Roy Spencer's TPPI Mishmash of Myths, Nonsense and Fraud

Here's another Repost from SkepticalScience.com and Dana Nuccitelli, it was originally written for The Guardian and concerns the latest Dr. Roy Spencer broadside against serious climate science and the learning process.  

With much appreciation I'm taking advantage of SkS CreativeCommon's license and am reposting Dana's article because I believe Roy Spencer's crimes against science and our children's future demands to be exposed for what they are, fraud.  And that this information needs to be circulated and become common knowledge, please pass it on. 
(Monday morning - I've updated this post by adding on a list of links (and quotes) to further detailed examination of Spencer's dubious science and his even more dubious writings on the topic.)

These are the best arguments from the 3% of climate scientist 'skeptics.' Really.

Posted on 25 July 2016 by Dana Nuccitelli | SkepticalScience.com | The Guardian

When I give a presentation and mention the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming, I’m often asked, “what’s the deal with the other 3%?”. These are the publishing climate scientists who argue that something other than humans is responsible for the majority of global warming, although their explanations are often contradictory and don’t withstand scientific scrutiny.

A few months ago, the world’s largest private sector coal company went to court, made its best scientific case against the 97% expert consensus, and lost. One of coal’s expert witnesses was University of Alabama at Huntsville climate scientist Roy Spencer - a controversial figure who once compared those with whom he disagreed to Nazis, and has expressed his love for Fox News.

Last week, Spencer wrote a white paper for the Texas Public Policy Institute (TPPI) outlining the contrarian case against climate concerns. TPPI is part of the web of denial, having received substantial funding from both the tobacco and fossil fuel industries, including $65,000 from ExxonMobil and at least $911,499 from Koch-related foundations since 1998, and over $3 million from “dark money” anonymizers Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund.

Spencer’s arguments should of course be evaluated on their own merits, regardless of who commissioned them. However, it turns out that they have little merit on which to stand. The white paper is a classic example of a Gish Gallop – producing such a large volume of nonsense arguments that refuting all of them is too time-consuming. 

A mishmash of myths

Most of Spencer’s white paper consists of repeating a variety of long-debunked myths. It’s laid out in the form of 13 basic climate questions that Spencer tries to answer. Fortunately, SkepticalScience.com has a database of over 200 climate myths, and summaries of what the peer-reviewed scientific research says about each. This makes it possible to handle Spencer’s 13-point Gish Gallop by simply referring to the relevant myth rebuttals. So here we go:

Judge rules: Drs. Spencer, Lindzen, Happer are not credible expert witnesses!

So reports John Abraham (Professor of thermal and fluid sciences at the University of St. Thomas, Minn) in a recent UK Guardian story about this important milestone.  It's no great shock to anyone who's spent any time examining the claims of these Godfather's of 'science by echo-chamber, slander and misrepresentation'. 

To me it represents a small victory in the struggle to expose the fundamentally dishonest nature of these central luminaries of the Republican/libertarian PR machine.  The one dedicated to confusing the public and leaders about serious climate science among other important issues.

Lately, real life has kept me too busy for serious blogging, but this news is worth sharing.  Particularly after the past week and my depression caused by realizing that Mr. Trump actually will become the GOP standard bearer.  It was a nice reminder that some rationality still exists out there.  

Though that rationality seems tougher and tougher to find, watching supposedly "principled" Republican Party leaders eat all their grand principled words as they scurry to fall in line under Herrn Trump.  Principled Right-wing, indeed.  You aren't kidding us.

Following are quotes from Dr. Abraham's story, that I hope encourage you to link to the full story.  There you'll find all sorts of further links to various related stories and information.

Following that I tag on a report from Greenpeace: Exposed: Academics-for-hire agree not to disclose fossil fuel funding (It's no wonder the Republican crowd hate Greenpeace, but someone has to get the facts and evidence out there.).  Take a look at what drives this Dr. Happer.  

I wonder how my Republican pals would compare Happer's misdeeds with Dr. Mann's?  Then explain to me why Happer isn't being dragged out to be tarred and feathered, like they used to do in them good ol' days.

