
“And who wouldn’t want to save the Earth?”
(Fresh from leafing through the Stern Review) Too bad they need to destroy it in order to save it.”
Deja Moo all over again. Vietnam revisited. We had to destroy the village in order to save it.
If this nonsense continues, we’ll probably get the same result.

”We’ve looked at every possible form of heat, including clouds, and the only source of heat is greenhouse gases,” he said, adding it’s insulting that Spencer would suggest scientists are paid to come to this conclusion. “Scientists make their reputation on debunking theories.”
The ONLY source of heat is greenhouse gases? Really? I was reminded of something the Climate Skeptic said back some weeks ago, so I looked at his site. Lo and behold, he had read the article on WUWT! So I will just quote and link here and leave it at that. He replies:
“Well, a number of folks would beg to differ that scientists have truly eliminated every other possible cause, particularly Mr. Sun (more than really eliminating these effects, they seem to be seeking excuses to ignore them). In fact, climate models of late have admitted that they don’t even include the Pacific Decadal Osculation in their models, or didn’t until recently. So much for thinking of everything.
But if Mr. Chameides wants to talk in terms of logical fallacies, I will as well: Just because scientists cannot imagine another cause does not mean that another cause does not exist. Can you imagine the first astrophysicists to discover pulsars to say “well, we can’t think of anything else that would cause this phenomenon, so it must be space aliens.” Well, come to think of it, some people did say that. But it turned out to be absurd, and after some decades of effort, we think we now understand pulsars. But it is a bizarre form of arrogance to assume that it is not possible in our current degree of climate knowledge that there is some factor we don’t even know about.”
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/we-cant-think-o.html
It’s not as if Dr. Spencer is the first person to make this claim either. See this. One more quote from the Skeptic will suffice. This is from the second link, the one I had read before that this article triggered in my memory.
“Here is a big fat clue for climate scientists: It is not part of the scientific method to confidently ascribe your pet theory (and source of funding) to every phenomenon you cannot explain. Or, maybe climate scientists are on to something. Why does gravity seem to work instantaneously at long distances? Co2! What causes cancer cells to turn on and grow out of control? CO2! Hey, its easy. All of our scientific dilemmas are instantly solved.”
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/08/its-co2-because.html

“In fact, climate models of late have admitted that they don’t even include the Pacific Decadal OSCULATION in their models, or didn’t until recently. So much for thinking of everything.”
SMOOOOCH

I guess that I didn’t realize that Roy Spencer was doing volunteer work. I was mistakenly under the impression that he was funded by the same sources (NSF, NASA, NOAA) that are paying scientists to claim that there is global warming.
Mark Ramsey:
“Actually, Roy Spencer is a world renowned scientist and climate specialist at UAH.”
Spencer is a competent scientist but hardly among the best-known or most honored. What little “world renown” Spencer has comes mainly from being a skeptic.
You all can have your fun laughing at the dean’s poor choice of words, but it doesn’t change the validity of the point that he was making, which is that no one has come up with a natural mechanism to explain the warming of the last 30 or so years.

“Scientists make their reputations on debunking theories” ??? 70 – 100 yrs ago, perhaps (the canonical example is Einstein). However, given funding realities and the req’ts for promotion, tenure, and so forth, publishing in PEER REVIEWED journals and having grant proposals favorably PEER REVIEWED requires that the theories in vogue NOT be debunked, that they fall in line with the (here it comes) consensus. Again, taking the historical view, consensus is generally inimical to science (as an example, consider the cholera epidemics in London during the late 1840’s). Dr Chameides’ comment was disingenuous at best, fatuous and pompous at worst.

“You all can have your fun laughing at the dean’s poor choice of words, but it doesn’t change the validity of the point that he was making, which is that no one has come up with a natural mechanism to explain the warming of the last 30 or so years.”
The dean’s choice of words was impeccable. Your characterization of his logic, and Spencer’s for that matter, less so.
Either grant Evan’s temperature drop this millenium or give up your 30 year rise.

“The dean’s point was obvious.”
The dean attempted to make the issue one of logic, rather than a baser motive, i.e., a re-direction rather than rebuttal.
You are simply following that lead.
Avarice is the driving motive behind AGW.
Now, rather than avoid the issue, tell us why your scientists are above reproach.