To anybody reading this article, While Dr. Spencer does have real credentials, he is a know denier. I'm not saying that makes him necessarily wrong, but he is extremely biased in his views, and often publish research to back up those biased views. So I think he's comments should be taken with a grain of salt.
95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
21–30 of 157 posts
Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
#22More on the author of this post: https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Views Another interpretation of this post: http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1xuccb/95_of_climat... (also see ovis's link in a reply below) Regarding very similar claims: https://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-... http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipc…
Excellent links.
Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
#23I'm a natural skeptic, so when everyone believes something I think that is the most important time to question it. I found Economist Bjorn Lomborg's take on climate change to be very impactful... http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_prioritie...
The basic idea is: that given our limited resources how can we do the most good? The answer is that focusing that effort on climate change is frivolous even by the most optimistic predictions. Now that doesn't mean we should ignore it entirely. I'm generally of the mindset that problems aren't solved by "steady progress" rather by radical innovation that changes the game. To that point... it can be seen as a waste of time to enforce rules today that really won't make a difference tomorrow. Instead today's effort should be spent to enable the rapid innovation that when applied will actually make a significant difference tomorrow.
Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
#24I don't know enough about meteorology to comment on the article, but this quote bugged me: "And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats." No, there's the exact same amount of reason. This isn't a morality play, who's "fault" it is doesn't matter. If there were a met…
> No, there's the exact same amount of reason. This isn't a morality play, who's "fault" it is doensn't matter. Of course it matters -- in terms of the amount of impact human activity has on the climate. The less impact it has, the less beneficial you can expect energy policies to be to the environment. Since these policies have a non-trivial cost in terms of human suffering (less energy for heating, growing food, et…
that's a bit strange to me, there is a lot of economic activity for to be gathered from re-newing things and insulating houses in rich countries. It's just rich kids churning around disposable income in products made by poor people (basic trickle down), it's not really relevant if it's for new gas-guzzler cars parts and AC units or insulation panels and busses they spend it on.
Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
#25More on the author of this post: https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Views Another interpretation of this post: http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1xuccb/95_of_climat... (also see ovis's link in a reply below) Regarding very similar claims: https://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-... http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipc…
"It is a little known fact that the extra carbon dioxide (and methane, an especially potent greenhouse gas) emitted by joggers accounts for close to 10% of the current Global Warming problem." [1]
Ban gym class! Ban exercise!
[1] http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005/06/time-for-ac...
Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, there's the exact same amount of reason. This isn't a morality play, who's "fault" it is doensn't matter. Of course it matters -- in terms of the amount of impact human activity has on the climate. The less impact it has, the less beneficial you can expect energy policies to be to the environment. Since these policies have a non-trivial cost in terms of human suffering (less energy for heating, growing food, et…
It doesn't matter in a moral sense. If someone proves that CO2 emissions don't cause global warming, then yeah, it makes it less effective to focus on CO2 emissions. But we still want to stop warming from happening, so we'd increase our efforts on whatever they pinpoint as the alternative cause. The linked article I was rebutting wasn't making that utilitarian case, they were making a moral case about not being oblig…
It matters precisely in a moral sense. Because of the (in)effectuality of the action. Resources are scarce, and you are taking food from a baby...somewhere in the world. Of course none of this matters if you are having "first-world" pyschological problems about guilt...or you are trying to secure some money or presige for your first-world cushy lifestyle.
Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
#27Well he sure sounds like a crackpot.
Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
#28I don't know enough about meteorology to comment on the article, but this quote bugged me: "And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats." No, there's the exact same amount of reason. This isn't a morality play, who's "fault" it is doesn't matter. If there were a met…
If we're only the cause of 50% of the warming that implies curbing our behavior only has half the impact that it would if we caused 100% of the warming. Granted, geoengineering projects that impact total warming are different.
Throwing out a percentage like that is meaningless. I contributed to 50% of the trash in my household last month. If that's 300 lbs, then curbing it is significant. If it's 3 lbs, then it isn't. If he can't provide more concrete figures for his argument then the argument has no meaning.
Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
#29Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong
#30More on the author of this post: https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Views Another interpretation of this post: http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1xuccb/95_of_climat... (also see ovis's link in a reply below) Regarding very similar claims: https://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-... http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipc…
Another take on the graph, shown here:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-decei...
It's been speculated on RealClimate that Roy Spencer is continuing to use the highest emission scenario for these comparisons, which is not made clear on his site.