Update: also see John Mashey's detailed documentation: 

"Peabody's Outlier Gang Couldn't Shoot Straight In Minnesota Carbon Case, Judge Rebuffs Happer, Lindzen, Spencer, Mendelsohn, Bezdek"  

http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/06/07/peabodys-outlier-gang-couldnt-shoot-straight

Peabody coal's contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case

Peabody Energy brought contrarians Spencer, Happer, and Lindzen to testify on their behalf, but the judge wasn’t convinced by their case

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/02/peabody-coals-contrarian-scientist-witnesses-lose-their-court-case

John Abraham | May 2, 2016

In Minnesota, an administrative hearing resulted in a judicial recommendation that will have impacts across the country. It was a case argued mainly between environmental groups (such as Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, and their clients Fresh Energy and the Sierra Club) and energy producers (such as the now-bankrupt coal company Peabody Energy) regarding what a reasonable social cost of carbon should be.

I was called as an expert witness in the case along with respected climate scientist Dr. Andrew Dessler. We were opposed by the well-known contrarians Drs. Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, and William Happer (who has recently received attention related to his charged fees in the case). (bold added) In full disclosure, Dr. Dessler and I were not paid for our work in the case. I recently wrote about the testimony and provided links to the testimonies submitted for the case. The judge’s recommendations and how they will impact energy decisions in the USA were the keys to this trial.

... A summary of the ruling can be found here and the full report is available here.

Explaining Why AGW Is No Religion

My pal left with one final pot-shot to the effect: "Yes it is a religion. so there!"

Imagine my surprise this morning when I saw that Dr. Joseph Romm has recently written a book, that from the reviews, does an admirable job of explaining the scientific basis for our Anthropogenic Global Warming understanding in a clear question and answer format.

So for those who think AGW is a religion, you now have yet another opportunity to learn about the details of why AGW is a physical fact supported by much (… mega) research and observational evidence.

But then you'd first need to extract yourselves from your own faith-based bubble of perception and be open to taking advantage of objective learning opportunities.  Can you do it?

___________________________________________________________________

Book review: Climate Change, What Everyone Needs to Know

Posted on 17 November 2015 by John Abraham

http://www.skepticalscience.com/romm-book-review.html

A new book makes the case that those who understand the basics of climate change and clean energy will be the “smart money” in the coming years. Those who don’t, however, will make bad decisions for themselves and their family. They might, for instance, end up holding coastal property after prices have begun to crash due to due the growing twin threats of sea level rise and storm surge.

In short, climate change isn’t just something every educated person ought to know about because it will impact future generations or because everyone will be talking about it during the upcoming Paris climate talks. It is something everyone needs to know about now because “Climate change will have a bigger impact on your family and friends and all of humanity than the Internet has had.”

Lord Christopher Monckton 2013 - The Republican poster boy

Lord Christopher Monckton is one of the proofs that the climate science "skeptical" community is dependent on a repetition of artfully crafted misrepresentations, misdirection and an acceptance of blatant lying.  

The infamous threatener of lawsuits, Lord Monckton's popularity continues despite the fact that he's been proven a liar on dozens of counts a hundred times over.  {There are three in particular that stand above the rest - John Abraham, Barry Bickmore and Collin Maessen.} 

David Rose's latest myths courtesy of UK's "Mail"

I made a mistake in labeling Rupert Murdoch as owner of the Daily Mail and Sunday Mail.  It is the Rothermere clan that owns the Mail.  Although, their pedigree is as frightening as it gets - and it's no wonder they feel so comfortable misrepresenting serious science:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

It appears David Rose is at it again.  Here Peter Hadfield summarizes  the latest in a four minute video.  Following that I link to a few articles that detail the reporter's many recent deceptions.  It goes back to something I was complaining about in my previous post - the more overwhelmingly clear the science and Earth observations get, the more extreme and outlandish denialists claims are becoming.

David Rose's latest myth from the Mail on Sunday: Arctic ice has returned

Published by potholer54 on Sep 13, 2013 

The Lord Christopher Monckton Files - an index

I was looking at the actor Topher's "50 to 1 Project's" "supporting data" - it is a single sheet titled  "Is CO2 mitigation cost-effective?" and it was composed by none other than the infamous Lord Christopher Monckton.  

Some fancy terms, lot of numbers tossed out so that the uneducated is expected to be impressed and accept it's veracity, simply because it looks so impressive.  {like that "Oregon Petition" thing}

Thing is, it looks like something a con-man would offer up to convince the gullible to part with their money: "I figured it all out, look at my numbers, we can't go wrong, trust me, now give your cash already!"

As it happens, exactly three years ago I was giving Christopher Monckton's claims a lot of attention.  In fact, we even had a short lived email correspondence going, which lead to a whole series of further emails that I posted at my citizenschallenge.blogspot.

