Sky-high hole blown in AGW theory?
posted at 1:50 pm on July 28, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Two stories have dropped that may blow big holes in the anthropogenic global warming argument — one of which is literally sky-high. Forbes reports on a peer-reviewed study that uses NASA data to show that the effects of carbon-based warming have been significantly exaggerated. In fact, much of the heat goes out into space rather than stay trapped in the atmosphere, an outcome that started long before AGW alarmists predicted:
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxidetrap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
It should be noted that Dr. Spencer is a longtime AGW skeptic, but that doesn’t negate the NASA readings on which this study’s conclusions are based. If heat is escaping into the atmosphere at much higher rates than AGW computer models predict, then the outcome of AGW models will be highly biased towards the catastrophic outcomes. The problem, as Spencer notes in the press release, is that AGW theory makes too many assumptions based on incomplete data:
A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.
Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.
“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said. “The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”
That could explain why global temperatures have failed to soar over the last 20 years as predicted, too.
Spencer’s study rebuts some poor but probably sincere assumptions from AGW theorists. Not every researcher falls into that category, however. The AP reports today that one researcher whose work “galvanized” AGW hysteria over the fate of polar bears has suddenly been suspended as his work on that claim has come under scrutiny for potential scientific misconduct:
A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.
Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into “integrity issues.” But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general’s office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. …
Documents provided by Ruch’s group indicate questioning by investigators has centered on observations that Monnett and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004, while conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales, of four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. They detailed their observations in an article published two years later in the journal Polar Biology; presentations also were given at scientific gatherings.
In the peer-reviewed article, the researchers said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of polar bears floating dead offshore and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances in open water. Polar bears are considered strong swimmers, they wrote, but long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.
The IG hasn’t published any conclusions about the investigation, and indeed hadn’t published that there is an investigation. It came to light when PEER announced that it would sue to reinstate Monnett, claiming that he was being persecuted for political reasons. That would be a rather interesting charge to make in an administration that wants to impose AGW-based policy in part on Monnett’s work. Had the probe started during the Bush administration, it might be a little easier to believe that it was politically motivated.
AGW advocates insist that people respect the scientific consensus that we’re all going to kill Mother Earth if we don’t take radical action now to stop emissions of a natural substance into the atmosphere. However, we don’t have consensus, and what little we do have seems less and less scientific as data emerges.
Breaking on Hot Air
North Korea fires three short-range missiles as Japan envoy pays “secret” visit
DC firm shaking down Chevron learns lesson about poking the bear
Burglars lock homeowner in gun closet with predictably hilarious results
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Drowned polar bears after a storm? Without dissection and measurement of lactic acid levels, how could he tell they exhausted themselves, instead of getting clonked on the head by a wave or an ice floe and losing the way up in the water?
Sekhmet on July 28, 2011 at 5:08 PM
1. Well, the “singular” example of the polar bears by this guy sure seemed to matter.
The “singular” example of hurricane Katrina sure seemed to matter.
The “singular” example of the Japanese earthquake sure seemed to matter.
Aren’t you really saying that “singular” examples should only matter if such “singular” examples support CAGW?
2. Well the “overall trends” of increasing Antarctic ice extent don’t seem to matter.
Aren’t you really saying that “overall trends” shouldn’t matter if such “overall trends” don’t support CAGW?
blink on July 28, 2011 at 5:13 PM
Actually, the quality of this evidence is much more typical of what gets used to sound the alarm of CAGW, and you know it.
blink on July 28, 2011 at 5:15 PM
Bayam, are the islands of Vanuatu still above sea level?
No significant warming for 15 years, even while C02 increases… is 15 years climate or weather?
Here’s a prediction from the father of global warming that never came true. Evidence of typical alarmism:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/the-rumours-of-manhattans-death-are-exaggerated/
theCork on July 28, 2011 at 5:15 PM
WOW!
I saw a something just like this last week!
I saw a dead bird on the sidewalk, proof that a “Rogue Vacuum” exist!
