Strong Negative Feedback Found in Radiation Budget

DogB said:
Took me about 7 seconds to confirm this myself.

Here if you're interested.
Click to expand...

Cool. I expect people to be able to back up their assertions, and mhaze wouldn't do that.

Now the question is: is the paper in print saying the same thing as the morons at Wattsupwiththat are saying? It's often the case with these things that the papers cited on denialist sites just don't say what the denialists say.
 
uke2se said:
Now the question is: is the paper in print saying the same thing as the morons at Wattsupwiththat are saying? It's often the case with these things that the papers cited on denialist sites just don't say what the denialists say.
Click to expand...

Very good question. There are a lot of unsupported statements in the summary.*

Damn near as many as there are in this thread. :D
 
Piggy said:
So here we go again, folks.

AGW denier posts an alleged piece of support for their position.

It immediately gets shown to be:

* Without merit;
* Irrelevant;
* Not saying what they claim it's saying;
* Or some combination of the above.
Click to expand...
Where did you find any of those items with regard to the article? All I've seen are personal attacks on the author.
 
AlBell said:
Where did you find any of those items with regard to the article? All I've seen are personal attacks on the author.
Click to expand...

Calling him a creationist is a personal attack?

Also, if that's all you've seen, you couldn't have read even half the posts on the previous page.
 
AlBell said:
All I've seen are personal attacks on the author.
Click to expand...

Then you should read more carefully. Mhaze and I were discussing the work, and neither of us were attacking the author personally. I made some criticisms of his work, based on Spencer's brief comments in his blog post. I imagine the real work is of better quality, or rather expect it to be better.
 
Looking at his history, his recurrent theme has been that '75% of observed warming is not real/caused by variations in clouds' - and he has set out to prove that.

He's a real scientist, no doubt, but he errs in setting out with a destination in mind.

However, I welcome this paper - it proves beyond a doubt that there is no vast conspiracy to keep climate dissenters from publishing their papers, even if those papers are most likely wrong.

But I really do hope this guy is right and the amount of future warming is limited by cloud effects - that would be a best case scenario.

I won't bet on that being true, though.
 
AlBell said:
Where did you find any of those items with regard to the article? All I've seen are personal attacks on the author.
Click to expand...

The OP regarding the blog post was very quickly shown to be utterly unsupportive of mhaze's anti-AGW position. Just read through the first few responses.
 
BenBurch said:
Same title and authors. Not unusual for a conference presentation paper to later be placed in a journal.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I suspect that the current paper is an updated version of this one. Hazey also implied that it has been kicking around for a few years.
 
At In To said:
Then you should read more carefully. Mhaze and I were discussing the work, and neither of us were attacking the author personally. I made some criticisms of his work, based on Spencer's brief comments in his blog post. I imagine the real work is of better quality, or rather expect it to be better.
Click to expand...
Agreed you made a couple posts actually discussing the cite; I didn't take them as debunking it. BTW, you don't appear to be one of the usual suspects who specialize in irrelevant cites and/or personal attacks of skeptical-of-AGW authors.

Neither fit into:

It immediately gets shown to be:

* Without merit;
* Irrelevant;
* Not saying what they claim it's saying;
* Or some combination of the above.
Click to expand...
 
BenBurch said:
Looking at his history, his recurrent theme has been that '75% of observed warming is not real/caused by variations in clouds' - and he has set out to prove that.

He's a real scientist, no doubt, but he errs in setting out with a destination in mind.
Click to expand...
Point taken, but who doesn't?

However, I welcome this paper - it proves beyond a doubt that there is no vast conspiracy to keep climate dissenters from publishing their papers, even if those papers are most likely wrong.
Click to expand...
Actually, no it doesn't. One slipping through the fence isn't proof of anything.

But I really do hope this guy is right and the amount of future warming is limited by cloud effects - that would be a best case scenario.

I won't bet on that being true, though.
Click to expand...
First time I've ever seen you 'unsure'; I join you in hoping he's right.
 
uke2se said:
Calling him a creationist is a personal attack?

Also, if that's all you've seen, you couldn't have read even half the posts on the previous page.
Click to expand...

Assuming he does bad science because he is a creationist is a personal attack.

I dont like creationist or evolutionists. I think FSM made the noodley goodness.

Does that make me a a bad scientist? NO.

And you can read the paper, or discuss the data or methods without having to bring up the fact that he has different beliefs than you.....

Its just lame.:mad:

</end lurker rant>
 
brantc said:
Assuming he does bad science because he is a creationist is a personal attack.
Click to expand...

I don't assume it. I am saying that him being a creationist is a strong indication that he's a bad scientist, as creationism is a strike against his critical thinking abilities.

brantc said:
I dont like creationist or evolutionists. I think FSM made the noodley goodness.

Does that make me a a bad scientist? NO.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't even make you a scientist. :confused:

brantc said:
And you can read the paper, or discuss the data or methods without having to bring up the fact that he has different beliefs than you.....
Click to expand...

No, I can't read the paper as the version that's out is behind a paywall. I can read the discussion over at Wattsuphisass and, as already noted by several posters on the previous page, it doesn't make much sense.

brantc said:
Its just lame.:mad:

</end lurker rant>
Click to expand...

What's lame? You misunderstanding me?
 
uke2se said:
Don't think that's the same one, Ben. Accepted date for this one is April 2010, and publication date for the one you presented is December 2009.
Click to expand...

EDIT: Forget about, my OP was incorrect and I can't delete posts,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom