On 30/09/2011 7:27 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of
a problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get
a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet,
because you'd be fine, what would you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or wrong
is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but at least
he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific perspective
not the screaming political one that most seem to favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...ural-response/

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of 'Intelligent
Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for the way that species
have become diverse on this planet. A religious viewpoint such at Spencer's
places him in rather a poor light straight off. Spencer is a believer in the
supernatural. Not only that, but he is very active in groups that support
the notion of a supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet.
Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The Heartland
Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin Foundation (the gun
lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly surprising, given his
employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clou...e-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Drop...rming-bias.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc...-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-...al-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loeh...year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-...ensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sate...roposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cl...nsitivity.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spen...-feedback.html

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I trust
that you will also take the time to read the science, from real scientists,
who do not place their faith in the supernatural, nor take their money from
big oil. This is an excellent place to start:

www.ipcc.ch

The question is whether you have read his arguments or just the
refutations that others have written about them.