Study shows those who claimed climate debate over were wrong

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monte_RCMS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Legates is just one man, and a tainted one at that:

Legates is a senior scientist of the Marshall Institute,[13] a research fellow with the Independent Institute,[14] and an adjunct scholar of the Competitive Enterprise Institute,[15] all of which have received funding from ExxonMobil.[16][17]. - Wikipedia article on Legates.
By YOUR characterizing Dr. Legates this way, AND by saying he is “tainted”, you have disrespected him.

So, to balance your presentation of his credentials, here are some additional items of his background:

David Legates

Credentials

B.S. in Mathematics and Geography.
M.S. degree in Geography-Climatology
Ph.D. in Climatology, University of Delaware.
Source: [1]

Background

Legates is a Joint Associate Professor of Geography at the University of Delaware. [2] In 2005, Legates was designated as Delaware’s State Climatologist. [3]

Legates was later asked to step down as State Climatologist by the Dean of the University. Although no one at the university was willing to explain the reason for replacing Legates as the State Climatologist, Greenpeace speculates that the reason may have been Legates’s close ties with Willie Soon.

Legates and Soon have authored numerous papers together, including a controversial 2007 “polar bear study” that was partially funded by Koch Industries. Legates was the co-author on four of the 11 papers that Soon received fossil fuel funding for – and failed to disclose in the paper.

He is a regular contributor to publications of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), and is connected to numerous conservative think tanks that oppose climate change regulation or are skeptical of man-made global warming.

Stance on Climate Change

Legates is a signatory of the Oregon Petition, which states that “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth”

Legates has also said, “Overall, it appears that anthropogenic climate change estimates are still uncertain (given the discrepancies between most models) and scenarios derived from still incomplete GCMs should not be used to assess future climate change or make national assessments.” [4]

Key Quotes

Regarding the IPCC: “I am not a reviewer, because reviewing the IPCC allows them to put your name on the list, and then you become one of the ‘major scientists,’ twenty-five hundred or so, that are supposedly ‘all in agreement.’ I do know that there was a lot of concern, but not much of that made it into the final document.”

“The IPCC really is a sham because while it gives the impression of being a consensus of scientists, it is simply a political document prepared by advocacy scientists with a large ax to grind.” [5]

Key Deeds

June 11-12, 2015

David Legates was a speaker on Panel 1: “Climate Science,” at the Heartland Institute’s Tenth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC10) in Washington, D.C., with Willie Soon and Patrick Michaels. [22]

View David Legates’ Panel 1 presentation at the Heartland Institute’s ICCC10, below: [23]

May 12, 2015

David Legates is a signatory to an open letter to Pope Francis on climate change. The letter invites the Pope to reconsider his views on climate change before his upcoming encyclical letter on the environment, which is widely expected to call for measures to prevent climate change in the interests of the world’s poor.

The open letter was coordinated and signed by Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance. According to the letter, “Good climate policy must recognize human exceptionalism, the God-given call for human persons to ‘have dominion’ in the natural world (Genesis 1:28), and the need to protect the poor from harm, including actions that hinder their ascent out of poverty.” [17]

Another excerpt below:

”…] the [climate] models are wrong. They therefore provide no rational basis to forecast dangerous human-induced global warming, and therefore no rational basis for efforts to reduce warming by restricting the use of fossil fuels or any other means.”

Judith Curry comments on her blog Climate Etc. that “Arguably the most effective ‘pushback’ [to the encyclical letter] comes from Cal Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance, who coordinated An Open Letter to Pope Francis on Climate Change.” [18]

June, 2014

In June 2014, Legates testified at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about droughts and agriculture, stating: “My overall conclusion is that droughts in the United States are more frequent and more intense during colder periods. Thus, the historical record does not warrant a claim that global warming is likely to negatively impact agricultural activities.”

March, 2013

In March 2013, Legates appeared on the same stage as Willie Soon at a Georgetown, Delaware debate on global warming. Legates told the audience, “There is no clear signal of sea-level rise in Delaware.”
 
By YOUR characterizing Dr. Legates this way, AND by saying he is “tainted”, you have disrespected him.
Since you are so reluctant to disrespect anyone because of where their funding comes from, I’m sure you won’t disrespect the scientists with the IPCC because of their government funding. So tell me, why should I believe this one man, Legates, when so many of his peers with credentials equal to his in the IPCC and other organizations, including NASA claim the opposite of what Legates says?
 