Birds fly in the air, this bird was dead on the ground (sidewalk).
Obviously a “Rogue Vacuum” popped up removing the air, thus causing the poor bird to crash into the sidewalk, next to a Toyota Prius!
Humm, I wonder what it is about the Toyota Prius that caused this “Rogue Vacuum”?
OMG!, what if 3 or more of these Toyota Prius are next to each other when an airplane fly’s over and into one of these “Rogue Vacuums” hundreds, thousands millions could be killed!
Why is the UN silent on this issue?
Why is Obama silent on this issue?
Why is the MSM silent on this issue?
S/ unless I can get $5 million to study this!
DSchoen on July 28, 2011 at 5:21 PM
I’m still confused at how AGW proponents think. A warmer Earth means a greener Earth. Everyone knows this. The current interglacial has lasted about 8000 years give or take. It gave rise to our current civilization because most interglacials only last 1000 to 3000 years with sharp interruptions at many intervals just like there were early on in this interglacial and don’t leave enough time for progress. It’s even well known that high CO2 is great for plant life. It’s also well know that current CO2 levels are dangerously low for plant life. 180ppm is the absolute low end that most plants can survive with. We’re at what? 380ppm? Twice the absolute minimum? Anyone with half a brain knows we’re still in dangerous territory if this level were to suddenly drop.
Of all the things absurd is that green advocates want a frozen Earth.
MrX on July 28, 2011 at 5:21 PM
That prediction is one of my favorites. The best part is that Hansen doubled down on that prediction in 2001.
blink on July 28, 2011 at 5:25 PM
Sincere is never a word I’d use to describe these AGW nuts. It was never about mother earth. Maybe to the morons that latched on, and bought into this crap. It was always about enriching Gore, and others, at the expense of us all.
You’re far more generous than I would be, Ed.
capejasmine on July 28, 2011 at 6:20 PM
Polar bears died, liberals lied.
Really Right on July 28, 2011 at 6:25 PM
Bayam lapdog as usual. Sheesh. Question authority!
You are no where near the classic liberal you dumb bit*h.
CW on July 28, 2011 at 6:35 PM
Uh, regression of pack ice means regression of the seals along with the pack ice. No pack ice out in open water? No seals for Polar bears to swim to.
Therefore the entire premise of the guy’s study is absurd.
MaggiePoo on July 28, 2011 at 7:20 PM
I actually think Spencer’s piece is more significant. There is more longwave radiation (heat) leaving our planet than the models expected. Answers Trenberth’s question (The temperature isn’t rising like we expect, where did all the heat go? Out to space.)
Spencer also shows it is impossible to calculate the earth’s climate sensitivity. Too many factors, too many different time lags for the various factors, inability to pin down cause vs effect, forcing vs feedback. What’s important is the energy going in and the energy going out which proves that the ‘Enhanced’ Global Warming effect does not exist.
This has been suspected for a long time, even before the satellite Spencer gets the data from was launched. The climate models predicted a ‘hot spot’ in the upper atmosphere due to the ‘enhanced’ effect of more water vapor getting up there through natural weather processes. We couldn’t find the hot spot. It doesn’t exist.
Spencer’s work just proves it.
MaggiePoo on July 28, 2011 at 7:29 PM
Should be noted that Spencer does NOT say global warming is a myth. He says it is smaller than predicted. He’s still showing about 1.5 degrees per century, as opposed to the nominal 2.4. That’s still significant and disconcerting.
This does mean the models predicting 6 or more of warming in the next century are probably wrong. but we already knew that.
Hal_10000 on July 28, 2011 at 7:38 PM
The entire premise of the necessity of ice for polar bears to survive is absurd. Their normal range is land. They go onto ice because it’s there, not because they need it. If ice wasn’t there for seals then they’d beach on land like they do everywhere else in the world.
darwin on July 28, 2011 at 7:39 PM
Why? What temperature should it be? The earth is either warming or cooling … it’s never static.
darwin on July 28, 2011 at 7:43 PM
What I’m eagerly awaiting is the NASA satellite study on the urban heat island effect. It’s a key point of contention, because if the alarmists haven’t properly accounted for it, the entire temperature trend is in question.
