I knew that Roy Spencer is an arrogant bullshitter, but not that he is stupid to boot

Discussion in 'Environment' started by polarbear, Nov 25, 2012.

  1. polarbear
    Offline

    polarbear I eat morons

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,463
    Thanks Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +260
    Get a load of this e-mail exchange and how he resorts to insults when he gets cornered by professional engineering science experts
    in energy transfer which know a perpetual motion machine when they see one
    Half way through he has to dump the "Yes Virginia cooler objects can make warmer objects even warmer"
    And later he has to dump Trenberth`s "energy balance".
    Then he resorts to the usual "climate science" childish debating cop-out, claiming he is thee autority, attacking his critics with insults
    and lastly that he has no time to waste for any such peer review.
    http://www.tech-know-group.com/archives/Back-radiation_Story_21Mar12.pdf
    From: Pierre Latour
    And there You have it...it`s what many others and I have been saying all along in this forum.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2012
  2. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,876
    Thanks Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,509
    Excellent post. I have read Spencer's "Yes Virginia" mental experiment and watched engineers tear his experiment into small pieces. I haven't seen the other crosstalk you posted. All warmists should read this although I doubt that it will make any difference. Those luke warmers among us (and you know who you are) should take a good look at this as well and stop arguing in favor of the magic only weaker magic than the warmists believe in.
     
  3. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,376
    Thanks Received:
    5,397
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,253
    S. Fred Singer - SourceWatch

    Tobacco Industry Contractor

    In 1993, Singer collaborated with Tom Hockaday of Apco Associates to draft an article on "junk science" intended for publication. Apco Associates was the PR firm hired to organize and direct The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition for Philip Morris. Hockaday reported on his work with Singer to Ellen Merlo, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris.[17]

    In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency funded by the Tobacco Institute over a risk assessment on environmental tobacco smoke. [18] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI.[19]

    "The report's principal reviewer, Dr. Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views.39" [20]

    In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top Five Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the "Top Five Myths" list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The "Top Five Environmental Myths" list packaged EPA's secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an "aggressive media interview schedule" organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA's conclusions.[21]
     
  4. polarbear
    Offline

    polarbear I eat morons

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,463
    Thanks Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +260
    I would have welcomed debating You on the subject which was discussed in the e-mail exchange between Spencer and the other engineers and am a little disappointed that You chose instead to single out Singer and what he had to say 17 years ago about a totally unrelated subject, namely second hand smoke & cancer.
    Even there I have to point out that the statistics supporting this hypothesis are just as weak to prove causality as CO2 and temp increase.
    The best the second hand smoke statistics can offer was:
    Tobacco smoking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    And now remember, it was in (only) 3.4 lung cancers that occurred while 999 996 people that were also exposed to second hand smoke had no cancer only 26 studies out of 33 were attributed to second hand smoke. And that`s where the spin doctors did their magic as usual:
    Tobacco Education Center

    Let us suppose there is a lady like this for real:
    [​IMG]


    And and she would have to make a decision based on the above claim..while all the while she can`t see the words "tobacco smoking" and "lung cancer". What are the minimum standards to pronounce a guilty verdict as far as reasonable doubt is concerned. Is it a 90% certainty or a 95 % certainty or even better that the causality can be stated and there is a 5 or even 10% uncertainty that someone who is not guilty is pronounced guilty...?
    The accuser could not even muster the 5 out of 100 that did get cancer this way...and can at best claim that they might get it later.
    And how the heck would 150% ...that`s 150 out of 100 people "probably" get it later.
    In addition to that the 26 out of 33 studies that claim so amount to only 100* 26 /33 = 78.8 % not 95 %...!!!
    Which leaves a probability of 21 % that there is no link or causality

    The absolute minimum standard even the most blatant claims dare to adopt for statistical significance is :
    Statistical significance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    10% (0.1), and in hard science we use 0.1% (0.001) meaning there is only a 1 in 1000 chance that there was no causality.