All computer models are, effectively, opinion.

Jon
Correct.

A computer model is not a verifiable scientific experiment. It is subject to manipulation of parameters to make the model fit some set of criteria which may include a biased point of view. As with all compter programs the axiom GIGO applies.

Also, this is a really complex problem.

Computer models and programs fail. IPCC has been using computer models for enough years, that now have a long history of actual data … and the IPCC models are departing from the actual by substantial amounts.

IPCC and their models have zero credibility.
 
It’s proven that they revised the old data and the revisions support AGW models.
The motive is not proven though, which may be why they don’t want to release their emails 😊
This that you mention is not something that needs to be proven because it is normal to adjust data, just as NOAA states:

GHCN-Monthly Version 2 - Overview
The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-Monthly) data base contains historical temperature, precipitation, and pressure data for thousands of land stations worldwide. The period of record varies from station to station, with several thousand extending back to 1950 and several hundred being updated monthly via CLIMAT reports. …
ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/v2.php

Homogeneity Adjustment
Many surface weather stations undergo minor relocations through their history of observation. Stations may also be subject to changes in instrumentation as measurement technology evolves. Further, the land use/land cover in the vicinity of an observing site may also change with time. Such modifications to an observing site have the potential to alter a thermometer’s microclimate exposure characteristics and/or change the bias of measurements, the impact of which can be a systematic shift in the mean level of temperature readings that is unrelated to true climate variations. The process of removing such “non-climatic” artifacts in a climate time series is called homogenization.

In version 3 of the GHCN-Monthly temperature data, the apparent impacts of documented and undocumented inhomogeneities are detected and removed through automated pairwise comparisons of mean monthly temperature series as detailed in Menne and Williams [2009]. In this approach, comparisons are made between numerous combinations of temperature series in a region to identify cases in which there is an abrupt shift in one station series relative to many others. The algorithm starts by forming a large number of pairwise difference series between serial monthly temperature values from a region. Each difference series is then statistically evaluated for abrupt shifts, and the station series responsible for a particular break is identified in an automated and reproducible way. After all of the shifts that are detectable by the algorithm are attributed to the appropriate station within the network, an adjustment is made for each target shift. Adjustments are determined by estimating the magnitude of change in pairwise difference series form between the target series and highly correlated neighboring series that have no apparent shifts at the same time as the target.
ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/v3.php
 
Correct.

A computer model is not a verifiable scientific experiment. It is subject to manipulation of parameters to make the model fit some set of criteria which may include a biased point of view. As with all compter programs the axiom GIGO applies.

Also, this is a really complex problem.

Computer models and programs fail. IPCC has been using computer models for enough years, that now have a long history of actual data … and the IPCC models are departing from the actual by substantial amounts.

IPCC and their models have zero credibility.
Just saying that over and over does not make it true. But the IPCC models and projections have been substantially verified with actual data.
 
Just saying that over and over does not make it true. But the IPCC models and projections have been substantially verified with actual data.
Curve fitting past data does not verify the model, it must predict and be compared against new data. The models have not been validated.
 
Here is a science oriented discussion of this batch of research.
Geneva, 26 May 2016. In two papers1,2 published today in the journal Nature, new results from the CLOUD3 experiment at CERN imply the baseline pristine pre-industrial climate may have been cloudier than presently thought. CLOUD shows that organic vapours emitted by trees produce abundant aerosol particles in the atmosphere in the absence of sulphuric acid. Previously it was thought that sulphuric acid – which largely arises from fossil fuels – was essential to initiate aerosol particle formation. CLOUD finds that these so-called biogenic vapours are also key to the growth of the newly-formed particles up to sizes where they can seed clouds.
“These results are the most important so far by the CLOUD experiment at CERN,” said CLOUD spokesperson, Jasper Kirkby. “When the nucleation and growth of pure biogenic aerosol particles is included in climate models, it should sharpen our understanding of the impact of human activities on clouds and climate.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) considers that the increase in aerosols and clouds since pre-industrial times represents one of the largest sources of uncertainty in climate change4. CLOUD is designed to understand how new aerosol particles form and grow in the atmosphere, and their effect on clouds and climate.
CLOUD also finds that ions from galactic cosmic rays strongly enhance the production rate of pure biogenic particles – by a factor 10-100 compared with particles without ions. This suggests that cosmic rays may have played a more important role in aerosol and cloud formation in pre-industrial times than in today’s polluted atmosphere.
A paper published simultaneously in Science (Bianchi, F., et al. Science, doi 10.1126/ science.aad5456, 2016) describes an observation of pure organic nucleation at the Jungfraujoch observatory by the same mechanism reported by CLOUD. The measurements did not involve CLOUD directly but most of the authors are also members of the CLOUD collaboration.
“The observation of pure organic nucleation at the Jungfraujoch is very satisfying,” said Kirkby. “It confirms that the same process discovered by CLOUD in the laboratory also takes place in the atmosphere.”
 