JohnW on July 28, 2011 at 7:56 PM
I have no idea what the ideal temperature would be. I prefer not to find out by irreversible experiment.
Hal_10000 on July 28, 2011 at 7:58 PM
Ed’s Headline:
From the peer-reviewed article:
Well, no, there is no “hole” blown in AGW theories. Scientists have admitted for quite some time that feedback mechanisms were the biggest unknown in establishing efficacious models. This is why predictions of average temperature anomalies differ by as much as 5 degree or more by the end of the century. Nothing new here.
And, of course, this article in no way disputes the stark reality of global warming and climate changed induced by human activities.
Nice try, Ed. But you really ought to read the material before you get all excited.
oakland on July 28, 2011 at 8:12 PM
That ideal temperature would be the temperature that would result in conditions that would allow us to put food on the table.
I’m with you, Hal. We don’t need to be pushing to see what temperature would result in catastrophe to our agriculture.
oakland on July 28, 2011 at 8:14 PM
Does this mean NASA can fire James Hansen now?
SukieTawdry on July 28, 2011 at 8:39 PM
You are asking for too little to be taken seriously.
Slowburn on July 28, 2011 at 8:48 PM
You’re such a bore. These AGW threads are like rat bait.
Listen your dream of AGW is being reduced to nothing. Man is not causing warming. The Earth has warmed and cooled since its birth. God get an effin life.
CW on July 28, 2011 at 9:19 PM
Did anyone not notice that the four dead polar bears were floating?
Seems to me that if a dead polar bear floats, then a live polar bear could pretty much swim indefinitely (unless some type of catastrophe happened – like maybe one of those northern Bering Sea squalls that take down massive ships?)
P.S. At least I admit my idea is a theory.
Squiggy on July 28, 2011 at 9:32 PM
It isn’t a dream; it is a nightmare. I wish it weren’t true.
The earth has warmed and cooled all along, with resultant hardship and extinctions to the wildlife. We don’t need man to help it along, but is seems like were not going to divert ourselves from trying any time soon.
oakland on July 28, 2011 at 9:50 PM
If you have no idea what the temperature should be how can you say any warming is a bad thing? Is cooling a bad thing as well?
darwin on July 28, 2011 at 10:12 PM
This paper most certainly suggest a hole used to determine the extent of positive feedback in climate models.
Not only is the extent of feedback an unknown, but the direction (the positive/negative sign) of the feedback is unknown as well. That’s, er, kinda a big deal.
Ha ha, and guess what? It’s possible that all of these models have been overstating positive feedback.
1. This is most certainly the first time that anyone has shown that the models are overstating certain feedback. In other words, it is new.
2. This is the first time that people like you are admitting to potentially catastrophic flaws in the climate models. In other words, it is new for two separate reasons.
Ha ha. oakland scoured the information and could only come up with this. It’s hard being an alarmists these days. Soon oakland will know what’s it’s like to be a round earth denier.
blink on July 28, 2011 at 11:31 PM
Reality? So you still refuse to admit that you don’t know whether the feedback is positive or negative?
blink on July 28, 2011 at 11:32 PM
This is what I’ve said since the first time I heard this theory mentioned. You can’t trust computer models unless they’ve been tested, which in this case takes 50 or 100 years, and this one is especially dodgy since it attempts to predict an extremely dynamic system with an extremely large number of volatile variables. This is trans-science, meaning it’s in an area where science can’t give the kind of answers policymakers want.
flataffect on July 29, 2011 at 2:01 AM
Okay, wow.
“Forbes reports..”
Lets start there.
The story is written by James Taylor.
His contributor bio is here.
And if you click on his name, all his stories are anti-global warming. He “reports” on nothing else.
But that’s still not enough for me to question the story – we need to go deeper!
Right there on the Forbes bio, it says he’s a senior fellow at something called “The Heartland Institute”.