    One could make a much better case why peanuts & peanut butter should be outlawed, not just on school lunch sandwiches because when a kid has a peanut allergy attack there is no question at all about causality...it`s a 100% certainty..!!!

    Would You like to live in a rubber room world which has been designed by nanny state freaks?
    Seeing You like living in the Oregon Mountains I`m pretty sure You like Your freedom as much as I do.

    Had Singer 17 years ago not argued what You criticize him for today then I would not consider him a scientist either.
    But we weren`t talking about if Singer likes tobacco, were we.
    Why change the subject matter from substance to a credibility attack on dissenting engineers and hard science. Let`s stick with the fact that Roy Spencer is promoting a CO2 back-radiation perpetual motion machine and it`s coming to the attention of more and more engineers...and the best Roy Spencer can do is avoiding debate and is instead resorting to personal & credibility attacks,...naming himself the absolute "authority" in heat transfer.

    "H".a.k.a."OldRocks" .I have learned enough about You with our private e-mail exchange and know that You are intelligent.
    Please use Your intelligence to consider where America is going if the IPCC and the U.N. in general get their way...using "science arguments" the likes of Roy Spencer, supported by the likes of Al Gore...

    Communists had a name for people like that...they were called "useful idiots"...why would any American want to join these ranks...?

    I implore You
    and all others not to cave into this erosion of rights to make sovereign decisions on a national level and even on a personal level, as is already the case with E.U. member states....and anyone who is so unfortunate having to live in one of those.
    Once the U.N. has a precedent foothold into global taxation and policy making there will be no way to stop it,...just as no one can stop the non-elected bureaucrats in Brussels any more. The latest thing they decreed was that beer in England can`t be sold in pints any more...!!!....and the famous & tasty French cheese will also be a thing of the past...from now on only cheese that meets the Brussels "standard" can be made, sold and consumed..
    Nobody in Europe ever dreamed that Brussels would go that far after they had their Carbon Tax mandate.
    And Brussels is not anywhere near as unaccountable and corrupt as today`s U.N. officials are.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2012
  5. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,876
    Thanks Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,509
    Circumstantial ad hominem? That's your argument? If you are worried about money corrupting scientists, you would be very worried about the billions coming in from who knows where to fund climate scientists. So much more than skeptics will ever see and yet, you believe them in spite of the money.

    Integrity isn't really your thing, is it. I bet you are one of those "ends justify the means" types who would see any amount of suffering so long as you believed things were going your way.
     
  6. polarbear
    Offline

    polarbear I eat morons

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,463
    Thanks Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +260
    Concerning Roy Spencer`s "simple experiment" I have posted this over a year ago on my own website...:
    The Roy Spencer China Syndrom

    According to Spencer all engineers who have designed heat exchangers and heat sinks have been idiots because according to Roy Spencer.. instead of efficiently dumping heat the "back radiation" between the fins would make the temperature run amok:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    But Roy`s defenders keep coming back with ever more "simple experiments" like this one I just debunked a little while ago:
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kwtt51gvaJQ"]The Greenhouse Gas Demo - YouTube[/ame]

    Maybe we should re-visit that again:
    He places a heat lamp with which You could roast chickens 4 cm from a corked up bottle filled with CO2 @ a concentration of almost 100 % and it took him 55 minutes to get a 9 deg temperature increase .

