From the Raleigh News and Observer – Scientist: Warming is natural
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1221488.html
Published: Sep 17, 2008 12:30 AM Modified: Sep 17, 2008 02:03 AM
RALEIGH – Scientist Roy Spencer thinks global warming is a natural occurrence and not man-made.Over the past year, Spencer and his theory have gained more attention on the Rush Limbaugh radio show, where Spencer is the “official climatologist.”On Tuesday, Spencer spoke about his book, “Climate Confusion,” to members of the John Locke Foundation, a Raleigh think tank that advocates for smaller government. “Scientists need money, and they need to have pet theories,” said Spencer, a research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. “And who wouldn’t want to save the Earth?”
Spencer said scientists are paid to find that global warming is caused by humans. “If you’re paid to find something, you’re going to find it,” he told about 80 people in a Holiday Inn ballroom. Spencer agrees that humans are creating more carbon dioxide, but he doesn’t agree it’s causing climate change.”This is a philosophical idea that CO2 is bad,” Spencer said.Instead, Spencer said, the Earth naturally heats up over a period of time and then cools. He showed histories of the Earth’s temperature fluctuating over hundreds of years and said the planet hasn’t warmed in seven years.
Bill Chameides, dean of Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, said Spencer’s arguments are 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, adding it’s insulting that Spencer would suggest scientists are paid to come to this conclusion. “Scientists make their reputation on debunking theories.”
Spencer said he wrote his book, a New York Times bestseller, because of the economic effects global warming policies have had on the poor. Alternative energy sources, like biofuels, have driven up the cost of food, which hurts people in Third World countries, he said.”Radical environmentalists are responsible for the deaths of millions of people — mostly black Africans,” he said, because they won’t allow those countries to use DDT pesticide to kill mosquitoes, which cause malaria. “And now they’re starving people because of biofuels.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
> ”We’ve looked at every possible form of heat, including clouds,
> and the only source of heat is greenhouse gases,” he said,
This is basically the same “logic” used by the “Intelligent Design” camp. It goes like so… “duhhh, I can’t come up with a coherent physical theory to explain what’s happening. Therefore. it’s got to be the handiwork of some intelligent entity”.
Since man wasn’t around at the beginning, the “Intelligent Design” camp has to invoke a God. Since man is around now, the AGW camp claims that rising temperatures were the handiwork of man.
“I can’t come up with a coherent physical theory to explain what’s happening.”
‘Therefore it has to be explicable in terms of a physical theory I can envision, (if not make plausible).’
I think this fits the ID, AGW and Static Sun crowds a bit better than the intelligent agent implication.
”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
Dr. Roy Spencer did recently consult with California’s embarrassing, renowned climatologist, petroleum geologist, and U. S. Senator, B. Boxer. At the conclusion of their exchange, the Senator did suggest that an outside influence may have compromised Dr. Spencer’s information on the subject they discussed.
Snip, snip?
“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
So when we warm, it’s our fault. But when it cools, it’s nature. AGW is then “ignoratio elenchi”?
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.
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.
Spoke like a landlubber. Arrr.
Well, then let me be the first. (Well, to be more accurate, the zillionth.)
The six main oceanic-atmospheric multidecadal cycles (PDO, IPO, AMO, NAO, AO, AAO) changing from cool phase to warm from 1976 to 2001. Then a nice flat temperature interval. (Then a PDO flip and a temperature drop.)
There now. Wasn’t that easy?
We may now continue laughing at the dean.
“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.
ROY SPENCER v. SEN. BARBARA BOXER
[…] is an example, from Anthony’s site: Bill Chameides, dean of Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, […]
evanjones:
“The six main oceanic-atmospheric multidecadal cycles (PDO, IPO, AMO, NAO, AO, AAO) changing from cool phase to warm from 1976 to 2001. Then a nice flat temperature interval. (Then a PDO flip and a temperature drop.)”
Temperature drop? Where?
You might want to forward this finding to Roy Spencer. Spencer has said in several seminars, including one that he gave in Boulder, CO this summer, that he can’t explain the warming of the last 3 decades.
“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.
Gary Gulrud:
“The dean’s choice of words was impeccable. Your characterization of his logic, and Spencer’s for that matter, less so.”
The dean’s point was obvious. If you couldn’t understand it, that’s your problem, not mine.
“Either grant Evan’s temperature drop this millenium or give up your 30 year rise.”
If you want to believe that it’s not warmer now than it was 30 years ago, that’s your choice.
“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.