[Truth To Power]

Oh, you are a conspiracy theorist. I see.

I am indeed. Anyone who knows anything knows that conspiracies are the bricks and mortar of modern US foreign policy, and the ones we know about are probably just some small fraction of the total. Or maybe you are so naïve you do not know that, e.g., the Gulf of Tonkin Incident that served as pretext for the Vietnam War was in fact a conspiracy? The Iran-Contra weapons for hostages deal? The removal of Mohammed Mossadegh and installation of Shah Rezah Pahlavi? Try reading "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," by John Perkins, and at least educate yourself a little bit. I've asked before: do you think Oswald acted alone? If you don't, then you are a conspiracy theorist, too. And if you do, you are just pathetically uninformed and/or unthinking.

If conspiracy kooks did not exist, conspirators would have to invent them.

Oh. Right.

[Pants-of-dog]

What about chemtrails? Do you believe that the gov't is spraying mind control chemicals? Do you think flouridated water is oppression? Is Elvis still alive?

[Godstud]

The best argument against chemtrails is that they are spraying it on THEMSELVES, too.

Also:
Scientists Just Say No to ‘Chemtrails’ Conspiracy Theory
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/science/scientists-just-say-no-to-chemtrails-conspiracy-theory.html

[Hong Wu]

Climate change should be a nuclear power issue.

[Truth To Power]

What about chemtrails? Do you believe that the gov't is spraying mind control chemicals?

No, the chemtrail idea emerged because commercial passenger aircraft were flying higher, and people didn't realize how contrails behave differently at higher altitudes.

Do you think flouridated water is oppression? Is Elvis still alive?

It's easy to get too much fluorine, and difficult to know when you are getting too much, so I don't support fluoridation of water supplies. People can get the right amount of fluoride from toothpaste, fluoride drops, or dentist treatments.

Elvis is dead.

The important point here is that by this silly "conspiracy theory" nonsense, you are just trying to divert readers' attention from the fact that you have accused Spencer of dishonesty based on nothing but your highly dubious assumption that he accepts the controversial conclusions of a pro-AGW paper. That is a common disingenuous tactic on the AGW side: pretending that honest disagreement with their nonsense is impossible, and can only result from a conspiracy fueled by oil companies' money.

[Pants-of-dog]

The fact that you disagree with a study does not make the study wrong.

If you wish to believe that the cited paper is controversial, please provide evidence that climatologists are having any sort of significant debate about it.

[Truth To Power]

The fact that you disagree with a study does not make the study wrong.

The fact that someone you disagree with disagrees with it doesn't make it right.

If you wish to believe that the cited paper is controversial, please provide evidence that climatologists are having any sort of significant debate about it.

"Climatologists"? I thought it was a paper about instrumentation problems. Climatology doesn't really enter into it.

[Godstud]

The fact that someone you disagree with disagrees with it doesn't make it right.

[Pants-of-dog]

The fact that someone you disagree with disagrees with it doesn't make it right.

No, the scientific method is what makes it probably right.

"Climatologists"? I thought it was a paper about instrumentation problems. Climatology doesn't really enter into it.

Sure, as long as we agree that this is not a controversial paper.

[Truth To Power]

No, the scientific method is what makes it probably right.

No, because it is a poor example of scientific method: it assumes its conclusion, then contrives a way to reach it.

Sure, as long as we agree that this is not a controversial paper.

It's not controversial because it's clearly wrong, and has been shown to be wrong:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/05/our ... peratures/

[Pants-of-dog]

No, because it is a poor example of scientific method: it assumes its conclusion, then contrives a way to reach it.

I doubt it, and I think it is far more likely that you are poisoning the well simply because it contradicts your claims.

It's not controversial because it's clearly wrong, and has been shown to be wrong:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/05/our ... peratures/

I see. You are arguing that Spencer write a rebuttal to this paper in 2012, even though this paper was not published until 2015.

I had no idea Dr. Spencer was a time traveller.

[Truth To Power]

I see. You are arguing that Spencer write a rebuttal to this paper in 2012, even though this paper was not published until 2015.

Yes, he saw an early version for review, as did Christy. The paper itself was submitted in 2013, its errors papered over rather than corrected. Other non-believer scientists like Judith Curry have also noted the paper is flawed, dubious, and far from uncontroversial. In any case, it is indisputable that your claim that it was dishonest on Spencer's part not to accept the paper's conclusions when he had already explained why they were wrong was disingenuous to say the least, and nothing more than a typical drive-by smear.

