Orange Jell-O is my favorite, I think. Don’t like lime.
Bob Carter, whose talk you linked to the video of in another thread, is a good example of someone who essentially does this sort of thing. I.e., in that talk he gives a very selective summary of recent work on climate change that supports his point of view ignoring the wealth of evidence on the other side. (He probably also distorts some of the science he claims supports his view but I haven’t actually watched that whole video in a while so I don’t remember the details.)
Moreover, if you go to skeptic websites like Anthony Watt’s “Watts Up with That,” you will find people there constantly pointing to Spencer’s work (as well as some of the work by others like Monckton that I said falls into the “ridiculous” category) to support their view, again ignoring the totality of the evidence in favor of the few pieces that agree with their view.
I watched the video and he cited at least 3 researchers: Stephen Schwartz; Roy Spencer; and John Christie (apparently Christie works with Spencer). In any event, if one assumes for the sake of argument that what your saying is true, then the effective response is to point out that their work is recent and goes against the weight of other research. Assuming that’s true, of course. As opposed to dismissing Spencer as a creationist. (Is Christie a creationist too? Or does one creationist author of a paper taint the entire paper?)
While the original Schwartz paper estimated the climate sensitivity at 1.1 +/- 0.5 C, in his reply to comments on the paper, he has raised his estimate to 1.9 +/- 1.0 C, so while his estimate is still on the low end IPCC estimate of 2 to 4.5 C, there is considerable overlap between his estimate and the IPCC estimate now. So, it would be hard for Carter to use Schwartz as strong evidence for a low climate sensitivity anymore. And, indeed, Spencer and Christy do work closely together, although they also do seem to also do some separate research.
I’m not sure if Christy shares Spencer’s views on intelligent design. I know he is quite religious (he went to seminary school and founded a Southern Baptist church before pursuing a career in science), but perhaps he is better at not letting his religious views influence his scientific ones. You might be right on what the most effective response is to Spencer, but I do still think it is fair game to point out that article that he wrote regarding evolution and intelligent design. After all, it is not like it was just his private religious views. He made his views very public and he specifically addressed evolution and intelligent design as scientific questions, not religious ones. When someone essentially tells me that AGW is faith-based, I think it is relevant to note when they think the same is also true of evolution.
Frankly, it is somewhat puzzling to me why Spencer chose to write about evolution and intelligent design. He had to have known that his views would not do wonders for his scientific credibility. I guess he either just felt strongly enough that he felt it necessary to say it or, if one takes a more conspiratorial point-of-view (admittedly perhaps too conspiratorial) one could wonder if there was a little bit of quid-pro-quo going on between the libertarian-conservatives who care a lot about opposing action on climate change and not so much about fighting evolution and the religious-conservatives who care a lot about fighting evolution and not so much about opposing action on climate change. Spencer does seem like one person who could sort of bridge this gap a little for the potential benefit of both sides. Anyway, this is just idle speculation on my part.
Let’s suppose that’s all true. So what?
I’m not saying it’s not “fair game,” I simply think it’s an issue of minor importance. On the other side, we have a guy like Jim Hansen who has engaged in conduct which calls his judgment into question. Despite his various antics, the primary basis to assess his claims is, in my opinion, the science itself.
My opinion only.
Moderator’s Note: Knock it off. Either debate the topic or don’t post to the thread.
Jello is the only edible that has a color for a flavor. I like red Jello.
Moderator’s Warning: I said knock it off. That meant everyone knock it off. This is an official warning–don’t do this.