Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Debating-Rod Martin's globalwarmth_org's worship

I received the following challenge this morning that deserves a thorough response. 

Rod Martin, Jr.1:25 AM - January 6, 2016 via YouTube - 
proprietor of "" (#4)

CO2 has been far higher in Earth's past with life thriving! (#1) Warming doesn't cause extreme weather; cold does. More accurately, storms are driven by thermal differences. Warming the Earth brings poles closer to equatorial temperatures, thus eliminating most storms (#2).  More warmth creates more evaporation which yields more rain and fewer, smaller deserts (#3).

Here is a perfect example of what I describe as The Self-Certain believing their own mind's eye view of their world as reality, while relegating the real world to an imaginary construct.  

(#2) Rod's conviction that "warming the Earth brings poles closer to equatorial temperatures" and that thus we should welcome warming, demands that Earth is a cartoon construct, made of some solid heat conducting material and little more.  Storms on this planet are driven by regional scale temperature and barometric differences.  Our real geophysical Earth is huge, with a liquid ocean covering two-thirds of it's surface, land covering a third and a pulsating cryosphere covering large portions of both, all of which resides under an ocean of fluid gases in motion.  

Our planet has Jet Streams that push and pull storm systems across our globe.  What this "closer to equilibrium" temps means on our real planet Earth is that Jet Streams are slowing down a bit and meandering more, this in turn leads to all sorts of extreme weather events - as witnessed by the increasing tempo of infrastructure destroying, life disrupting events happening throughout the world these days.  How Rod manages to ignore all that is beyond me.  

(For a more authoritative description of what's going on I've embedded a short interview with Jennifer Francis PhD who's been studying this particular phenomena for a long time.)

On top of that, we shouldn't forget that the melting Arctic ice cap means more ocean is exposed to the sun's insolation, causing massive amounts of heat to be diffused into the ocean and water vapor to be injected into the atmosphere.  Where such a thing hasn't happened in eon's.  What it means, remains subject to debate, but you can be sure it's going to include torrential down-pours and further disruption of those cycles and weather patterns humanity was nurtured on and depends on for everything.  The casual disregard for the complexity and vulnerability of our society's infrastructure astounds me.

(#1) Rod's first pot shot regarding much higher CO2 levels back in the dim past, reveals an equally one-dimensional attitude towards our biosphere's evolution.  Trying to apply conditions on the Earth of hundreds of thousands and billions of years ago, to today's situation is disingenuous claptrap.  Today's world would not have happened without those profound transitions, but they belong to the distant past, we are concerned with understanding our current situation.  

Why do the Self-Certain Rods ignore the past ten thousand years of a virtual goldilocks temperature range, it's what made humanity's social development and complex civilizations possible in the first place!  Why no interest in preserving that?

(For those interested in a serious review of the known science regarding Carbon Dioxide in our planet's deep past and how that impacts today, I've embedded Richard Alley's excellent "Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" AGU talk.)

(#3) Rod also glibly dismisses the implication of increasing atmospheric water holding capacity.  To his imagination: "More rain = less desert" - it's as far as his little cartoon can carry him.  Little does he seem to suspect that torrential rains on parched farmland are more destructive than long droughts alone.  Sadly for our children's world, the Self-Certain Rods choose to remain blind to all those interconnected complexities we depend on.

(#4) As for "" worship, it's a very slick, well produced website where you can see the entire range of the climate science contrarian gish-gallop.  It's internal inconsistency don't bother Rod.  But if you are curious, you'll find all his claims have already been disassembled and their errors discussed in detail for those who are willing to learn from mistakes.  
Take a look: 
Climate Myths sorted by taxonomy
courtesy of

Rod seems to put much reliance on Roy Spencer though his mistakes and knowingly misleading utterances over the years are as egregious as they get.  I think of the Self-Certain Rods who relentlessly hound Dr. Mann for minor (and acknowledged) imperfections in his team's pioneering work, if these zealots were to apply those standards of expectation to Dr. Roy Spencer the man would be rotting in jail.  But nah, he passes their political litmus text, so he's an accepted authority on everything and no misrepresentation is too egregious.  

