keithr wrote:
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.

**A person that holds 'Intelligent Design' as some kind of rational view is
seriously suspect. In fact, I would be concerned about any person, that
claims to be a scientist, who hold any kind of supernatural beliefs.

Spencer is part of this organisation:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/

Here is part of their platform:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/arti...lobal-warming/

An excerpt:

1.. We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent
design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are
robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited
for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is
no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming
and cooling in geologic history.
2.. We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human
flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject
poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it.
With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if
energy is to be abundant and affordable.
3.. We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels,
will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
4.. We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because
the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately
need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.
Disturbing stuff. Spencer is listed as a prominent signer:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog...lobal-warming/

It seems clear that Spencer STARTS from a theological POV and moulds his
science to fit that view. Are you certain you want to get on this idiot's
train of thought?


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?

**Certainly, but it gets very messy. Probably easier to refer you to the
organisation that has unravelled the paper trail:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/0...wall-alliance/

And he

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/1...limate-change/

And:

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2010/...ce-frontgroup/

And, of course, here is where he has worked for the Heartland Institute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...Climate_Change

The Heartland Institute is a 'front' for big tobacco and big oil (along with
big guns):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

In short, Spencer is a religious nutter, who is (partly) paid by big oil.


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.

**No, I do not. Spencer is a religious fruit-cake. ANYTHING he says must be
viewed with deep suspicion.

That is
not the scientific method.

**Indeed. Which is why I supplied a number of cites that criticise Spencer's
claims. Did you look at them?


Have you read IPCC AR4?

Some of it, unfortunately, I am not in a position to confirm or
dispute their modelling,

**This present discussion is not specifically about the modelling. It's
about the fact that AGW is occuring. IOW: We only need look at the
historical data.

but I am by nature suspicious of the results
of computer modelling, basically it tends to be high speed guessing.

**Indeed. And the modelling of climate is improving all the time.

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.

**Bull****. The BoM has a very impressive success rate with determining
weather over a 24 hour period. It is less successful over 48 hours and even
less so over 72 hours and so on. However, we are not discussing weather.
We're discussing climate. BIG difference.


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.

**Well, no, it is not "Very much open to question". There is a small amont
of doubt about why it is occuring. Around 5% at present.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au