Ocean acidifcation .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I did not attack him personally; he is a proud creationist.

The Evolution Crisis: Dr. Roy Spencer

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01...google-search/

Katharine Hayhoe is an Evangelical Christian whom I respect.

The two use their faiths to take different paths in their views of climate change.

I am an agnostic.

For a professional scientist, especially one as credentialed as Spencer, I'm not sure there could be a more serious personal attack than insinuating that his scientific opinions on CC are being unduly biased by his religious views. He acknowledges that all scientists, like all humans, bring their own predispositions to their work, but you and others have gone well beyond that and it goes right to the core of his professionalism. It's analogous to your repeated suggestions that Prof. Happer's views are beholdent to a paycheck from oil cos. when no such evidence exists. The common denominator is your simply not liking their scientific opinions.

There's also nothing in Spencer's views about his purported "proud Creationism" or anything else that suggests he rejects well-established scientific theories or truths as a result of his religious beliefs, only the components of evolution and other theories that are unknown or unsettled. You just don't like that he hasn't concluded that CC theory hasn't reached such a level of certainty, and so you attack his science by insinuating that his religion is to blame.

The best evidence of this tail-wagging-the-dog approach is that you expressly approve of other evangelical Christians like Katharine Hayhoe who, despite her religious beliefs, agrees with your views on the science. So it's not necessarily a scientist's personal religious beliefs you approve or disapprove of but their scientific opinions, and the religious insinuations are merely a way of playing the person and not the ball. It's the exact same noxious & bullying tactic you use on these threads, and it's woefully transparent.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

of course you do wrt Hayhoe she is soundly in the MMGWC hierarchy .

EXACTLY!!

[jackdale]

Still yet another evidence free diatribe.

Originally Posted by Exile

For a professional scientist, especially one as credentialed as Spencer, I'm not sure there could be a more serious personal attack than insinuating that his scientific opinions on CC are being unduly biased by his religious views. He acknowledges that all scientists, like all humans, bring their own predispositions to their work, but you and others have gone well beyond that and it goes right to the core of his professionalism. It's analogous to your repeated suggestions that Prof. Happer's views are beholdent to a paycheck from oil cos. when no such evidence exists. The common denominator is your simply not liking their scientific opinions.

There's also nothing in Spencer's views about his purported "proud Creationism" or anything else that suggests he rejects well-established scientific theories or truths as a result of his religious beliefs, only the components of evolution and other theories that are unknown or unsettled. You just don't like that he hasn't concluded that CC theory hasn't reached such a level of certainty, and so you attack his science by insinuating that his religion is to blame.

The best evidence of this tail-wagging-the-dog approach is that you expressly approve of other evangelical Christians like Katharine Hayhoe who, despite her religious beliefs, agrees with your views on the science. So it's not necessarily a scientist's personal religious beliefs you approve or disapprove of but their scientific opinions, and the religious insinuations are merely a way of playing the person and not the ball. It's the exact same noxious & bullying tactic you use on these threads, and it's woefully transparent.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Still yet another evidence free diatribe.

None needed. To demonstrate your hypocrisy that is, or make myself appear "smarter".

Speaking of evidence, what exactly do you "use" UAH data for?

[jackdale]

There is no evidence for either.

I like the historical and regional data here:

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v...cdc_lt_6.0.txt

Originally Posted by Exile

None needed. To demonstrate your hypocrisy that is, or make myself appear "smarter".

Speaking of evidence, what exactly do you "use" UAH data for?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

For a professional scientist, especially one as credentialed as Spencer, I'm not sure there could be a more serious personal attack than insinuating that his scientific opinions on CC are being unduly biased by his religious views. He acknowledges that all scientists, like all humans, bring their own predispositions to their work, but you and others have gone well beyond that and it goes right to the core of his professionalism. It's analogous to your repeated suggestions that Prof. Happer's views are beholdent to a paycheck from oil cos. when no such evidence exists. The common denominator is your simply not liking their scientific opinions.

There's also nothing in Spencer's views about his purported "proud Creationism" or anything else that suggests he rejects well-established scientific theories or truths as a result of his religious beliefs, only the components of evolution and other theories that are unknown or unsettled. You just don't like that he hasn't concluded that CC theory hasn't reached such a level of certainty, and so you attack his science by insinuating that his religion is to blame.

I'm not Jack, but you're really off the mark with this. Jack has expressed praise and admiration for Spencer's professional work in his field. Is Dr Spencer 'doing' science when he opines on CC in general?

Creationism and ID are declared biases that potentially affect one's views in certain areas. He says he has a case for Creationism; someday maybe I'll read it, but I know of no instance in valid scientific endeavour where it's ever ok to say "Welp, I can't imagine how X could have possibly happened, so it musta been God". Likewise, I think it's reasonable to have reservations about broader environmental pronouncements from someone who's signed on (in whole or in part) to our friend the Cornwall Alliance.

Dr Spencer is a great writer, btw. I enjoy reading his stuff, even when i disagree with it. But he's not uncomplicated. And he's just ONE GUY.

Surely you could cite someone else once in a while? Maybe buy a couple different books?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

There is no evidence for either.

I like the historical and regional data here:

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v...cdc_lt_6.0.txt

You must be very smart to be able to interpret all that data. Too bad your interpretations rarely make it into any of your posts. They certainly do on actual science blogs.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

You must be very smart to be able to interpret all that data. Too bad your interpretations rarely make it into any of your posts. They certainly do on actual science blogs.

