Originally Posted by Earthling

I wonder how worried Roy Spencer's employers were about his ideas on Creationism when he served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center?
That isn't a position advertised at the local labour exchange for any riff-raff to apply for, I'll be bound.

I do not see why I should be impressed by your lauding of Spencer's credentials when you disrespect scientists who have far more impressive academic track records e.g. the Director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (Dr James Hansen), a scientist who won a McArthur Genius award (Dr Ben Santer), a tenured Professor at Berkeley (Dr Richard Muller), a Nobel Prize winner (Professor Saul Perlmuttter), two tenured Professors at Penn State University (Michael Mann, Richard Alley) ... the list could go on and on.

You only choose to be "impressed" by people who agree with your prejudices.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

It should not for a good scientist, given that thousands of good scientists accept evolution, climate change and religion.

I'm not saying it makes them wrong, but does it make them right because they "accept" something?

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Lindzen, Spencer and Christy are blinded by political ideology mostly, the last two possibly by religion too. There is no doubt about Spencer's creationism - he admits it.

So what, NASA didn't complain?

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Christy is a creationist with a high degree of probability.

STOP, you're breaking a code of conduct set in stone.
Show the evidence before condemning a man on suspicion alone.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Do you believe a scientist can reject the overwhelming evidence for a scientific theory and still be a good scientist?

What "theory" are you referring to that's probably still an hypothesis?

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

The Three Amigos are fake sceptics, or rejectionists ... anything that does not conform to prior prejudice is rejected. Classic denial.

You've lit the fuse to your own petard, but there's still time to defuse it.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

I do not see why I should be impressed by your lauding of Spencer's credentials

How can quoting simple facts be considered as "lauding?"

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

when you disrespect scientists who have far more impressive academic track records e.g. the Director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (Dr James Hansen), a scientist who won a McArthur Genius award (Dr Ben Santer), a tenured Professor at Berkeley (Dr Richard Muller), a Nobel Prize winner (Professor Saul Perlmuttter), two tenured Professors at Penn State University (Michael Mann, Richard Alley) ... the list could go on and on.

Don't exaggerate, it's unbecoming of a male child.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

You only choose to be "impressed" by people who agree with your prejudices.

You really do make some priceless comments.

So, tell me, are you a no smoke without fire type, who honestly believes that if someone is suspected of something they should be considered guilty?

NB: I've never heard of Professor Saul Perlmuttter[sic]

Earthling,

The "weight of scientific evidence" favours the ayes, the nays got off to a late start and have been held back.

Ayes, nays. Can you not leave the political references and the politics out of it?

The ayes have spent too much time looking in one direction only, check the IPCC mandate for proof of that.

Have you actually read more than a few snippets of it?

There isn't time or room here in this one thread to concentrate on any one CC topic.

What, are you so close to death you couldn't scratch out a response? The size of this thread is infinite, I expect, or the owners would create a new one if we filled it, so it looks to me like you've copped out.

I asked you about the science and did not expect an answer on those grounds. I wish you had surprised me.

What would you call someone who prefers scientific conclusions that are deeply in the minority when they do not have the learning to properly critique the data and methods? What would you call someone who, when a large range of independent estimates centres around a particular value (say climate sensitivity), becomes attached to a value or values that lie at one end of that range, and not having the learning (or patience) to expertly critique the data and methods for any of it?

Originally Posted by barry schwarz

Ayes, nays. Can you not leave the political references and the politics out of it?

Personally, I'm apolitical, so how would you prefer I address the sides?
Alarmists, sceptics?
Believers, disbelievers?
Proponents, opponent?
Scaremongers, rejecters?
Cassandras, deniers?
Apostles, doubters?

Ayes, nays is short, sweet, to the point and obvious.

Originally Posted by barry schwarz

Have you actually read more than a few snippets of it?

Yes.

Originally Posted by barry schwarz

What, are you so close to death you couldn't scratch out a response?

I'm not sure, are you sure that I'm not?

Originally Posted by barry schwarz

I asked you about the science and did not expect an answer on those grounds. I wish you had surprised me.

Your buddy owedtojoy surprised me yesterday, would you care to comment?

Personally, I'm apolitical

In the very next phrase and the list that follows, you emphatically put the lie to that.

so how would you prefer I address the sides?

Alarmists, sceptics?
Believers, disbelievers?
Proponents, opponent?
Scaremongers, rejecters?
Cassandras, deniers?
Apostles, doubters?

Your approach is entirely political (as in, concerned with or influenced by partisan interests), a game of sides.

Ayes, nays is short, sweet, to the point and obvious.

Indeed it is.

Seeing as we're not going to talk facts and figures, could you answer this question? (I modeled it on yours)

What would you call someone who prefers scientific conclusions that are deeply in the minority when they do not have the learning to properly critique the data and methods? What would you call someone who, when a large range of independent estimates centres around a particular value (say climate sensitivity), becomes attached to a value or values that lie at one end of that range, and not having the learning (or patience) to expertly critique the data and methods for any of it?

Discussion of Arctic Ice with Heidi Cullen of climaet central (video included)

Lateline - 29/08/2012: Cullen joins Lateline

Another methane resevoir locked in ice.

A vast reservoir of the potent greenhouse gas methane may be locked beneath the Antarctic ice sheet, a study suggests.

Scientists say the gas could be released into the atmosphere if enough of the ice melts away, adding to global warming.

'Vast reservoir' of methane locked beneath beneath Antarctic ice sheet | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Originally Posted by Earthling

NB: I've never heard of Professor Saul Perlmuttter[sic]

Saul Perlmutter is a Professor of Physics at Berkeley.

There was a BBC documentary about his work on BBC's Horizon the other night. Perlmutter and his team did crucial work on showing that the Universe in continuing to expand, and apparently will continue to do so for ever. For this he got a Nobel Prize because it was one of the mysteries of Cosmology for many years.

Perlmuttter also works on Muller's BEST team, and is one of the reasons why its work is probably scientifically sound, though not above criticism.

Arctic sea ice has been been receeding at an incredible rate for the last month, and has not slowed much even now. At this time in other years the decline has slowed to a crawl, but this year most indices are still dropping fairly precipitously.









The rate should subside markedly from now or from the next few days.