Still no acknowledgement that North America was covered a mile deep with glaciers that naturally melted.
The period of time over which the last ice age retreated much longer than the period of time over which we see global warming today. The retreat of the glaciers I cited was over just a few years. The ending of the last ice age took much longer. So this may have been where we were headed anyway, but we are speeding things up considerably.
 
My chart shows they predicted overwarming, your link wasn’t even about ambient temp.
Your chart does show the IPCC projections to be higher than the actual temperatures, but what is your criteria for the models being validated? If it is exact conformance with measured temperature, that is an unrealistic criteria that could never be satisfied by any model. So tell me why your chart shows a failure of the model?

As for my link, it was not about ambient temperatures. It was about sea level. That is another climate change parameter that was modeled by the IPCC. And in that case the actual sea level rise was greater than the IPCC projections, but still within the band projected.

I’m sure if you look hard enough you will find some prediction that failed completely. That is also not surprising, since so many predictions were made from several different models at various stages of development.

Also I would like to take issue with your statement that the only way to validate models is to make predictions of things that have not come to pass. This is not true either. If models are constructed based on some theoretical hypotheses, it is valid to check those models against historical data. Perhaps you are thinking that models are simply wild guesses that either work out or not, and that models are constructed in an unthinking manner from historical data. This is not true. If the model is constructed without reference to historical data, that historical data can be used to verify the model. It is often a more efficient way to check a model than by limiting the check to future predictions and then waiting to see if those predictions come true. For example, one could hypothesize that ambient temperature has a certain correlation with CO2 levels. If a model is constructed based on this hypothesis, that model can be checked by reference to ancient data, provided that data is available.
 
The period of time over which the last ice age retreated much longer than the period of time over which we see global warming today. The retreat of the glaciers I cited was over just a few years. The ending of the last ice age took much longer. So this may have been where we were headed anyway, but we are speeding things up considerably.
A supposition based on wishful thinking.

For 20 years, there has been NO increase in temperature. Trivial increase, actually.

Global warming is SUPPOSED to be about one degree per century.

NOT HAPPENING.

The computer models show high rates of temperature increases.

We have been collecting data for so long now, that it has become obvious that the IPCC models are failing and have failed.

Click on this link and scroll down a little bit to the graph.

As of last year, the predictions by the IPCC graphs/models show steep increaes in temps.

The actuals show no increase. Take a look at the “blue line”; those are the actuals.

drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

When the models are demonstrated to fail, then the advocates for IPCC are requried to apologize.
 
A supposition based on wishful thinking.
Based on observed fact.
For 20 years, there has been NO increase in temperature.
Even the article you quoted by Roy Spencer shows you are wrong.
Click on this link and scroll down a little bit to the graph.
As of last year, the predictions by the IPCC graphs/models show steep increaes in temps.
The actuals show no increase. Take a look at the “blue line”; those are the actuals.
The models go up. The blue line goes up. What is the problem?
 
“Look! They are somewhat different!”

Also not a very mathematical statement.
The models show temperature changes far more rapid than actual. AND, when the actual temperatures go down, the models show the temps as going up.

And with each passing year, the disparity between the models and actual become worse and worse.

Just look at the graph.

And read the discussion points.

AND, the graph shows 95 different models and they all fail.

Strongly suggest getting “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming …the NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus” by Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, S. Fred Singer.

call 312-377-4000 [Gwendalyn Carver] for a free copy.

It’s an excellent report with a large bibliography of references for further research.
 
Since you are so reluctant to disrespect anyone because of where their funding comes from, I’m sure you won’t disrespect the scientists with the IPCC because of their government funding. So tell me, why should I believe this one man, Legates, when so many of his peers with credentials equal to his in the IPCC and other organizations, including NASA claim the opposite of what Legates says?
What happens is that once the scientists retire and no longer are dependent on the government for their funding and salaries, they recant.

What you can do is to visit Google and type in " retired scientists against IPCC ".

Interesting disparity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top