Global Warming for Dummies

[JoelUpchurch]

@GIGObuster

Once again, the link to the science that you forgot to also link to, is in the cite already mentioned. Maybe it could be because his links are not blue like in other sites, I know, you think that people are incapable of seeing links. specially of research that specifically undermined people like Spencer, and once again you are assuming that that research was not done…

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3657.1

You have shown yet another opportunity to demonstrate your ignorance. You linked to the ABSTRACT for a paper. The actual paper is sitting behind a paywall.

Also, if you look, this paper was published in 2010 and obviously is not a response to Spencer and Braswell (2011)

[GIGObuster]

@JoelUpchurch

You have shown yet another opportunity to demonstrate your ignorance. You linked to the ABSTRACT for a paper. The actual paper is sitting behind a paywall.

Also, if you look, this paper was published in 2010 and obviously is not a response to Spencer and Braswell (2011)

And it was pointed out to make the overall point that he is even less respected now. In any case, it is clear that Spenser is less regarded now and the people citing him are not usually to praise him.

As for his latest, there is no response needed, the 2011 paper from Spenser is the one where the response was clear to many and embarrassed the editors of the journal it was published.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/editor_of_remote_sensing_agree.php

[GIGObuster]

As for ignorance, you are still refusing to check what Barry Bickmore and others have said about the 2011 paper, This fits once again with my overall point about deniers (and lukewarmers it seems) not being able to identify the good sources from the bad.

Roy Spencer Persecuted By Own Data

Roy Spencer’s latest paper, published in Remote Sensing, supposedly “blew a gaping hole” in the standard theory of climate change. A new paper by Andrew Dessler shows that this is just another in a long string of Roy’s faulty claims to prove that climate sensitivity is lower than previously thought. The main problem in all of these attempts has been rampant abuse of statistics. Typically, Roy would brush off such criticisms, relying on the statistical naïveté of his core audience and the media, and claim he is being persecuted by the “IPCC gatekeepers”. In this case, one of Dessler’s figures shows very clearly how Spencer and his co-author Danny Braswell left out of their analysis all the data that didn’t fit with their hypothesis. It’s so clear that even people who don’t know much about statistics can see the problem. There is no running from this one–no claiming that Spencer is being persecuted–unless he wants us to believe he’s being persecuted by his own data.

[FXMastermind]

Facts will never get in the way of a good belief system.

[GIGObuster]

And I have seen it said before and I agree with the point that that dismissing a empirical field of scientific endeavor as a religion only serves to show how pridefully ignorant the respondent is.

[John_DiFool]

@FXMastermind

Facts will never get in the way of a good belief system.

And this month’s award for unreflective irony and self-serving hypocrisy goes to FXMastermind! What do we have for him Johnny?

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@John_DiFool

And this month’s award for unreflective irony and self-serving hypocrisy goes to FXMastermind! What do we have for him Johnny?

“They have won a trip to any extreme weather event they want: record high temperature, record low temperature, record low high temperature, record high low temperature, drought, flood, record snow, lack of snow, and many, many more cuz all of them can be caused by global waming.
Don’t forget to neuter or spay your pet.
Back to you”

[FXMastermind]

You said that because of global warming.