Roy Spencer gispt collega-klimatologen

Geen categorie24 feb 2011, 16:30
Samen met John Christy is Roy Spencer verantwoordelijk voor de satellietmetingen van de wereldtemperatuuur in het kader van een samenwerkingverband van de Universiteit van Alabama (Huntsville) en NOAA. Als zodanig genieten ze grote bekendheid in klimatologenland. Maar daarnaast houden zij zich ook met andere aspecten van de klimatologie bezig. Beiden zijn klimaatsceptici. Roy Spencer profileert zich daarbij scherper dan John Christy. Hij heeft een eigen website waarop hij maandelijks de meest recente temperatuurmetingen publiceert. Daarnaast komt hij ook met andere kritische beschouwingen, waarbij hij van zijn hart geen moordkuil maakt.
Onlangs haalde hij op zijn website fel uit tegen zijn collega-klimatologen naar aanleiding van hun gejammer over het voorstel om geen geld meer aan het VN-klimaatpanel ter beschikking te stellen, dat bij meerderheid door het Amerikaanse Huis van Afgevaardigden werd aanvaard.
Ik pik er een paar krenten uit:

[ ] the climate science community has allowed itself to be used on this issue, and as a result, politicians, activists, and the media have successfully portrayed the biased science as settled.

They apparently do not realize that ‘settled science’ is an oxymoron.

The most vocal climate scientists defending the IPCC have lost their objectivity. Yes, they have what I consider to be a plausible theory. But they actively suppress evidence to the contrary, for instance attempts to study natural explanations for recent warming.

That’s one reason why the public was so outraged about the ClimateGate e-mails. ClimateGate doesn’t prove their science is wrong but it does reveal their bias. Science progresses by investigating alternative explanations for things. Long ago, the IPCC all but abandoned that search.

Oh, they have noted (correctly I believe) that a change in the total output of the sun is not to blame. But there are SO many other possibilities, and all they do is dismiss those possibilities out of hand. They have a theory — more CO2 is to blame — and they religiously stick to it. It guides all of the research they do.

Waarom laten zo vele klimatologen zich voor dit karretje spannen?

Why would scientists allow themselves to be used in this way? When I have pressed them on the science over the years, they all retreat to the position that getting away from fossil fuels is the ‘right thing to do anyway’.

In other words, they have let their worldviews, their politics, their economic understanding (or lack thereof) affect their scientific judgment. I am ashamed for our scientific discipline and embarrassed by their behavior.

Is it any wonder that scientists have such a bad reputation among the taxpayers who pay them to play in their ivory tower sandboxes? They can make gloom and doom predictions all day long of events far in the future without ever having to suffer any consequences of being wrong.

Toch twijfelt Roy Spencer eraan dat het IPCC ook werkelijk financieel zal worden afgeknepen.

In the end, I doubt the IPCC will ever be defunded. Last night’s vote in the House is just a warning shot across the bow. But unless the IPCC starts to change its ways, it runs the risk of being totally marginalized. It has almost reached that point, anyway.

And maybe the IPCC leadership doesn’t really care if its pronouncements are ignored, as long as they can jet around the world to meet in exotic destinations and plan where their next meeting should be held. I hear it’s a pretty good gig.

Lees verder hier.
Ga verder met lezen
Dit vind je misschien ook leuk
Laat mensen jouw mening weten