Bickmore: ‘Roy Spencer’s JunkScience’

RINO alarmist Barry Bickmore uses Roy Spencer to retaliate against JunkScience.com.

Bickmore blogs:

Roy Spencer recently posted an article on his blog called “Ten Years After the Warming,” in which he argues that there’s no excuse for a decade without much warming, because the radiative forcing is supposedly higher than it’s ever been. Steve Milloy has also reposted the article on his aptly titled blog, JunkScience.com. (In case you don’t remember, Steve Milloy is a Fox News commentator who goes about labeling as “junk science” any environmental issues that might precipitate some government regulation. Yes, that includes links between second-hand smoke and cancer.) Spencer’s main point is this:…

It’s also funny that Steve Milloy passed on Spencer’s assertions, but then just two days later he was promoting a paper in which Spencer argued that standard climate models are uncertain because “alternative hypotheses for the cause(s) of the warming, such as natural climate cycles or indirect forcing by the sun, have seen relatively little research.” (And of course, Roy cited his book, The Great Global Warming Blunder to support this point.) Milloy likes to label as “junk science” any science that leads to conclusions that might precipitate government regulations, but the fact is that he doesn’t have the expertise to understand the science he pans or the “alternative” science he promotes.

We post items on JunkScience because we view them as newsworthy; not because we necessarily endorse or oppose the views espoused.

We understand science very well; the point of which is to explain natural phenomena.

Alarmists have long posited that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are measurably altering global climate for the worse.

To our view of what science is, they have not shown that either is true.

Snort on, RINO!

Click for our post that got under Bickmore’s skin.

10 thoughts on “Bickmore: ‘Roy Spencer’s JunkScience’”

  1. Steve,

    Please use my proper title: “RINO Alarmist Scientist”. 😉

    Also, I see you cut out the part of my commentary in which I explained why Roy Spencer had blatantly contradicted himself in the two articles you promoted. However, you excuse yourself by saying that you post things “because we view them as newsworthy; not because we necessarily endorse or oppose the views espoused.” Does that mean you recognize that Roy has contradicted himself, now?

  2. @Barry Bick — I think you have joined the junk science party late. The first 8 years there were stories from all sides posted to the site. YOU, the reader had to determine which was junk and which was real. Steve would add commentary from time to time expressing his opinion. He posted his own articles (self promotion is acceptable). He also posted articles by all the idiots in the game.. Look he is even posting one by you.

    2nd hand smoke is a crock. 3rd hand smoke geometrically more of a crock. 4th hand smoke (which sadly does exist the hearts of fanatics) is even creeping into the mix. I am all for not smoking. Smoke stinks. I despise what passes as science in the epidemiological realm. Get back to us when you figure out that the case against 1st hand smoke has glaring holes. It is all those damn survivors… As John Brignell of numberwatch.co.uk has pointed out, “If you use the statistic 400,000 dead from smoking related diseases, you must also accept the statement 200,000 lives were saved by smoking!” As a scientist, you should be able to understand that statement without any difficulty. It contains within the fundamental flaw of epidemiological application and the reason that basically all such studies are wrong.

    Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption is a subject of different viewpoints. Perhaps some of us can’t evaluate all the data because don’t have access to it. We can evaluate the outputs of the models. “What is going to happen next year”. If you get it right, you gain credibility. Point me to a model which gets it right… I keep looking. I haven’t found any. I don’t trust non-linear coupled models that can’t predict next year. I trust scientists who forget the definition of 0 even less.

    Plot the CRU data using 0K as your starting point. ALL of the data. Put the GISS temp anomaly on top of it and look at it… here’s an unofficial chart of it.

    http://www.io-solutions.com/WorldTemps1700-2011wAnoAveCount.jpg

    That red line is the GISS Temp anomaly.
    Orange dots are the simple mean of the temps reported.
    Black dots on the bottom plot the number of observations for each month (notice the sharp drop off after 1970)
    Gray dots are the temps reported. The darker the dot the more stations reporting that period/temperature..

