IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New gummint research
now I wonder why he stressed that?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/
Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

Ah, I see, must be a 1 percenter
https://www.houghton.edu/am-site/media/sh-r-ait-3-blurring-the-lines-science-fiction-spencer.pdf

Abstract
Al Gore’s movie
An Inconvenient Truth
gives a variety of unusually biased interpretations of
the state of climate science and global warming
theory. These cover a wide range of natural events
and processes which could potentially be impacted by
global warming, but which the movie misrepresents
as clear examples of the human influence on climate.
A few examples include the mixing up of cause and
effect in his graphical portrayal of temperature and
carbon dioxide variations over hundreds of thousands
of years; the repeated depiction of ice calving from
glaciers as a sign of global warming; the implication
that Hurricane Katrina was the fault of humans; and
the particularly extreme view that the Greenland ice
sheet will melt, flooding coastal cities worldwide.
Ultimately, all of these are related to the widespread
perception that scientists have uniquely tied global
warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
The real inconvenient truth is that science has no idea
how much of recent warming is natural versus the
result of human activities.

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
New He's a religious ideologue now.
Likes Intelligent Design, also too..

He may have done good science at one time, but he's letting his religious and political views get in the way now.

His arguments aren't compelling.

E.g. consider his recent paper (free pdf) and a recent rebuttal paper by A.E. Dessler (free pdf).

FWIW.

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New your second link does nor grok, 3rd link is not compelling
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
New The 3rd link is more understandable than the 2nd.
It covers the problem with Spencer's 2011 paper. The early aside that their formulation "may violate conservation of energy" is a hammer-blow. (Violation of conservation of energy is never allowed in a correctly-defined system.) But he's kind enough to assume that it doesn't and still shows that Spencer's analysis is wrong. (Spencer tries to argue that changes in clouds are cause of sea surface temperature changes rather than an effect.)

A more conversational explanation of the problems is a review of Spencer's book.

Lots of scientists are religious to various degrees. Those that are still good at doing science know enough to keep their religious beliefs out of their scientific work and not let dogma drive their conclusions.

The data and analysis will continue to accumulate and will (I'm reasonably confident) continue to show that the AGW picture outlined in the IPCC reports, the scientific journals, etc., is broadly correct.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New first link goddidit , not a refutation goddiddnt do it
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
New Excluded middle (again)
"uniquely tied" "no idea"

You're barely even trying now.
--

Drew
     gummint research - (boxley) - (5)
         He's a religious ideologue now. - (Another Scott) - (3)
             your second link does nor grok, 3rd link is not compelling -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                 The 3rd link is more understandable than the 2nd. - (Another Scott)
             first link goddidit , not a refutation goddiddnt do it -NT - (boxley)
         Excluded middle (again) - (drook)

And so on, and so forth.
71 ms