[Truth To Power]

I do not think that Dr. Spencer's indignation at being found wrong qualifies as controversial.

He wasn't found wrong. That is just your erroneous interpretation of the situation.

Does anyone other than the creationist think it is controversial?

Of course:

http://marshall.org/climate-change/our- ... peratures/

And you just couldn't resist the ad hominem, could you?

[Pants-of-dog]

So no, no one other than Roy Spencer and his team at UAH think it is controversial.

And I do not think you know what an ad hominem is. You seem to be using it incorrectly here. Or maybe you incorrectly believe that I think people should dismiss him because he openly advocates for biblical creationism. No, people should laugh at him for that. People should dismiss him if he ignores the findings of other experts simply because they explain why his data is consistently out of sync with everyone else's.

[blackjack21]

We who think global warming is true not only because we have eyes and can see the world around us but because every major scientific research agency says its true and dangerous, have to open our eyes and look for facts.

Humans cannot see in the infrared spectrum. It's your skin that senses heat.

But you did get offended when I pointed out that Roy Spencer is a creationist.

That is irrelevant. Some of the greatest scientific minds of all time were deeply religious.

If we assume that Dr. Spencer is aware of this paper that shows his supposed discrepancies to be bias errors ( http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10. ... 13-00767.1 )

Despite careful efforts to homogenize the MSU/AMSU measurements, tropical TMT trends beginning in 1979 disagree by more than a factor of 3.

In other words, the modeling and instrumentation are questionable.

What about chemtrails?

It's a conspiracy to keep using Boeing 707s long after they're obsolete. They should just buck up and buy next gen 767s as they are quieter, far more fuel efficient and create American jobs.

Or maybe you incorrectly believe that I think people should dismiss him because he openly advocates for biblical creationism. No, people should laugh at him for that.

Why don't you just go to Aleppo and laugh at a member of ISIS for believing in Islam?

[anasawad]

@blackjack21

Humans cannot see in the infrared spectrum. It's your skin that senses heat.

Noh ? Wooww. i didn't know that.

[Truth To Power]

So no, no one other than Roy Spencer and his team at UAH think it is controversial.

And pretty much every other non-believer.

And I do not think you know what an ad hominem is. You seem to be using it incorrectly here.

Wrong.

Or maybe you incorrectly believe that I think people should dismiss him because he openly advocates for biblical creationism.

I don't know if you believe that or not, but you certainly implied it by calling him, "the creationist."

No, people should laugh at him for that.

I agree. Such ignorance is only possible in a society where conformity to faith is considered superior to independent thinking and reason. But it's interesting that on AGW, Spencer is the one employing independent thinking and reason, and the AGW screamers who conform to faith.

People should dismiss him if he ignores the findings of other experts simply because they explain why his data is consistently out of sync with everyone else's.

He didn't ignore it. He explained why it was wrong. And there are enough problems with temperature records to make it premature to say any particular record is right or wrong, unless it is clearly at odds with empirical observations. Which UAH isn't.

[Pants-of-dog]

And pretty much every other non-believer.

Wrong.

I don't know if you believe that or not, but you certainly implied it by calling him, "the creationist."

I agree. Such ignorance is only possible in a society where conformity to faith is considered superior to independent thinking and reason. But it's interesting that on AGW, Spencer is the one employing independent thinking and reason, and the AGW screamers who conform to faith.

He didn't ignore it. He explained why it was wrong. And there are enough problems with temperature records to make it premature to say any particular record is right or wrong, unless it is clearly at odds with empirical observations. Which UAH isn't.

Yeah, more of the same ad hominems and insults from you.

No evidence, as usual.

[ralfy]

Yes, I did. I also read, "The Limits to Growth" shortly after its publication, and knew even then that it was unscientific garbage.

No, you didn't! The article states that four decades of real data tracked the projections.

The rest of your post is worthless given the point that you can't even understand a simple article.

[Truth To Power]

No, you didn't!

I most certainly did, as my posts in this thread prove so very conclusively, and I will thank you to remember it.

The article states that four decades of real data tracked the projections.

But the accompanying graphs prove they didn't, as I have already proved to you.

The rest of your post is worthless given the point that you can't even understand a simple article.

<yawn> I have proved I understand it incomparably better than you.