Many have looked into the work and products of this Roy Spencer, below you will find a sampling of what they have found. 
Another global warming contrarian paper found to be unrealistic and inaccurate 
Abraham et al. show that a paper by ‘sceptics’ Spencer & Braswell is rife with unrealistic assumptions in an overly simple model

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: 
Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History"

From the 2009 AGO Fall meeting. | American Geophysical Union
The Fall Meeting provides an opportunity for researchers, teachers, students, and consultants to review the latest issues affecting the Earth, the planets, and their environments in space. This meeting will cover topics in all areas of geophysical sciences.

Dr Jennifer Francis - 
Explaining the connection between
Arctic Sea Ice, Jet Stream & Climate Change 

Nick Breeze | Published on Nov 15, 2014 | 11:11 minutes


Here's a little Roy Spencer sampler:

Roy Spencer's Peptic Ulcers
Roy Spencer has a post up where he writes:
"I prefer to compare us [John Christy and he] to Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, who rejected the scientific consensus that peptic ulcers were due to too much stress or spicy food."

I hear this from contrarians a lot. It refers to the finding by Marshall and Warren that peptic ulcers weren't caused by stress or food, as was once thought, but by the bacterium Helicobacter pylori. It's also a favorite talking point of Oregon's resident climate denier, Gordon Fulks (here, here, here). 
It seems that Spencer and Fulks think the peptic ulcer example shows that any and all consensus is science is wrong -- or, at least, the couple of consensuses they disagree with. (Perhaps it also means they think they deserve a Nobel Prize, as was shared by Marshall and Warren in 2005.) 
If Roy Spencer or Gordon Fulks wants to disprove AGW, or show it's not a serious concern, they have to show why it's not a serious concern. With evidence and with science. That's all. But they can't simply refer to some historical scientific idea that was disproven as if it gives their claims about AGW any weight. It doesn't. 
There is no disproof by proxy. If contrarians want to prevail in the debate, they need to produce evidence and science that is convincing. Not just convincing to them -- because it's too easy to fool oneself -- or to just their buddies who all live in the same bubble -- but convincing to the scientific community. That has worked in science since it began -- indeed, it's how the peptic ulcer claims themselves were corrected -- by hard work, better evidence, and superior science link to the full story

Roy Spencer's paper on climate sensitivity reviews skeptic arguments 
matching the search Roy Spencer:

Posted by William M. Connolley on August 27, 2014

Posted by William M. Connolley on June 6, 2013

Posted by William M. Connolley on March 5, 2011

Posted by William M. Connolley on July 27, 2011

Posted by William M. Connolley on January 26, 2008
May 5, 2015 ... Anthony Watts has put Roy Spencer and John Christy on notice (archived here). He has found an article about how some computer ...
Jul 15, 2014 ... Roy Spencer's answer to that question and the final statement of his talk, “The driving force behind the global warming debate isn't science”.
Apr 9, 2015 ... I just saw this at WUWT, in an article by Roy Spencer (archived here): ... You'll probably recall some of the shenanigans that Roy and John get ...
Feb 11, 2014 ... In case you find it hard to credit that even a contrarian scientist would stoop so low, here is Roy Spencer's chart, with my annotations: ...
May 21, 2014 ... As climate watchers know, Roy Spencer reports UAH monthly and annual observations using the 1981-2010 baseline, so his use of the ...
May 31, 2014 ... Roy Spencer has joined the Heartland mob rejecting scientific evidence. He's written an article with Joe Bast of all people (archived here).
Feb 21, 2014 ... Roy Spencer has spat the dummy, blown his top, ranted and raved and fulfilled Godwin's Law (archived here - h/t Dumb Scientist).
May 2, 2014 ... Roy Spencer is often wrong, at times deceitful and sometimes right. This time he is more right than wrong. He occasionally comes out with ...
Oct 15, 2013 ... Today Roy Spencer put up a chart from John Christy on his blog (archived ... Sure enough, Roy's Y axis had the label: "Departure from 1979-83 ...

Jul 20, 2013 ... A bit later, Senator Whitehouse asks Roy Spencer if the theory of creation has a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution (3h ...

No comments: