Paradox said..




As far as I can tell, very few scientists actually believe there is no warming. Some may have some issues with the way the homegenisation of the data occurs but thats just an argument over the data manipulation process, which does influence the magnitude of change. Healthy skpticism on a process to be transparent, but no denial of an upward trend in most cases.

Regarding Spencer, you can't paint a scientists work as tainted just because he has religous faith. Not that i'm even aware of what Spencers faith is, ive not looked into it. He is certainly a respected scientist with significant published work, and there is no basis to HG's claims of dodgy results. However irrespective of that, what HG has done is tried to discredit all 5 of the seperate sources I provided by attacking one (without any actual evidence I might add). It's a tactic employed by the desperate or those trying to force a particular view without considering facts.

Irrespective of any of that, you need to understand that the argument I was presenting was that there is evidential substantiation for both CO2 and natural variance hypothesis influencing the observed temperature increases. At no time have I said that one or the other isn't occuring.

What scientists don't actually know is how much each is contributing, and that is why even the IPCC, CSIRO and other agencies all refer to the "likely" contribution of CO2 in thier statements. They don't know, its all guesses and modelling of a samll change in a very complex system.

log man said..






mate, I don't need to know the chemical composition of dog **** to know that it stinks. You can send the poo off to forensics if you like.........but it's dog ****.

It's not a thing to be wasting your brain power on.

I'm not saying your "argument" is dog ****......it's more like cat sick

And that is the so called "expert" paradox puts forward to counter hundreds of government scientific organisations and universities.

Misinformation is dangerous. That's core business for these doubt merchants. I wouldn't be surprised if many believe they are actually doing the work of god.

Paradox said..






I like this. You call me out for misinformation, yet all you have done is taken one of the five seperate papers I provided you (that you asked for) and you have systematically attacked one of the authors on a personal basis and used that as the basis for dismissing everything. You have not responded to any of the science provided whatsoever.

Here is the definition of ad homin em you continually deny doing:

"ad hominem: You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it."

Now that is misinformation at it's best. You have no interest in science or facts, just tear down anything and anyone who doesn't agree with your view irrespective of the strength of thier argument.

holy guacamole said..





Oh FFS paradox there's nothing personal about exposing Spencer's true beliefs. He signed the religious declaration that strayed into science and this tells us a lot about the misjudgement of such frauds.

I also pointed out serious errors in Spencer's work, which adds incompetence to the obvious issue with religious ideology mixing with science.

Here are just a few blundering quotes from Spencer.

skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm