How To Censor a Climate Sceptic
Posted by jennifer, November 4th, 2008 - under News.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change, People
Dr Roy Spencer is a well known climate sceptic who has published extensively in mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals and earlier this year had a popular book published entitled ‘Climate Confusion’.
Yesterday, November 3, 2008, two technical papers that Dr Spencer had recently submitted to the journal Geophysical Research Letters were outright rejected in back-to-back emails and on the same day all 78 reviews of his book on Amazon.com were removed from that website.
I just laughed and laughed. Look at all the deniers paid to write positive reviews on Amazon. What a con.
This stuff is priceless – check out our wacky string Physicist denier lauding Spencer on Amazon. Sickening.
“achievements that have been rewarded by various awards and that may be giving us the most accurate data about the global mean temperature that is available” – woo hoo – that was found to be utter crap and until corrected for drift was showing the wrong trends. A data set that doesn’t include the Arctic…
“He is clearly no biased partisan.” – hahahaha –
barf !!
Look. The alarmists are mindless sheeple and lunatics. So while it could well be a conspiracy it doesn’t have to be and it doesn’t matter. Go through your books on logic and try and find the argument where it is held that sarcastically saying that “its a conspiracy” is some sort of trumping argument.
YOU WON’T FIND IT.
Conspiracies happen all the time. Its just standard leftist tactical moves. Conspirational behaviour was extremely big when communism was a live international force. Communist party members were there to carry out Soviet policy and they were subject to manipulation and always were involving themselves in conspiracies. Well we know this. And we have jihadist conspiracies going on daily. Every terrorist attack that ever happens is on account of a conspiracy. There is no getting away from that.
But alarmists are so sheeplike, mindless and loathsome, that they don’t need to be working in collusion to pull off such an apparent conspiracy. It could have been co-ordinated and it ought to surprise no-one if it was. And on the other hand it didn’t need to be co-ordinated since this sort of environmentalism is an evil movement at its core, and the proponents act in a tribal, if not an insectlike fashion.
ARE THEY EVIL OR ARE THEY STUPID?
When we see this behaviour and we are witness to alarmist idiots or leftists in other areas of life, normal human beings often start debating amongst themselves whether their opponents are evil or are they merely stupid. Whether they are engaged in a conspiracy, or are they just herdlike and mindless insect-drones.
These are healthy arguments.
Bitter disputes can break out over these arguments. But still I would recommend that conservatives spend as much of their extra-time arguing (as to whether its a conspiracy, or whether its group-idiocy) as they can afford.
But on another level it doesn’t matter.
Whether its an organic movement of stupid people, or whether its a conspiracy, in the end………. IT DOESN’T MATTER.
What matters is that we defeat this movement, and that we get on with the business of nuclear energy, and coal liquification using nuclear energy.
eli; really; you are referring to the Chilingar paper, which you have been banging away at for some time; Chilingar et al don’t say radiative forcing is non-existent but limited and contained; the Chilingar paper is about heat transfer mechanisms, particularly convection; Chilingar acknowledge a greenhouse effect (p1-2) but that effect is boundary limited and dominated by convetion and water vapor heat transfer processes;
“In the Earth’s troposphere, the convective component of heat transfer dominates.When the infrared radiation is absorbed by the greenhouse gases, the energy of radiation is transformed into oscillations of gas molecules (ie, heating of exposed volume of gas mixture). As a result, the heated gas expands, becomes lighter and rises rapidly to the upper layers of troposphere, where heat is emitted into space by radiation. As the gas cools down, it descends to the Earth’s surface, where the previous (or even lower) surface temperatures are restored. Analogous situation is observed with heating of air due to the condensation of water vapor.” (p2)
It is obvious that Chilingar doesn’t dismiss radiative forcing. Miskolczi’s theory also notes the heat transfer in the atmosphere is by convection, evaporation, cloud formation etc so that what is important for climate and warming and restorative cooling is not radiation trapping but convective ‘hindering’. Both Chilingar and Miskolczi note the CEL, consistent with Douglass and Christy’s paper (Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth) where convectively uplifted air can more easily have its heat emitted to space; what C and M don’t posit is the infinite boundaries between the surface and the CEL that the Weart semi-infinite model does; and the empirical evidence seems to agree with C and M; we’ll just have to see what Dessler comes up with to counter this.
Chillingar and friends say radiative heat transfer in the atmosphere is negligible. They are also clueless about the lapse rate. A line by line calculation such as Miskolczi does, does not include convection.
Amazon.com often has multiple pages for different editions of the same book. Thus, here is a page for “Climate Confusion” which currently lists no reviews.
http://www.amazon.com/CLIMATE-CONFUSION-WARMING-HYSTERIA-SCIENCE/dp/B0017OARKG/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225853206&sr=1-3
HARTCODE shows the atmosphere profile has the major absorption of CO2 at around 650cm; this was confirmed by Rob van Dorland’s recent Cabauw measurements; in Miskolczi terms this means no net IR heat/radiation flux reaches the atmosphere from the ground; upward IR, SU, either escapes through the IR window at the CEL, or is compensated for by ED, downward IR from the atmosphere; M’s assumption c (p3) has the Earth in LTE, but this is regionalised by ED=SU.[1-TA] with TA being the local LTE; at each local LTE the atmosphere regulates temperature by virtue of the disparity between the temperature lapse rate becoming greater than the dry adiabatic lapse rate, at which time convective uplift takes the surface air to the CLE where OLR occurs. Given this I really can’t see how Miskolczi and Chilingar are poles apart.
As to Chilingar being clueless about the lapse rate; by this I presume you mean the wet lapse rate; according to AGW theory the wet lapse rate is increasing because of the increase in SH; this is of course the subject of the dispute between Dessler, Soden on the one hand, who are asserting that SH is increasing, and NOAA which is showing it isn’t, with the Gifford paper on decreasing pan evaporation showing that there is no land source for the increased SH relied upon by AGW; if the wet lapse rate is not increasing then Chilingar is correct; the temperature profile/gradient of the atmosphere does not have to increase because with the adiabatic convective process Chilingar describes the ascending hot parcel of air is replaced by a descending cool parcel.
Another Sceptic censored
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623
“The sad fact is that since I said I didn’t believe human beings caused global warming I’ve not been allowed to make a TV programme. “
Or just perhaps too weird? We all rationalise disappointment to protect our egos.
ROTFLMAO, cohenite saying
is about like being amazed that the sun came up this morning. That’s where CO2 in the lab, on mars and in your backyard absorbs.
and no cohenite, Chillingar does not include ANY lapse rate, but rather assigns all but a few percent of the difference in temperature with altitude to convection. Wanna mulligan?
Luke says “Too Weird”
Hey Sky, sigh, I think your JH gravatar is too weird. He/you look/s like a fossilised mummy.
Is that your correct image?
ROTFLMAO; oh great, so now eli and luke are related; well, whatever that means, I’m trying to be serious; Chilingar p1;
“Yet, in the dense Earth’s troposhere with the pressure Pa > 0.2 atm, the heat from the Earth’s surface is mostly transferred by convection (Sorokhtin, 2001a). According to our estimates, convection accounts for 67%, water vapor condensation in troposphere accounts for 25%, and radiation accounts for about 8% of the total heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to troposphere.”
So 33% is a few %; eli, do you want to buy a bridge?
Mulligan; I get it, and ROTFLMAO I still don’t want; just looking further at Chilingar and lapse rates; if we assume Chilingar’s large parcels of convectively moved air are subject to the dry adiabatic lapse rate (DALR), then the parcel works as it rises and the DALR temperature gradient is established on the basis of the internal temperature decline of the parcel; on p5 Chilingar utilises the standard model of atmospheric temperature gradient of 6.5K/km, so again I’m not sure where you get your few %. The moist adiabatic lapse rate (MALR) depends on the moisture level of the air; as noted Chilingar estimates that 25% of the vertical movement is with moisture laden air; generally the MALR ranges from 3K/km – 9.78K/km; given the controversy about the atmospheric level of SH I don’t think it would be fair for Chilingar to be more precise about MALR; any way his paper is not about atmospheric moisture. Feel free to be condescending; that’s how I learn.
“Or just perhaps too weird? We all rationalise disappointment to protect our egos.”
RRrrriiiiigggggghhhhhhhhhhtt. Dr Evil says Rrrriiiiiigggggghhhhhhhhttt.
Jeepers Creepers you are an idiot Luke. Of course he’s censored. It would be bad for ones career even to so much as put a good word in for him in those circles.
Look a numb nuts arts student like yourself doesn’t know he’s been censored. Rejection of papers is VERY common. Perhaps the paper is flawed. Do you know? Have you analysed it – the said paper – if you have some analysis put your critique here.
Too simple for unelectable and unrepresentative swill to comprehend? So in the meantime STFU.
You will note my little ornithological ninny that the Amazon story here ended up being pure bullsheeetttt !
Its censorship alright. But not your capital C censorship which can only apply to direct government action. Papers get rejected. But good papers usually only get rejected for anti-scientific reasons.
Cohenite that’s a purty string of words, but Chilingar ASSIGNS the lapse rate to convection.
[...] Geophysical Research Letters. Marohasy has the basic non-story with a sensationalistic title “How To Censor a Climate Sceptic” and no mention of censorship in the actual post. No such problem in the rest of the [...]
The title says ‘censor’, the copy says ‘rejection’. Which is it? If it’s ‘censor’, where’s the evidence?
I prefer the following take on the (non-) issue: http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/skeptic-scientist-is-censored-or-not/