    Compare that with even the most modest claims "climate scientists" make about CO2.. which is a "back radiation" of 4.3 watts per m^2 at 380 ppm
    Since CO2 can`t just radiate down it must do so also in the opposite direction...so it supposedly radiates 8.3 watts per m^2
    Beer Lambert`s law used with the molar extinction coefficient tells us that 100% extinction at the [FONT=Arial, Geneva]15 ┬Ám happens after a 10 meter absorption path length[/FONT].
    With 380 ppm "Molar" You only got 0.0074 kg to do all that in a 1 m^2 base and a 10 meter long (= 10 M^3) air column.
    The specific heat for CO2 is 0.846 kJoules per Kilogram degree
    To get an idea how exaggerated these back-radiation ===> elevated temperature claims really are do the math in Calories per second, since they want to talk about the temperature increase380 ppm are supposed to cause.
    If 380 ppm CO2 are "radiating" 8.3 Watts per m^2 then then it would have to cool down at a rate of 1.366 deg Celsius per second...but it does not if the energy it gets from the earth "black body radiation" heats it at the same rate of 1.366 deg C per second during the same 1 second time interval.
    The question is now, can it do that...with only 380 ppm CO2 ?
    according to the Youtube video guy that does that Gov. sponsored "experiment" video not even 100 % CO2 confined in a corked bottle and only 40 cm from a chicken roaster heat lamp could do that...
    It took him 55 minutes to heat it up by 9 degrees...= 0.0027 deg C per second.
    That`s 500 times too slow...with 100% CO2,..!!! But according to Roy Spencer if You use 2631 less CO2 than the guy in the video it can keep up.

    It follows then according to Roy Spencer that all these CO2 absorption measurements that have been made ever since Infrared Spectrophotometers existed are all wrong too:

    [​IMG]

    It`s like saying You could take shelter from the rain while standing under a hydro-wire..!!


    As You can see even the Youtube video guy can possibly manage to grab only a little over 0.2 % of the "heat energy" that a bottle filled with 100% CO2 can absorb from a chicken roaster heat lamp only 40 cm away.

    But just as soon as any engineer points out how full of bullshit Roy Spencer and "Trenberth`s Energy budget" is the subject is switched to how many "climate scientists" agree with Spencer and so on...and continues with personal attacks & insults.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2012
  7. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    13,634
    Thanks Received:
    2,440
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +6,591
    You aware Dr. Roy Spencer is one of the most famous AGW denialists, no? I'm a bit confused, as to why you think a denialist supposedly getting it wrong means the AGW scientists got it wrong.

    However, I'm not sure Spencer is wrong. It's hard to tell, given how what you've presented bears so many of the hallmarks of pseudoscience. That is, it's full of your personal attacks, it never states a point, it's full of extraneous gibberish, and it uses big red fonts. Instead of that nonsense, try acting like a scientist. State a point simply and directly, and back it up.

    And most importantly, lose the engineer's conceit. It makes you look absurd. Engineers usually suck rocks at science, and top it off with being too freakin' arrogant to understand how badly they suck at science. Being able to assemble a system has no bearing on whether someone understands the actual physics behind it. You and Pierre Latour demonstrate that with your really awful attempts at "analysis". There aren't enough facepalms to describe how bad it was.

    And one more thing: lose the right-wing-crank political gibberish conspiracy theories. Everyone just assumes you're a retarded political cultist when you act like that.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2012
  8. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,876
    Thanks Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,509
    Spencer is a luke warmer. He beleives in the magic. He just doesn't believe the magic is as strong as true believers like you think it is.
     
  9. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    13,634
    Thanks Received:
    2,440
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +6,591
    You pile praise on the red-fonted idiot rants, and then call me a true believer? I find that amusing, a brainwashed cultist like you projecting your own mindlessness on to rational people.

    You want respect? Learn science and logic. Stop regurgating debunked denialist mantras. Have the courage to defy your political cult. As Dr. Spencer politely told the crank, learn the basics of the science before you go off embarrassing yourself.
     
  10. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,876
    Thanks Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,509
    I can't help but notice that you never actually argue the topic. You call names and pretend to discuss the science, but you never quite get there. You don't even seem to know that spencer is a luke warmer who believes that CO2 can cause the planet to warm. If you don't have a handle on that very basic fact, then why are you even here?

    Sorry guy, its' you who is lacking in the science and logic department. As to dr spencer, you must have missed him getting himself a new a$$hole torn when he posted is idiot mind experiment claiming that a cool object could further warm a warmer object. He was forced to publicly retract that bit if idiocy. Some expert who is that far off target where basic physics are concerned.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

content

,

roy spencer attorney fairfax va