Their wikipedia page is here.
It seems Heartland has a history of taking contributions from oil.. tobacco.. you name it..
“From 1998 to 2006, Exxon Mobil, for example, contributed more than $600,000 to Heartland, according to annual reports of charitable contributions from the company and company foundations.”
Wow. So some of the people funding this operation are people with a vested interest in denying global warming.
Now I’m not going to claim the article itself is wrong.. or right.. I don’t have that information. I’m not an expert.
But I’d just like to point out the guy reporting on it has what appears to be a substantial conflict of interest.
As always, I report, you decide.
triple on July 29, 2011 at 2:09 AM
Translation: I will cling to my cultist belief in AGW no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented.
SKYFOX on July 29, 2011 at 5:31 AM
The Heartland Institute took money from “big oil” and in your mind this disqualifies them from ever speaking about science.
Go tell that to Greenpeace – they get a huge portion of their money from OPEC. I guess this means that Greenpeace can never speak on any subject ever again.
Squiggy on July 29, 2011 at 5:50 AM
Again, nothing new here. Scientists have known that this is an area of uncertainty. But, increase in water vapor in the atmosphere is well-known as a positive feedback mechanism. This is something that skeptics and denialists are very quick to point out.
“Not only is the extent of feedback an unknown, but the direction (the positive/negative sign) of the feedback is unknown as well. That’s, er, kinda a big deal”
I don’t see anywhere in the journal article that questions the direction of the feedback, do you?
“Ha ha, and guess what? It’s possible that all of these models have been overstating positive feedback”
And (not so ha ha) they could be understating it as well; nasty thing, this uncertainty.
Time will tell. Unfortunately, there’s no going back once it’s revealed in all detail.
“2. This is the first time that people like you are admitting to potentially catastrophic flaws in the climate models. In other words, it is new for two separate reasons”
Don’t know what you mean by “catastrophic flaw” in the models. Again, there’s uncertainty in any scientific work. THe fact is that the atmosphere is warming, and it is almost certainly due to human activities. The article that Ed cites doesn’t deny that at all.
“Ha ha. oakland scoured the information and could only come up with this. It’s hard being an alarmists these days. Soon oakland will know what’s it’s like to be a round earth denier.”
Well, that was the point of the article. How much of it did you read? What Ed doesn’t seem to understand is that this article is about refining the existing models – something that occurs all the time. But he thinks it’s a debunking of AGW, which it absolutely is not.
oakland on July 29, 2011 at 7:08 AM
Oh great, now we’re going to freeze with all our heat floating off into space….
Axeman on July 29, 2011 at 8:29 AM
These AGW people look so silly changing their stories every five minutes. Nothing they claim will happen has happened … and they’ve been screaming disaster for 40 years now.
Before it was a tiny increase in CO2 that was supposedly warming the earth … now it’s supposedly increased water vapor caused by CO2.
Everytime real science disproves their hysterical and dangerous theories they make up a new one.
Mars has an atmosphere of 95% carbon dioxide. Using the AGW rationale it should be burning up … yet the average temperature is -63 degrees C.
Lastly, the solution to their fake problem is what tips everyone off that it’s nothing but a scam. Their one and only solution … TAX EVERYTHING. GIVE MONEY TO THE GOVERNMENT.
darwin on July 29, 2011 at 8:35 AM
No. That’s exactly the opposite of what I’m saying.
I just think you should know who’s behind the piece.
Because I think, while it doesn’t disqualify what they’re saying, it certainly puts some perspective on it.
On the contrary, are you saying you’d rather not know who writes your news? Is ignorance the superior idea?
triple on July 29, 2011 at 8:43 AM
Well, a little warming would actually help our agriculture – a la the midevil warming period that you AGW cultists ignore in your “science”.
I love your response to this information too. “We always knew that the modeling was b.s., so this disproves nothing.”
Good lord. You people need to start accepting that this is not science. Not one prediction, theory or thought of the AGW “scientists” has proven accurate, yet nothing will convnince you that it is not “science.” It is ignorant adn pathetic.
