Post Reply
Page 5 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5
Switch to Forum Live View Why do we say things are unprecedented?
6 years ago  ::  Mar 27, 2008 - 9:19PM #41
Bodean
Posts: 9,495
[QUOTE=eadler;388829]have always been controversial.

It is interesting that Roy Spencer, despite having had a career in Science is an advocate of Intelligent Design as opposed to Darwinian evolution as an explanation of the origin of species.
This lessens his credibility as a scientist in my view.
[/QUOTE]


OH COME ON eadler!  Let's don't devolve to that level.  Unless you can discredit his data, which has been done, but he relented and corrected (mistakes are mistakes), then there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with his credibility!

And you want to preach to me about strawman arguments.  That's like saying ... "well .. you know he is a Catholic" .. or whatever!
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 27, 2008 - 9:31PM #42
PrHaug
Posts: 230

To say "nominally supportive" is different from saying that it proves the IRIS theory is correct in the overall global sense. It only means that the phenomenon he observed in the tropics seems consistent with it.
Remember that satellite measurements have always been controversial.



I agree with your statement.  However Lin's assessment was that observed data did not mesh with the "Iris Effect".  Incidentally, he used some of those same satellites to offer his data if I recall.  Good for the goose and not good for the gander?

I recently read an interesting analogy regarding skeptics.
If you were about to take off in an airplane, and 25 mechanics said the plane was not safe and advised you not to board, and one mechanic said it was OK, what would you do?



Interesting analogy, but one that falls a little short.  Let me rework it a minute and give you my answer.  Say you were about to take off in an airplane and 25 mechanics who were fresh out of tech school and had only worked on computer models of planes gave a cursory inspection and told you that the plane was unsafe.  However one seasoned mechanic who had been working on this particular plane all his life, had studied it thoroughly during his lifetime, and who gave the plane the once over inside and outside, taking careful measurements and inspections of each part told you that the others were wrong and that it was safe.  Who would you believe?

Simplistic, sure, but in some ways just as accurate.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 27, 2008 - 10:31PM #43
Bodean
Posts: 9,495
eadler ...

I was going to drag out lots of quotes .. but I'll suffice it to say:

The Climate Realists sound much more scientific with frases like "nominally supportive", "suggests", "consistent with".

On the otherhand, the AGW supporters just flat out say everything proves AGW is true.  In fact, they no longer talk in scientific language, they flat out speak as if AGW is a given.

A "coexistence" of rising temps and CO2 .. well that means CO2 is causing the temp rise.
Melting arctic ice - well that means we may have passed the tipping point of AGW.
Increased water vapor with increased temp - well that confirms that CO2 is warming the planet.

Simply put, the AGW supporters have gone beyond science, and have turned their "speculations" into dogma.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2008 - 9:12AM #44
eadler
Posts: 4,449
[QUOTE=Bodean;388860]OH COME ON eadler!  Let's don't devolve to that level.  Unless you can discredit his data, which has been done, but he relented and corrected (mistakes are mistakes), then there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with his credibility!

And you want to preach to me about strawman arguments.  That's like saying ... "well .. you know he is a Catholic" .. or whatever![/QUOTE]

I don't know enough to claim that his data is crap. However, if he has a hypothesis that contradicts the consensus of scientists, and is the type of person who believes in Intelligent design, it doesn't speak well for his scientific insight, when he goes beyond the data that he has.

He seems to have gone beyond his depth in arguing about the significance of C12/C13 isotope ratios on a Wattsupwiththat blog.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/20 … ope-ratio/
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2008 - 1:48PM #45
Bodean
Posts: 9,495
[QUOTE=eadler;389642]I don't know enough to claim that his data is crap. However, if he has a hypothesis that contradicts the consensus of scientists, and is the type of person who believes in Intelligent design, it doesn't speak well for his scientific insight, when he goes beyond the data that he has.

He seems to have gone beyond his depth in arguing about the significance of C12/C13 isotope ratios on a Wattsupwiththat blog.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/20 … ope-ratio/[/QUOTE]


I read the article ...and suffice it to say, I won't pretend to know squat about C12/C13.  You say he has gone beyond his depth ..how so!  What he is saying seems straight foward enough, yet, I don't buy that his side by side "eyeball" comparison amounts to anything, expecially since the difference in Fossil Fuel C13 and natural C13 is so small..

Of course, what I found more interesting than the discussion on c12/13, was the how interanual CO2 levels peaked during the 1998 El Nino. .... as if CO2 concentration is following the temperature.  .... hmmmmmmm.... where have I seen this before ..... VOSTOK?
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook