The world's top temperature meteorologist assures us that climate change activists have created 'the greatest scientific blunder in history' with their 'junk science' leading to 'the worst case of mass hysteria ever known'.

Hello!

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...oad-of-hot-air

I certainly hope that Algore is not held libel. (Insert generic sarcastic statement about inventing the internet here).

You Brits seem to be the only folks with common sense these days. Thank you for questioning and reviewing the data. It seems that a lot of American scientists were willing to accept the findings without significant inquiry.

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

I certainly hope that Algore is not held libel. (Insert generic sarcastic statement about inventing the internet here).

You Brits seem to be the only folks with common sense these days. Thank you for questioning and reviewing the data. It seems that a lot of American scientists were willing to accept the findings without significant inquiry.

What makes you think there is not "significant" inquiry?
It seems to me that people believe that silence is an indication of blind acceptance when in fact it is perhaps more a case of agreement.

Essentially I think that for the most part this argument has become a case of both sides overstating their case to justify their argument, neither side can be seen to moderate their stance through fear of being seen as weak.

But Dr Roy Spencer ticks all the boxes on qualification and makes it very clear that the financial cost of this blunder is disastrous. And in my opinion the political costs to freedom are disastrous also.

Perhaps you might review his book Monty; how about that?

Originally Posted by Del Boy

But Dr Roy Spencer ticks all the boxes on qualification and makes it very clear that the financial cost of this blunder is disastrous. And in my opinion the political costs to freedom are disastrous also.

Yeah but so do all the people who say he is wrong, qualifications are irrelevant, data is all that matters.

Perhaps you might review his book Monty; how about that?

Probably not, right now I neither have the time nor interest in the subject to want to read anything (lots of other things on my plate).

Although I have to admit the fact that he is into Intelligent Design does make me want to read it just to figure out how he reconciles hundreds of thousands of years of climate data into the 6000 year old Earth philosophy.

Nice try MontyB - but not so. America's greatest climate scientist cannot be dismissed in this way. Especially by bad science junk data which could bring about the bankruptcy of countries.

As for his book, yes, it would be good for you to read it and discover that advice right from the top; that would be yet another string to your considerable bow.

A little reality as required:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)


http://www.tcsdaily.com/Authors.aspx?id=267

http://algorelied.com/?p=4018



And yes - here is yet another string for your bow. Wow - this sure is your lucky day:-


http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

Originally Posted by MontyB

Yeah but so do all the people who say he is wrong, qualifications are irrelevant, data is all that matters.

Do not forget that we are relying on the scientists to INTERPRET the data for us. As I said earlier, there are quite a few "scientists" here in America that have made their reputations on the Global Warming Gloom and Doom platform. I am encouraged that other scientists are willing to read the studies and conduct their own independant evaluations.

BTW Monty. If you have ever taken statistics you would understand that there are lots of ways to interpret the same data set.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Probably not, right now I neither have the time nor interest in the subject to want to read anything (lots of other things on my plate).

You would rather just comment?

Originally Posted by MontyB

Although I have to admit the fact that he is into Intelligent Design does make me want to read it just to figure out how he reconciles hundreds of thousands of years of climate data into the 6000 year old Earth philosophy.

Hundreds of thousands? Where did that come from? We only have hard (empirical) climate data from the last coulple hundred years. The rest of this "data" is from "estimates" or "best guesses" and is therefore suspect. If it is included then I would seriously question any conclusions derived.

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

Do not forget that we are relying on the scientists to INTERPRET the data for us. As I said earlier, there are quite a few "scientists" here in America that have made their reputations on the Global Warming Gloom and Doom platform. I am encouraged that other scientists are willing to read the studies and conduct their own independant evaluations.

BTW Monty. If you have ever taken statistics you would understand that there are lots of ways to interpret the same data set.

I have taken statistics classes which is why I know this is a pointless argument and the primary reason I only recognise raw data as that way I can draw my own conclusions without being directed by people with vested interests on either side.

You would rather just comment?

Can't comment on a book I haven't read.

Hundreds of thousands? Where did that come from? We only have hard (empirical) climate data from the last coulple hundred years. The rest of this "data" is from "estimates" or "best guesses" and is therefore suspect. If it is included then I would seriously question any conclusions derived.

I disagree, ice core data stretches back hundreds of thousands of years and is a good indication of climate variation.
Besides just the fact that it exists makes the Intelligent Design argument invalid which in turn leads me to believe that his argument will be skewed by belief.
Just as I would be skeptical of someone telling me the world is round after claiming to believe the Easter Bunny is scientifically valid, it doesn't mean he is wrong but it makes it him hard to take at face value.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Nice try MontyB - but not so. America's greatest climate scientist cannot be dismissed in this way. Especially by bad science junk data which could bring about the bankruptcy of countries.

As for his book, yes, it would be good for you to read it and discover that advice right from the top; that would be yet another string to your considerable bow.

A little reality as required:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)


http://www.tcsdaily.com/Authors.aspx?id=267

http://algorelied.com/?p=4018



And yes - here is yet another string for your bow. Wow - this sure is your lucky day:-


http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

I am not saying he is wrong, I am saying he is skewing his conclusion (or the reviewer is) to create sensation and sell his book.
I agree with him that global warming is largely if not almost entirely natural but then I think you will find that most people believe this what we need to figure out is how much "almost" is and what effect that is having on a balanced system, all your book review has given us is a guy that says "almost" is irrelevant and that he has made a huge break through in discovering global warming is a natural cycle.

I look at the earth a little like the Titanic, it can take on a lot of water and as long as the pumps are functioning the boat wont sink however if 1ml per minute more water is coming in than the pumps can pump out then the boat is going to sink, 1ml is "almost" irrelevant right?

I find it mildly amusing to note that this researcher's findings would have been accepted at face value and quoted as being without question when they supported the beliefs of the doom sayers, yet should he find evidence that the previous findings were flawed his credibility is suddenly bought into question.

It's highly reminiscent of views held by some about Afghan warlords. When they support out ideals they are freedom fighters, when they oppose us they are terrorists.

No you find it mildly amusing that some one who's opinion you agree with isnt being venerated for an argument you support.

The global warming argument is a religion it has it fanatics at both ends of the scale and I don't trust either of them, I would also point out that what Del Boy posted was a review of a book and was not the words of the writer so nothing in there was anything more than an opinion of someone else's work.

So perhaps "Pot meet kettle, he's black" applies here.