Considering Christopher Monckton seems to be Topher's Braintrust for his 50 to 1 project  - these links to reviews of this scoundrel and serial liar is in order.  Admittedly, I'm no professional writer and these posts were written three years ago, so expect some untidiness, still the information within is sound and supported by links to authoritative sources.  I've also added a few videos.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

The Lord Christopher Monckton Files - an index

Who Is Lord Christopher Monckton?

http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2010/08/who-is-lord-christopher-monckton.html

Fox News: A driving force behind global warming denial

I know I single out Watt's and McIntyre's deceptions quite a bit, but let's not forget these people would be nothing without the PR megaphone afforded them by certain deep-pockets and some leading Republican oil-interest warriors, Senator Inhofe and Rep. Barton jump to mind.  The third leg of this massive con-job is the media, among the biggest players there is the Murdoch owned Fox Network and Wall Street Journal Op-Ed pages.  

Because of this - I found a recent SkepticalScience.com post worth adding to the collection over here at WUWTW.

At the end of the SkepticalScience.com post there's a link to the Guardian article it's based on.  Here's a hopeful piece of information from that longer article:

A growing number of American conservatives are demanding that the Republican Party stop denying the problem and begin participating in crafting the solution. For example, the list of conservatives supporting a revenue-neutral carbon tax continues to grow: 

51 percent of registered RepublicansArt Laffer, economic advisor to Ronald Reagan
Greg Mankiw, economic advisor to George W. Bush and Mitt Romney
George Shultz, Reagan's Secretary of State
Gary Becker, Nobel Laureate in economics
Bob Inglis, former Republican Congressman from South Carolina
A staffer for a House RepublicanWilliam Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator under Nixon and Reagan
Lee Thomas, EPA Administrator under Reagan
William Reilly, EPA Administrator under George H.W. Bush
Christine Todd Whitman, EPA Administrator under George W. Bush

Let's hope that list grows in a hurry.

{Thank you SkepticalScience.com for your generous Reposting policy!}

Fox News found to be a major driving force behind global warming denial (via Skeptical Science)

Posted on 8 August 2013 by dana1981 A new study published in the journal Public Understanding of Science (PDF available here) surveyed a nationally representative sample of over 1,000 Americans in 2008 and 2011 about their media consumption and beliefs…

---

A Comment at Watt's Up With That

 I've just posted the following at Watt's Up With That - 
it remains to be seen if their moderator decides to trash it... 
thus for good measure I figured I should 
document the post over here:

It concerns the discussion over there that seems to have 
gotten side tracked on Monckton's peerage rather on 
Monckton's serial misrepresentations of science and quotes.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Well it's official this comment did not get through 
the censors at WUWT, 
although their comments are finally moving away from peerage nonsense.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

What's with this diversion about the Lord this or Lord that?
...
Monckton misrepresents both his standing as a member of the House of Lords as "FaceFirst" pointed out [January 16, 2012 at 5:16 am], if you don't believe him try to find Monckton's name on the official list of members [http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/]
And then there's this official reprimand demanding Monckton stop making these false claims: http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
~ ~ ~ 
quoting from that letter:
"Letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from David Beamish, the Clerk of the Parliaments.


Dear Lord Monckton
My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. 
It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims. . ."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
He has also misrepresented is roll as Prime Minister Thatcher's advisor.  
From SPPI's personnel page: "SPPI's Chief Policy Adviser: Lord Monckton, UK: -- Christopher, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, was Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986. . ."
and then the lavish claims made here at WUWT see:
“Margaret Thatcher: the world’s first climate realist”
Posted on June 16, 2010 by Anthony Watts

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/16/margaret-thatcher-the-world%E2%80%99s-first-climate-realist/

...
Yet the man isn’t mentioned once in Margaret Thatcher’s 914 page autobiography.  In fact, she credits one George Guise as being her science policy advisor.
~ ~ ~ 
Why don’t such “inconsistencies” send up red flags to thinking skeptics?

And isn’t all this attempting to build up the Lord’s supposed “authority” in the eyes of his audience nothing more than an appeal to authority?  I thought you folks attack ‘appeals to authority’ why is it OK for the Lord to play that card so eloquently?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

But the real concern should be over his constant misreporting scientific work as
John Abraham [http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/] and
Peter Hadfield [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM] have documented?