By the way, I already gave you one critique of this DailyTech article. Here is another.
Well, if the person is a creationist in the sense of thinking that the scientific arguments for creationism are at least as strong as the scientific arguments for evolution, then I would say that this is important in assessing his scientific judgement. And, in the case of Roy Spencer, the current darling of the AGW “skeptics” because of his work arguing for a very low climate sensitivity, this is in fact exactly what he has argued (in regards to intelligent design vs evolution in particular, not creationism in general). It doesn’t make his scientific arguments in regards to climate change automatically wrong but it does give one some perspective into his scientific judgement in cases where there is a disconnect between the accepted science and his strongly-held beliefs.
It seems to me that Roy Spencer is not the only “darling” of skeptics. Be that as it may, I would apply the same standard to Roy Spencer as I would apply to Jim Hansen. What’s most important is the strength of his arguments and the validity of his data and analysis.
It would be a different story if scientists kept these sorts of things secret, of course.
So you are of the belief that there are scientists who have been led by genuine scientific inquiry to conclude that “God did it.” Interesting.
Well, he seems to be one of the few who is actually publishing a reasonable amount in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. He certainly seems to be the one that skeptics are referring to most often these days for evidence that the climate sensitivity is lower than the range given by the IPCC.
Sure, but this is not always easy to discern for those of us who are not experts in the field and/or don’t have the time or ability to investigate them in detail, especially when the ideas are very new and have not yet been put forth (or are just starting to appear) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Obviously ridiculous ideas, data, or analysis (such as those of Monckton or Gerlich and Tscheuschner) are easy for lots of people to evaluate and debunk but merely wrong ideas, data, or analysis often are more difficult to detect or debunk.
Unfortunately, the skeptic community is always pointing to some current idea, as of yet not appearing in or barely appearing in the peer-reviewed literature, as evidence that the consensus view from said literature is incorrect. And, of course, they (at the very least) seem to want us to hold off on making any policy decisions until such time as it can be evaluated…which is, of course, a prescription for never doing anything.
So, in the meantime, I think it is legitimate to look at the track-record of the person involved and to say, “Given the past scientific judgement that this person has shown, how likely does it seem that he is right and nearly everybody else in the field is wrong?”
I’m not sure what you mean by “genuine scientific inquiry,” so it’s hard to respond. In any event, I meant exactly what I said, nothing more and nothing less.
I mean by it that pure scientific reasoning led to their conclusion, not any religious “faith.”
So you are unable or unwilling to say that believers in creationism ignore science? Or is it your position that some scientists have come to the conclusion of creationism via the scientific method?
As I said before, my guess is that some do and some don’t.
I would doubt it. If there are any who have (or who think that they have), I would guess that they are fooling themselves.
Any other questions?
How many articles did he publish in the last couple years?
According to [url=http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/]this, he seems to have published 2 or 3 in the past 2 years. Do you agree with this?
I’m a “skeptic” and I don’t recall citing him that much. The main basis for my skepticism is the serious flaws I see in the case for CAGW and not the scholarship of people like Spencer.
I belive that there are both professionals and amateurs who do have the time and energy. For me, it’s not all that important since my skepticism is not primarily based on Spencer’s research.
That assumes that the case for CAGW has been solidly made already. I don’t think it has.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Yes, but this sort of argument doesn’t get much traction with policymakers who understand that organizations like the IPCC and the NAS and so forth are generally better at analyzing the science than folks on messageboards. So, a common refrain amongst those skeptics who aim to convince policymakers has been that there is important new recent research since the last report that casts serious doubt on the science. (Or, alternately, they try to argue that some research is being ignored or swept under the rug, or whatever.)
Believe it or not, these folks often have better things to do with their time. Plus, the normal course of events in science usually proceeds rather slowly…e.g., a paper is published and then, if someone is sufficiently interested in looking into it, they do so and several months later submit a comment or another paper. And, then maybe several months later that gets published. The process rarely takes less than a year and often a few…or even several years…before things get sorted out. In some cases, scientists such as those at RealClimate are more quickly responding to stuff, partly motivated by the idea that some faster comments are useful…but it is by no means guaranteed and the comments tend to be less complete and rigorous as the eventual ones in the peer-reviewed literature are.
Fortunately, you are not the one that most of the policymakers are relying on to be the judge.
Whay are your two answers contradictory?
Assuming that’s true, so what? This is an internet message board and not the halls of Congress.
If that’s so, then so be it. Spencer would appear to be participating in the normal scientific process, i.e. collecting data; analyzing it; publishing; and so forth. He would appear to be jumping through all the hoops which the warmists claim are important, i.e. being a credentialled researcher and publishing in peer reviewed journals. That being the case, it seems to me the warmists should give him the same deference as any other scientist and attack his work in the normal way, rather than short circuit the whole process by dismissing him as a creationist. If that’s what they are doing.
My opinion only.
Fortunate or not remains to be seen.
They aren’t contradictory.
You say some believers in creationism ignore science and some don’t. Then you say that there aren’t any belivers in creationism who have come to their conclusion via science alone.
Do you not feel that this is contradictory?
Not exactly, but pretty much.
Not exactly but pretty close.
No I do not. You are ignoring the possibility that there are creationists who are doing science which is essentially unrelated to creationism.
This new learning amazes me! Explain again how sheep’s bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes…
So you do believe that when it comes to creationism that they do ignore science? Do you admit that it is also possible that they do the same when it comes to AGW?
As I said before, I would think that if there are any creationist scientists who have reached a creationist conclusion by scientific means, I would guess that they are fooling themselves. That’s the most I can really say.
Just about anything (in human affairs) is possible. It’s possible that Michael Mann and Jim Hansen are letting their human desire for attention, funding, and/or advancement foul up their scientific judgment. It’s also possible that Richard Lindzen gets handed a briefcase full of cash every year from the oil industry in exchange for publicly expressing his skepticism. It’s also possible that Jim Hansen is getting a similar briefcase every year by the Chinese government.
So my answer is “Yes of course.”
Any other questions?
I would argue that in fact it is the “skeptics” not the “warmists” who want to treat Spencer as special. They essentially want to elevate Spencer’s research above all the other research that reaches a different result. If we were handling this in the normal way that science is summarized for policymakers, we would probably just say that the weight of the evidence is for a climate sensitivity in the range of 2 to 4.5 C for a doubling of CO2 levels with only a few studies arguing that it could be lower than this (e.g., Spencer) and a few arguing that it could be higher.
However, the “skeptics” appear to want to give Spencer’s result extra weight…basically, yelling “Stop the Presses!..We can’t accept that the climate sensitivity is higher unless and until someone convincing refutes Spencer.” It is in this sort of climate that I think it is worth looking at the larger question of Spencer’s scientific judgement although in a way this is already giving him special treatment (in a positive way) since we could just say, “Spencer’s work goes against a large weight of the scientific evidence to the contrary, so the current assessment of the science is not significantly affected by the fact that this one person is arguing for a different conclusion.”
And, by the way, I do applaud Spencer for publishing testable arguments, hypotheses, and data analysis in peer-reviewed journals. He seems to be one of the few “skeptics” who is doing this.
Would you mind citing and quoting a few prominent skeptics who have done this?