I won a bet with newhaul using that data.

I have used that data to show fellow Canadians that the Arctic is warming significantly faster that the rest of the planet.

I also used that temperature data to show that lack of correlation between sunspots and temperatures with a pearson product moment formula and scattergraph (attached). I posted it on this thread.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm not Jack, but you're really off the mark with this. Jack has expressed praise and admiration for Spencer's professional work in his field. Is Dr Spencer 'doing' science when he opines on CC in general?

Creationism and ID are declared biases that potentially affect one's views in certain areas. He says he has a case for Creationism; someday maybe I'll read it, but I know of no instance in valid scientific endeavour where it's ever ok to say "Welp, I can't imagine how X could have possibly happened, so it musta been God". Likewise, I think it's reasonable to have reservations about broader environmental pronouncements from someone who's signed on (in whole or in part) to our friend the Cornwall Alliance.

Dr Spencer is a great writer, btw. I enjoy reading his stuff, even when i disagree with it. But he's not uncomplicated. And he's just ONE GUY.

Surely you could cite someone else once in a while? Maybe buy a couple different books?

Jack gives nothing more than lip service to Spencer so that his unfounded attempts at discrediting him don't appear quite as unfair as they are. It's more than appropriate to point out an area of potential bias, but consistently repeating it while failing to follow up with any substance becomes defamatory.

The irony is that the more you try and minimize the extent of the skepticism within the science the more you put the emphasis on that ONE GUY. Spencer has simply become the most prominent one because he's articulate, outspoken, and has impeccable credentials, but he's certainly not the ONLY ONE. There's at least 80 others, and those are only the ones who have publicly declared their positions.

Why are you continually pushing this latest little sideshow of your own making? What is it about this group of skeptics that you feel I'm misrepresenting? How many times do I need to acknowledge that they represent minority views, that the majority view is as represented by the IPCC, and as found on the NASA & NOAA websites among others. What is it about contrary scientific opinion which you find so troubling, especially when not even the scientists themselves are so troubled? Are you & Jack incapable of arguing in support of the dominant theory of CC without trashing scientists and laymen who believe otherwise? Or by continuing to rely on a flawed survey that completely distorts the extent of the consensus in support of AGW? You blame it all on "denier" websites, but there are reasons other than your simplistic stereotypes why so many people gravitate to them instead of sites like Skeptical Science. Much of the AGW pitch is simply not credible, legitimate questions are being answered with obfuscation & derision, and the general public is a lot smarter than you assume.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I won a bet with newhaul using that data.

I have used that data to show fellow Canadians that the Arctic is warming significantly faster that the rest of the planet.

I also used that temperature data to show that lack of correlation between sunspots and temperatures with a pearson product moment formula and scattergraph (attached). I posted it on this thread.

OK, I understand. When you wrote that you "used the UAH data," I thought you were referencing using it in some paid, professional capacity as a credentialed climate scientist. My mistake.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

OK, I understand. When you wrote that you "used the UAH data," I thought you were referencing using it in some paid, professional capacity as a credentialed climate scientist. My mistake.

I taught courses in environmental studies during my career; I retired 16 years ago with a plan to teach sailing. I do have graduate training in computer modelling and long range strategic planning.

I still prefer to use original sources and data.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Jack gives nothing more than lip service to Spencer so that his unfounded attempts at discrediting him don't appear quite as unfair as they are.

I made no attempt to discredit Spencer.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

The irony is that the more you try and minimize the extent of the skepticism within the science the more you put the emphasis on that ONE GUY. Spencer has simply become the most prominent one because he's articulate, outspoken, and has impeccable credentials, but he's certainly not the ONLY ONE. There's at least 80 others, and those are only the ones who have publicly declared their positions.

Ok, Good to know. I was beginning to think it was just because of one book you read on vacation or something.

What is it about contrary scientific opinion which you find so troubling, especially when not even the scientists themselves are so troubled?

When are you going to present some contrary scientific opinion, instead of rambles about how flawed 'science' is, accusations of groupthink, etc?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

There is no evidence for either.

I like the historical and regional data here:

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v...cdc_lt_6.0.txt

you don't use that data you just post it to appear at least on the surface to be using that data.
Every time I have posted the data from Dr Spencer for a given month you always say its wrong for this or that system is better bit .
What do you think of this 2m temperature anomaly chart for today?

Lots of blue there. Notice the global is only +.2 ℃ above the average for the day

[Marc1]

Originally Posted by Exile

J
Why are you continually pushing this latest little sideshow of your own making? What is it about this group of skeptics that you feel I'm misrepresenting? How many times do I need to acknowledge that they represent minority views, that the majority view is as represented by the IPCC, and as found on the NASA & NOAA websites among others. What is it about contrary scientific opinion which you find so troubling, especially when not even the scientists themselves are so troubled? Are you & Jack incapable of arguing in support of the dominant theory of CC without trashing scientists and laymen who believe otherwise? Or by continuing to rely on a flawed survey that completely distorts the extent of the consensus in support of AGW? You blame it all on "denier" websites, but there are reasons other than your simplistic stereotypes why so many people gravitate to them instead of sites like Skeptical Science. Much of the AGW pitch is simply not credible, legitimate questions are being answered with obfuscation & derision, and the general public is a lot smarter than you assume.

I wish I could be as eloquent. well done.