Monkeytoe on July 29, 2011 at 9:12 AM
So, Oakland admits that the models are absolutely not science, can’t be trusted, and have no meaning. Yet, he wants to devestate our economy based on the models. Real scientific there. Realy “adult”, “reality based” and logical.
Your answer is that the models can’t be expected to be accurate, therefore, based on teh models, we should enact asinine socialists policies that you want because you are a socialist.
Or, we should not worry about any single “fact” but instead look at the trends. Of course, when it is pointed out that the earth has not warmed in a decade, you ignore that “trend”. You also ignore that we teh earth has always warmed or cooled, so there is always a warming or cooling “trend”.
You are truly a religious zealot for AGW. You have no understanding of, nor belief in science. It is all voodoo b.s.
Monkeytoe on July 29, 2011 at 9:15 AM
Computer models are not science. They will never be science. Period.
Computer models are nothing more than bias machines. The inputter controls the outcome. There is no science whatsover in a computer model.
People like Oakland and Bayam pretend that it is science because it is “being refined all the time.”
of course, “being refined all the time” in regards to AGW means that each time one of the AGW alarmists claims is disproven, such as the negative feedback claims NASA has just disproven (and yes Oakland, the AGW alarmists claimed massive negative feedback, and this has disproven that), these computer inputters “refine” their models by changing whatever they need to to still get the same result. “You’ve disproven teh major driver of my theory – i.e. massive amounts of negative feedback? O.k., I’ll come up with another way to get to a warming trend in my model”.
Please. You people are jokes.
Monkeytoe on July 29, 2011 at 9:19 AM
How is that any different than contributors that only write pro-alarmists stories? Besides, what does he have to do with the scientific paper?
What are you talking about????
Oil money didn’t fund this research or the paper that was published.
Are you actually attempting to discredit the PAPER and the RESEARCH by saying that the reporter that has written about the PAPER and the RESEARCH has an affiliation with a group which had taken some oil money over 5 years ago???
Is that the best you got?
I guess that is the best you got.
You’re not going to claim that the article is wrong or right? The article? Who cares about the article? The article is merely reporting on the scientific paper. Read the paper for yourself.
Are you trying to imply that the article is misrepresenting the paper, or did you not realize that the article is merely reporting on a scientific paper? I’m suspecting that it’s the latter.
In other words, you can’t understand the paper and you don’t even understand the basic concepts of infrared radiative cooling.
It’s funny to see an alarmist attempt to discredit a scientific paper by attacking the reporter that mentions the paper in Forbes.
blink on July 29, 2011 at 9:53 AM
“Scientists” have made definitive claims about this uncertainty in the form of absolute assumptions built into their models. In the past, scientists admitted to no uncertainty in their models other than to say, “I could be much worse than we are predicting.” They never said, “It might not be as bad, or it might negate all human contributions to warming.”
So what? It’s NOT known whether or not CO2 induced warming increases or decreases water vapor.
Let me explain something to you.
IF CO2 induced warming decreases water vapor, then feedback is negative. Burn that concept into your brain.
I didn’t say that it did. The paper calls the extent of assumed positive feedback into question. The extent of positive feedback could be reduced to zero or it could be reduced to a negative value.
This paper suggests otherwise. That’s the point.
1. According to CAGW alarmists, we’ve already hit the tipping point and CO2 emissions can’t be reduced to pre-1970s levels. So, relax – there’s already no going back – according to your beloved experts.
2. From a risk management perspective, it’s stupid to expend the resources that are being proposed given the minute amount of downside risk.
Maybe you should have looked up the word catastrophic so that you knew what the term means when applied to a model. It means that the model doesn’t work. That means that the model has little to no predictive value. Do you know what the means statistically?
1. It’s good to see CAGW alarmists finally admit this.
2. Uncertainty to the point to uselessness accurately describes climate “science” up until now. The Mann Hockey Stick is Exhibit A.
