New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

[Animavore]

That's easy. It's all a big conspiracy. They've a lot to lose if they're wrong. Including nice plushy jobs. Yes. Even the ones in unrelated fields.

[Eriku]

Occam's Razor says "yes, that makes total sense".

I'll trust the unbiased Exxon-funded scientists over the ones with the plushy jobs then.

[Animavore]

Here's more scientists who are not Kevin Trenberth ripping Spencer's earlier, related work apart.

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/03/ ... er-part-3/

[mistermack]

Well yes. I did read the recent altercation with GenesForLife.
.

So? Genes can be wrong, just like me. I enjoy debating with him, till he starts a deluge of copy and paste, and links, which nobody should be expected to wade through, or reply to.

It always seems to come out when the person's own arguments are beginning to look a bit weak.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Well yes. I did read the recent altercation with GenesForLife.
.

So? Genes can be wrong, just like me. I enjoy debating with him, till he starts a deluge of copy and paste, and links, which nobody should be expected to wade through, or reply to.

It always seems to come out when the person's own arguments are beginning to look a bit weak.

It's called citation. All reputable scientists use it to back up their arguments. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that.

[Animavore]

Here's more from that above article. There are actually three parts to it. It also points out Spencer's refusal to comment on the rebuttal when asked by his own supporters for one.
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/roy-spencer/

And yes, this is a citation, I'm not trying to suirt out a bunch of ink and jet off. There's equations and everything

Oh. And a rebuttal if this very paper discussed at the bottom.

[mistermack]

The consensus argument is a non starter.
The consensus has been wrong so many times down through the ages, it's really not an argument at all.

And what you have to remember is that "climate science" is virtually brand new, and completely untested.
It's valid to attempt to interpret the past, but totally invalid to PRETEND that you can predict the future.

And one more point about the so-called "consensus".
It isn't that human activity IS CAUSING global warming. The consensus it that IT'S PROBABLE that human activity is the cause.
And even though the IPCC is hugely biased, they only give the probability as 90%.

So to point to a consensus on a probability isn't saying a lot.
With the missing heat and these findings, the probability just took a dive.

[Animavore]

Well concensus is irrelevant to this discussion and it may have been off topic for Eriku to bring it up. All that matters to this thread is that Spencer's thesis has been trashed. Soundly.

[mistermack]

Well yes. I did read the recent altercation with GenesForLife.
.

So? Genes can be wrong, just like me. I enjoy debating with him, till he starts a deluge of copy and paste, and links, which nobody should be expected to wade through, or reply to.

It always seems to come out when the person's own arguments are beginning to look a bit weak.

It's called citation. All reputable scientists use it to back up their arguments. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that.

Not in a website chatroom it's not. In a published paper, you need to quote your sources.
But a deluge of copied and pasted articles and links are just a tactic in chatrooms.
A few short ones are ok, and appreciated if they are to the point, but they shouldn't be used to drown the debate.
I suspect people paste stuff they don't even understand.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Well yes. I did read the recent altercation with GenesForLife.
.

So? Genes can be wrong, just like me. I enjoy debating with him, till he starts a deluge of copy and paste, and links, which nobody should be expected to wade through, or reply to.

It always seems to come out when the person's own arguments are beginning to look a bit weak.

It's called citation. All reputable scientists use it to back up their arguments. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that.

Not in a website chatroom it's not. In a published paper, you need to quote your sources.
But a deluge of copied and pasted articles and links are just a tactic in chatrooms.
A few short ones are ok, and appreciated if they are to the point, but they shouldn't be used to drown the debate.
I suspect people paste stuff they don't even understand.

I wouldn't claim that about GFL. He has at least one degree in molecular biology already and is heading to the UK for post-grad study in the same field shortly. He wasn't using his citations as a tactic, he simply believed he was debating with someone that would understand and appreciate the articles.

[mistermack]

Well concensus is irrelevant to this discussion and it may have been off topic for Eriku to bring it up. All that matters to this thread is that Spencer's thesis has been trashed. Soundly.

Only in your opinion. I disagree.
But I don't claim that AGW has been trashed.

My point isn't that it's right or wrong, just that it's likelihood is hugely exaggerated, and pointing out why is wrongly demonised.

When the IPCC claim only 90% certainty, there shouldn't be outrage when people favour the 10% option.

Especially in a discipline that is totally untested.

[Animavore]

Well concensus is irrelevant to this discussion and it may have been off topic for Eriku to bring it up. All that matters to this thread is that Spencer's thesis has been trashed. Soundly.

Only in your opinion. I disagree.
But I don't claim that AGW has been trashed.

My point isn't that it's right or wrong, just that it's likelihood is hugely exaggerated, and pointing out why is wrongly demonised.

When the IPCC claim only 90% certainty, there shouldn't be outrage when people favour the 10% option.

Especially in a discipline that is totally untested.

Again. Irrelevant. This thread is about Spencer and his flawed model.

[Eriku]

That, and I would say that the 10 per cent represent people who'd at the very least prefer to omit the A from AGW, so it's not just a matter of degree that this is about. That's where the vehemence comes from.

Plus there's a faffload of positive feedback loops that don't need much of a change in temperature before we start seeing huge changes (or at least a huge AMOUNT of changes), though maybe not any time soon.

[mistermack]

I wouldn't claim that about GFL. He has at least one degree in molecular biology already and is heading to the UK for post-grad study in the same field shortly. He wasn't using his citations as a tactic, he simply believed he was debating with someone that would understand and appreciate the articles.

I don't think so.
From where I stand, I'm not afraid make my points in my own words. GFL and others use lots of pasted articles and links as a defence, I think it shows a lack of confidence in your own words.
I don't mind being offered links, but to paste acres of text, and claim that it proves your point is just tiresome and lazy.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I wouldn't claim that about GFL. He has at least one degree in molecular biology already and is heading to the UK for post-grad study in the same field shortly. He wasn't using his citations as a tactic, he simply believed he was debating with someone that would understand and appreciate the articles.

I don't think so.
From where I stand, I'm not afraid make my points in my own words. GFL and others use lots of pasted articles and links as a defence, I think it shows a lack of confidence in your own words.
I don't mind being offered links, but to paste acres of text, and claim that it proves your point is just tiresome and lazy.

Did you read them? They did prove his point.

But you will think what you think whatever the evidence against it. And argue your point until everyone else fucks off to the pub. You always do.