    The range of temps IS important. Looking at this chart I can say the following. Temperatures don’t seem to be changing all that much. What is changing significantly is the number of data points. The reason those anomalous temperatures bounce around so much is NOISE. Zoom in that much on a chart and non changes appear big.

    You cannot do energy calcs with radiation without the absolute temperature. Why in the blazes of reason do these people use Temp Anomaly… Simple answer is this — It is more entertaining. If they plotted the data honestly, no one would be having this discussion. Even Steve is challenged to not suppress the zero.

    Have a great day. I know that if I stop hearing opposing voices, I have lost my battle.

  3. Wonderful, Brad. If I want to convince myself that the 5-7 °C difference in global average temperature between the last ice age and now is no big deal, all I have to do is plot the temperature estimates on a graph that starts at 0 K! If I need some extra assurance, I can make the graph go all the way up to 1000 K or so. And if I want to dismiss all the epidemiological studies of smoking effects, all I have to do is forget that 400,000 – 200,000 still equals 200,000. Yep.

  4. The courts already have acknowledged that the ‘science’ used by the government regarding second hand smoking was flawed. To bring that up without proper foundation is nothing more than a red herring fallacy to denigrate Milloy without having to really substantiate those views. Clearly and unworthy comment and easily recognized for what it is for those who took the time to research those actions at the time. It also reduces your credibility as an honest commentator.

    As for all of this warming; since temperatures have been all over the place throughout the Earth’s history I would still like to know what the Earth’s temperature is supposed to me. No one seems to have an answer for that. I would also like to know if any of the disasters they are predicting for today occurred during the Roman and Medieval Warming periods, which were substantially warmer than today. I would also like for someone to explain to me how all of that warming occurred without a world filled with people and heavy industry, cars, etc., unless it is was a naturally occurring cycle. Furthermore, from all the history I have read of that period I have yet to see anything except positive results of those warming periods.

    So I have to ask. If none of the terrible consequences they are predicting for today occurred in the past; why should we expect them to occur now? If there is no real historical reason to believe these things will occur why should money be wasted on this, regulations promulgated to prevent it; unless it really is all about money and power and has nothing to do with the environment?

    I have been asked by those who have been contaminated with higher education; what is truth? I believe truth is established when history and science agree. Global warming alarmism fails both.

  5. Rich,

    I hadn’t heard about the court case you mentioned. Perhaps you could elaborate.

    Here are a few points with respect to the other issues you brought up.

    1. Climatologists have developed a basic model of climate physics that does a pretty good job of explaining how the Earth’s climate has changed over hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, millions, and hundreds of millions of years. The Sun and greenhouse gases seem to be the major players in the long term. The idea that humans are changing the climate by pumping massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is simply an extension of this. In other words, scientists think the climate will respond to greenhouse gases pretty much like it always has.

    2. The MWP was not warmer than now, according to the best data we have now, lies about Michael Mann notwithstanding.

    3. There is no “right” temperature for the Earth. Organisms and ecosystems can adapt to changes, but they are less able to if the changes are rapid. Did you know that the major mass extinctions of the past several hundred million years have been associated with large temperature changes? You ask, “If none of the terrible consequences they are predicting for today occurred in the past; why should we expect them to occur now?” But the fact is that these consequences DO appear to have occurred in the past.

  6. Let’s take the last first. The events you discuss regarding the mass extinctions in the past were not a result of climate change. That was the result of some catastrophic environmental collapse of speculative origins. The Medieval Warming Period and the Roman Warming Period were both warmer than today, irrespective of any so-called data to the contrary because we have historical records of that period showing the conditions of the day; furthermore, the warming created better conditions for both man and nature. There were no catastrophic natural disasters resulting from those cycles, and there will be none from this one.

    Climate modeling is much like any computer programming. Garbage in, garbage out! I don’t think any serious non-partisan can take the modeling by AGW promoters seriously. Even if one is to give them the benefit of the doubt, climate is far too complex, and we know that the modeling predictions published in the past have failed to materialize. Since we agree that there is no “right” temperature for the Earth we than must agree that there is no need to pursue the goals of the Kyoto Accords or any other scam promoted by the Warmers and their allies.

