"Honestly" doesn't include smearing a scientist...

You’re reading selectively here to get on a high horse. The objection was to Jennifer’s characterisation of the conference as being a group of independent minded scientists,
rather than disclosing the industry funding – it wasn’t to the smear scientists. Separately, I also sought to highlight some heterodox belief of Mr Spencer which some people would not be aware of and which Jennifer studiously failed to mention. Nowhere did anyone suggest even those two taken together means the data and arguments put by Mr Spencer were discredited or do not have to even be considered. In fact, several of us deliberately and consciously expressed endorsement for an unfettered scientific process.

“especially as so many of them like RealClimate have put so much time into championing mistakes like the Hockey Stick.”
Be nice if you read those alarmist sites because you’re showing your ignorance about the so-called Hockey Stick.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/before-and-after/

”And science doesn't rest on weight of publication. One good theory trumps 100 bad ones. Spencer has access to data that others don't and he's published. I'm happy to wait and see what criticisms there are before jumping to conclusions, unfortunately the alarmists don't do the same thing.”

That’s a wilfully brash interpretation of what has been said. Nobody doing real research would be so blaze about the central role played by specialist peer review in scientific research. In this regard, the specialist climate change journals are completely relevant as to what might constitute consensus science on climate change at the moment. So, naturally that means failure to contribute to those journals, be versed in their content, is fatal to the notion of speaking on behalf of scientific consensus. That doesn’t mean that everything is internal to the journals cohort, of course not. But the point is the process of peer review cannot be substituted for PR releases and think tanks without gutting everything that makes science science. The correct attitude is to await proper commentary and reconciliation within the peer-review system, not to point the public to PR releases as Jennifer has done.

GrahamY

Some climate-science 101 text books are better than Wikipedia. Wiki is an ok site for beginners (surely you know its limitations); I just prefer the sites or journals I pointed to in the prior post. Alternatively, try ‘Google-scholar’ … IMO more exacting.

There is a ‘Walker Circulation,’ it comprises three distinct and dynamic cells – Indian, Pacific and Atlantic.

Before you turn into a rabid banshee, read this (look at the pretty pictures if it makes more sense) as it relates to Spencer’s work (and my response to Keiran):

http://www.geosc.psu.edu/Courses/Geosc320/Lau.pdf

Please don’t ‘wack’ me if you have difficulty understanding … take your bludgeon to NASA, NOAA, Lau or Yang.

GrahamY, I am not smearing as you insinuate. I said;

“Spencer’s research is important, and if shown to be robust, will contribute in the fine-tuning of GCMs” and,

“Understanding the mechanisms of natural climate variability is important for improving climate predictability and properly attributing ongoing climate changes … This is the importance of Spencer’s work.” Note last sentence.

As to your glib remark “And science doesn't rest on weight of publication. One good theory trumps 100 bad ones.” Oh Duhh …

“We have a situation where the vast body of research ‘backs-up’ the theory of AGW, the theory becomes harder to refute. This is not to say it can’t be.”

Let me help you … read last sentence again.

You go on to cast doubt, abuse or besmirch my honesty.

I find it appalling that as OLO guru, you tarnish your own rules. IMHO, you would be better off posting under a different tag to express your invective and vitriol.

BTW, the scientific community is not ostracising Spencer … he does some good work. I look forward to seeing if his hypothesis stands up to the rigors of time and scientific critique.

GrahamY, you could retract or say “whoops, sorry Q&A”.
Or you could find another cherry-orchard or change the goal posts; you’re good at these. You decide.

I tried to post 5mins before my ‘allotted 24hrs’ and was ‘penalised’ an extra hour … very rigorous rules.

Col

Thanks … not sure if it’s good to be back, LOL.

“I note the article you posted alluded to some government policy statement and failed to quote from it. Hardly the rigorous quality of reporting we would expect to come from a serious newspaper.” Yep, it’s probably another journo/media ‘alarmist’ lie.

“Maybe you could identify how any of my statements are supposedly “misguided”, so I can at least place myself back on the path to truth or possibly challenge your lowgrade sledge.” Sorry Col, lost count when it comes to GW stuff.

However, I do respect your views on other stuff … economics somewhat and definitely things business and accountancy. I watch your comments on other threads and am impressed (not always) with what you have to say e.g. cap n’ trade, Garnault’s interim report, budgets, etc. I don’t agree with your ‘socialism by stealth’ guff but that is only my opinion. I certainly do not want to silence you

As to “It is like this Q&A, to disprove anything is the attempt impossible. All we can rely on is what can be proved and that requires you to prove your contentions are valid.” Not quite, but I can see where your coming from. Spencer has a hypothesis (contention if you like) and it will be tested time and time again. If his hypothesis is robust, it will affect the various GCMs – see previous posts. What I was trying to say (it obviously did not come out this way) was that Spencer et al (any scientist for that matter) should continually critique existing AGW theory. If they knock holes in it they will become famous.

As to my personal details, I refer a third time (in as many threads) that I will not leave myself open to public disclosure on a forum such as this. In the past, I have had a barrage of spam and emails that have ‘violated’ my freedom and my space.

Dickie

Thanks for the info on halocarbons. I enjoyed this story on how increasing halocarbon concentrations were erroneously attributed to volcanic activity, the final quote especially.

http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/search.php?display_article=vn504ozoneed

I'm surprised that no mention has been made of Spencer's other hypothesis, that CO2 increases are more due to El Nino/La Nina than human activity. It is about the only reference I can find about him on RealClimate, in a list of the "usual suspects".

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/01/spencer_is_totally_off_his_roc.php

I would also take exception to the claim that global warming has either ceased or plateaued. It might be true of the atmosphere, but ignores the heating oceans and melting ice. Has global warming ceased when these factors are also considered?

Thanks for those interesting links Fester. I found Roy Spencer's statement curious where he is reported as saying:

"Most, if not all, experts in the global carbon cycle will at this point think I am totally off my rocker. Not being an expert in the global carbon cycle, I am admittedly sticking my neck out here."

I was particularly interested in the ozone hypothesis where atmospheric chemist, Sherwood Rowland advised that hydrogen chloride emitted by volcanic eruptions fails to reach the stratosphere where the ozone layer is. Note hydrogen "chloride."

Chloride is what man continues to chemically manipulate to form organochlorines, despite its initial extensive use in making the heinous WW1 poisonous gas followed by chemical herbicides and defoliants, CFCs and other equally persistent and eco-destructive chlorinated compounds which have seriously compromised the biosphere.

In addition, it has been scientifically estimated that man's CO2 emissions are 150 times greater than volcanic CO2 emissions.

Is not man the largest transgressor of all the species? Has he not over-stepped the laws of nature?

Perhaps you will be interested in the latest media report on Antarctic's ice shelf:

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23433566-5005361,00.html

Yours infectiously

Old Trollop
Test tube cleaner (as well!)
Multi-skilled division
Col Rouge's STD clinic
The Old Dart

GrahamY

It seems your silence is the best I can hope for in an apology.

Apology accepted.

[Edit by me]
Aagghhhhh … I just tried to post this AFTER the 24 hr time limit had past and guess what?

Yep, “Sorry, you may post again in 1 hour blah, blah.”

Apology NOT accepted.

There are 3 Walker Circulation cells, not 1

Now moving on and regaining my composure.