That’s not a fact at all. While many believe that the mechanism of CO2 could be contributing to part of the recent warming, it’s quite possible that such contribution has been a mere rounding error. Frankly, given the trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, I believe that it’s unlikely that human induced warming has had any measurable effect on temperature.
It’s quite possible that the sun’s intensity has been the largest contributor. A reduced heat source can still heat something. Reducing the gas burner flame on a cold pot of water can still heat the water. Turning the flame down more may allow the water to cool.
No, this paper is about significantly reducing assumptions which have been a major contributors to alarming outputs from the models.
Until now, “refinements” have only been in one direction – making the outputs worse.
He never said that it debunks CAGW. He asked if it blew a hole in the theory. A single hole isn’t a debunking. If you want an example of a debunking read about the Mann Hockey Stick.
blink on July 29, 2011 at 10:34 AM
I think it’s pretty obvious that you don’t understand the difference between a story about a scientific paper and the paper itself.
blink on July 29, 2011 at 10:36 AM
Tell ya what, when algore starts behaving, in his own personal life, like there’s a genuine threat to humanity based on creating too much carbon dioxide, I MAY take him seriously. Until the, it’s all so much hot air.
Tell ya what, when the AGW alarmists start showing me the raw data and the equations they used to massage that data, I MAY start taking them seriously as scientists. Until then, they can be safely ignored as they are not actually doing science.
It sounds to me like these guys saw floating dead polar bears, and assumptions were made. No actual data was recorded. In fact, these “scientists” can’t even state for certain that the bears drowned, let alone what might have caused it. No bear bodies were recovered, no autopsies performed. You know, no science was done. None whatsoever. Stop pretending otherwise.
runawayyyy on July 29, 2011 at 11:27 AM
I just think it’s interesting.
The paper itself was written by a noted skeptic.
The report on the paper was written by a columnist on the payroll of a foundation that gets its money from the energy companies.
What I would like to see in my NEWS (not the opinion section) is this.
I would prefer that the science be done by people without an agenda or pre-existing bias.
I would not only prefer, but demand the reporting done on the subject was not funded directly by the energy companies.
That’s all.
I have no problem with biased news – we live in an opinion driven society, and that’s healthy for democracy.
I have a problem with huge monetary conflicts of interest, which is what this is.
triple on July 29, 2011 at 12:49 PM
As opposed to papers that are written by noted alarmists?
So, in other words, you don’t want alarmists doing science?
Are you claiming that the paper is misrepresented? Are you claiming that reporters that are biased towards an alarmist view would do a better job writing about the paper? You’re just being silly.
You’re calling $600k a huge monetary conflict of interest compared to millions and millions of alarmist funding?
Are you even trying to avoid being a hypocrite?
blink on July 29, 2011 at 1:53 PM
Ad hominem attack alert. Isn’t everyone who uses electricitry from coal or gas ideologically tainted? So no-one is pure enough to criticize CAGW.
Precautionary principle alert: By that logic, you should all give me your money so that I can save you from invisible, vampiric uniforms. You know, just in case.
theCork on July 29, 2011 at 1:59 PM
uniforms => unicorns.
theCork on July 29, 2011 at 2:01 PM
I think there’s a pretty clear line between receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and using electricity.
But then again, I went to college and take my education for granted sometimes.
triple on July 29, 2011 at 2:33 PM
No, I think everyone has a right to their own opinion. I even think this guy has a right to write an article in Forbes.
I just thought the good people on Hot Air would like to know who is funding these opinions and these articles.
My own personal opinion is journalists should take steps to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest, and most do. It just surprised me that this guy.. doesn’t.
triple on July 29, 2011 at 2:39 PM
I think there’s a pretty clear line between receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and receiving tens of millions of dollars in cash.
But then again, I’m capable of reading the paper myself without relying on a reporter to read it for me. Maybe you should question the value of your education.
blink on July 29, 2011 at 2:41 PM
I still get the feeling that you don’t understand the difference between the Forbes story and the scientific paper that the Forbes story was about.