    Defense of Mann at this point is irrational. His opus magnum, the Hockey Stick Graph, is totally discredited by everyone not breathing the fumes from the green fever swamps.

    Second hand smoke decision was in 1998 by Judge William Osteen who declared the study was in effect a fraudulent effort to make predetermined conclusion appear factual.

  7. The second hand smoke reference in Rich Kozlovich’s comment above fascinated me. The decision of Judge Osteen would explain why the pounding against second hand smoke stopped. Child custody was affected by second hand smoke theory. The theory never made sense mainly due to the dilution effect.

  8. Rich,

    You say: “The Medieval Warming Period and the Roman Warming Period were both warmer than today, irrespective of any so-called data to the contrary because we have historical records of that period showing the conditions of the day.”

    Really? They have historical records from all over the world during that period? Europe isn’t the whole world.

    You say: “Since we agree that there is no “right” temperature for the Earth we than must agree that there is no need to pursue the goals of the Kyoto Accords or any other scam promoted by the Warmers and their allies.”

    But I said: “Organisms and ecosystems can adapt to changes, but they are less able to if the changes are rapid. Did you know that the major mass extinctions of the past several hundred million years have been associated with large temperature changes?”

    Are you really going to tell me that there’s no point in avoiding RAPID climate change, if we can?

    You say: “The events you discuss regarding the mass extinctions in the past were not a result of climate change. That was the result of some catastrophic environmental collapse of speculative origins.”

    All the major mass extinctions happened at the same time as major, rapid climate shifts. What’s more, the biologists will tell you that most organisms are adapted to a certain temperature range, so rapid climate changes would make them have to migrate, change diets, and so on, putting the population under stress. Therefore, this is a perfectly plausible explanation for why the mass extinctions happened. But in place of a perfectly plausible interpretation of the evidence, you want us to believe that we don’t have any idea why the mass extinctions occurred.

    This is just the problem with Steve MIlloy and his followers (and paymasters). Science never provides absolute proof, so all you have to do to avoid dealing with its conclusions is to constantly demand MORE evidence. Just decide that the evidence will never be enough to convince you, and you can always find an out.

  9. Barry,

    The Medieval and Roman Warming periods were a worldwide cycle, otherwise why would the AGW promoters wouldn’t have worked so hard to hide them. After it became obvious that these warming periods existed they then…like you… attempted to claim they were local weather events. That has been disproven. And don’t ask me to direct you to source information again because it is readily available to those who wish to find it.

    And what you really said was; “There is no “right” temperature for the Earth.” And then followed up with the non sequester regarding the adaptability of organisms, but the issue was there is no “right” temperature for the Earth and if that is the case then the Kyoto Accords are meaningless. Stay on point Barry.

    As for the mass extinctions involving temperature changes; once again….pay attention….”That was the result of some catastrophic environmental collapse of speculative origins” …with which mankind had nothing to do. Catastrophic ecological collapse implies all sorts of things including climate change, but those were…once again… “the result of some catastrophic environmental collapse of unknown origins” that occurred rapidly and clearly nothing could have stopped such an occurrence then nor could we do so now.

    As for your red herring about avoiding rapid climate change, I would like to know just how that can be avoided, since that very statement implies a massive worldwide system collapse. The key word is catastrophic. That isn’t what is going on. Finally…once again you fail to realize that ad hominem attacks diminish your arguments…and your character. As for needing more evidence of global warming…at this point I think it is important to show that there is warming actually going on. There isn’t! We will have warming; we will have cooling; we will have both repeat the process again and again. It is a cycle that does not require more evidence to understand. However…. I think that seeing more fraudulent evidence would be of no value, so spare me the admonition about what I need to be convinced. I am already convinced. AGW is a massive and horribly expensive scam.

Comments are closed.