On 1/10/2011 7:20 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
keithr wrote:
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.

**Yes. I've been reading Spencer's stuff for several years. On the surface,
much sounds plausible. His arguments have some serious holes in them,
however.

What do you think about Spencer's supernatural beliefs? Does that cause you
to consider his statements with a more critical eye?

Nope, I couldn't care less about his religious views, neither do I care
in the least about the religious views of the members of the IPCC.

What do you think of
Spencer's affiliations (with the fossil fuel industry)? Does that cause you
to consider his statements with a more critical eye?

Spencer's own words:-

"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."

Do you have any cites to prove him a liar?

Have you looked at the cites I provided?

Yes, it worries me that they start out from the point of view that he is
wrong, and then go looking for evidence to support that. That is not the
scientific method.

Have you read IPCC AR4?

Some of it, unfortunately, I am not in a position to confirm or dispute
their modelling, but I am by nature suspicious of the results of
computer modelling, basically it tends to be high speed guessing. The
problem is extremely complex and all attempts to model climate have been
gross simplifications. Even the models to predict tomorrows weather
rarely agree with each other.

I have an open mind on the subject (which probably puts me in a minority
of one) global warming is without doubt, but the cause is very much
open to question.