Why? Did the opinion misrepresent the scientific paper? Again, neither the paper nor the research was funded by any oil money.
Why? Anyone is free to check the accuracy of what he wrote. Even you.
blink on July 29, 2011 at 2:47 PM
So you would have no problem if it was discovered an NY Times or MSNBC reporter, reporting on say.. abortion – was actually a paid shill by Planned Parenthood.
Because that seems to be exactly the sort of thing Hot Air would get outraged about.
Just saying.
triple on July 29, 2011 at 5:42 PM
And you know what, he might be 100% right. I’m not saying he isn’t.
But paid-for ‘reporters’ that have a financial stake in the argument is a clear conflict of interest in every single journalistic code of ethics I’ve ever read.
Why is this important if his reporting is factual? Because it doesn’t take into account all arguments. Reporters should strive to report ALL aspects of the story, not just the one most favorable to their cause.
triple on July 29, 2011 at 5:46 PM
Like, lets say I write an article consisting of totally 100% factual statements.
Fact: Priests and Pastors have engaged in homosexual molestation with children.
Fact: The terrorist in norway was a self-described Christian.
Does that paint what you would call a fair portrait of that religion? Probably not.
Was it all true? All of it.
Now what did we learn.. maybe journalistic ethics isn’t so black and white, for one.
triple on July 29, 2011 at 6:14 PM
Do you honestly think that I would have a problem with this story if it had been reported by a NY Time reporter that was funded by Planned Parenthood?
Why? As long as the underlying paper wasn’t being misrepresented then why should Hot Air care?
What’s h-i-l-a-r-i-o-u-s is that you STILL don’t understand the difference between the Forbes story and the paper.
This is too funny. Please, please, please stop embarrassing yourself and realize that it’s not the Forbes reporter that’s making any scientific claims. The Forbes reporter is merely reporting on the scientific claims being made by a scientist that didn’t receive any oil money for the study or the paper.
triple, please tell me what college gave you a degree?
blink on July 29, 2011 at 6:21 PM
Update on the scientist that’s been placed on administrative leave. Here is a link to the transcript of an interview he had with agents from the Department of Interior, Office of Inspector General. Obama‘s Department of Interior.
Here’s what I understand from taking a quick look.
Dr. Charles Monnett was part of an ongoing study that had been charged with monitoring Bowhead Whales in the Arctic from aircraft. In 2004, they noticed 3 dead polar bears over the course of “more than one” flight. So, Dr. Monnett calculated that the flights during that period had covered 11% of their study area so, he assumed that there must have been 27 dead polar bears within the study area. Since the whale database had no method for entering dead polar bears (since dead polar bears were beyond the scope of their study), he called past team leaders on the phone and verbally asked them if they had ever seen dead polar bears. He claims that team leaders going back to 1987 all claimed to have never seen a dead polar bear. He also made the assumption that all of these polar bears had drowned due to a lack of ice.
So, in his paper he claimed that there had been no drowned polar bears from 1987 to 2003, and then there were suddenly 36 drowned polar bears in 2004 because of retreating amounts of ice. And, the best part is, the flights in 2004 were immediately after a significant storm that had ripped through the area covered by the flights.
That’s it. From that paper, based on that garbage methodology, the polar bear drowning crisis discussed in An Inconvenient Truth was born. I guess it’s silly to expect a crisis to be initiated by actual science.
I almost feel sorry for the Dr. Monnett while reading the transcript. It seems as if he was under pressure to publish interesting tidbits that the team was able to generate, and his paper had specifically noted that it wasn’t meant for the purposes of establishing policy or weighing in on controversy. Basically, Al Gore screwed this guy by elevating the importance of the paper. When you read this transcript, you’ll immediately see that this poor guy is in way over his head and doesn’t even realize that he’s done anything wrong.
First the Hockey Stick and now the Drowned Polar Bears. The days of sloppy science to support Global Warming are over now that scientists know that their work might actually get questioned.
blink on July 29, 2011 at 6:22 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2