New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

[MrFun]

Doc, next time you make a thread title with your armpits showing, use ****in' deodorant.

[dannubis]

Lovely collection of strawmen you have there. Leonardo Da Vinci and Plato didn't have air conditioning either. What they did have was the opportunity to live and use their minds without having to plow a field or drive cattle. The more people a society can afford to have in that position, the faster it will advance.

No one is talking about excessive luxury except you. Also, curbing CO2 in the amounts I hear being thrown about isn't "being careful with pollution", it's removing vital energy sources with no practical or politically possible alternatives ready. The only reason Asia can develop at the pace they are is because they aren't afraid to use coal, so where is your concern with pollution there?

Can you understand my Netherlands versus Bangledesh example yet, or do I have to use small words?

1. That is exactely what I said. Only you fail to see the point that what we have right now, none have had in the past and they obviously didn't need it. Maybe I should use big letters.

2. So say you. I say industry and households can do EASILY with 25-30% less energy just by increasing efficiencies and be mindful of losses. But what do I know right. It is just one of those things I do for a living.

3. I DO have significant problems with Asia developing as it is doing right now because we are stretching the limits of our resource system already (and only about 400 mn Chinese have been urbanized)

3. I already showed your example to be badly chosen in more ways than one.

Bottom line, you are a "sceptic" because it suits you right now. Pointing fingers to others saying "they do it to" is just another rationalization for the fact that you don't want to feel the consequences of being careful. Poor man on the other side of the world will feel it long before you. All the rest is hot air.

[Asher]

Annnnnnd, BOOM!

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/09/editor-of-journal-behind-controversial-climate-paper-resigns.ars

Editor who published controversial climate paper resigns, blasts media
By John Timmer | Published 18 minutes ago
Editor who published controversial climate paper resigns, blasts media

Last month, we described how a paper that compared climate models to satellite readings had been blown out of proportion by a hype machine that was soon claiming the paper would "blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism." However, even a cursory glance at the paper revealed that its claims were far more modest; other scientists who discussed the work indicated that problems with its analysis were already widely recognized. Now, the editor-in-chief of the journal that published the paper has considered these criticisms—and chosen to resign.

The paper in question, by noted contrarian Roy Spencer, uses an extremely simple model in an attempt to separate the factors that force the climate from those that act as feedback to changes in the climate. A number of climate scientists, however, wrote about how the model had been simplified to the point of being useless (one of the more detailed examples comes from BYU geochemist Barry Bickmore). These criticisms, however, haven't generally made it into the peer reviewed literature, the lone exception cited in the resignation being a paper that's not a direct critique of Spencer's work. Those same criticisms were reiterated once Spencer published his most recent paper.

Wolfgang Wagner, the editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, where Spencer's latest work was published, acknowledged these criticisms. "Comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extent also in the literature," he writes, "a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers." In other words, if the work has flaws that have been widely recognized by other scientists, those arguments should be considered even if they did not take place entirely within the scientific literature. Science blogs, and the scientists behind them, are now part of science's "open discussions" and deserve serious consideration.
Controversial, or wrong?

So how did these criticisms slip by the paper's initial reviewers? According to Wagner, the paper was reviewed by three investigators who are sympathetic to Spencer's views. This isn't unheard of, but it seems unlikely to be a matter of chance, given that those sympathetic to Spencer's views constitute a small minority of the climate sciences community. More probably, Spencer was informally given the chance to suggest people who would be qualified to review the material.

Wagner makes it clear that he's not saying that the paper should have been rejected simply because it supported a controversial position. "In science, diversity and controversy are essential to progress and therefore it is important that different opinions are heard and openly discussed," he wrote. "Therefore editors should take special care that minority views are not suppressed, meaning that it certainly would not be correct to reject all controversial papers already during the review process. If a paper presents interesting scientific arguments, even if controversial, it should be published and responded to in the open literature."

The issue here wasn't the controversy; it was that the paper was most probably wrong. "The problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view..." Wagner argues, "but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents." And, in Wagner's opinion, papers that contain methodological errors or erroneous conclusions are supposed to be caught by peer review and shouldn't be published. Since one was published on his watch, he's resigning.

But not before taking a parting shot at the media. Writing that he would "like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate skeptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements," he specifically cites the University of Alabama, Huntsville press release and Spencer's writings on his website as part of the exaggeration; the Forbes article that triggered our own coverage, along with a follow-up from Fox News, also get singled out. No one result created our current understanding of the climate system or provided evidence that it's being forced by greenhouse gasses; as a result, Wagner argues, no single result is likely to tear it down.
Publishing still matters

Wagner's resignation doesn't alter the status of Spencer's paper; it remains part of the scientific literature. This should induce his critics to get more thorough criticisms formally published; most editors and reviewers are still unlikely to take blog-based critiques seriously, no matter how detailed.

As for the larger debate about the implications for climate science, the take-home from our original coverage still stands: there are now two competing realities when it comes to climate change. The sorts of people who would read the coverage from Forbes or Fox News and nod along are, in many cases, convinced that scientists are part of a larger conspiracy. To them, the resignation will just be a sign that the conspiracy got to Wagner.