here is a new essay by Dr. Roy Spencer on the UHI effect. turns out, if he is correct, our data might be more affected by UHI than we previously thought. here is an interesting quote from his esssay:
No way. this guy is part of a right wing conspiracy. Global warming is "settled science". you must be taxed for your sins against earth whether they are real and/or fictitious.
I wonder how many times Spencer will trot this tired drivel out? I am betting at least five more times. The Link
paso....your response was from 18 months ago....do you have a response that reflects the new information that Spencer is putting out there? By the way, where is the information that suggests that 2/3 of the record is from the oceans? Furthermore, since most of the algorithm has been illegitimately kept from us, how do we know that even if 2/3 of the data is coming from oceans that this is the data they are using? try again....
This, and the other threads I feel were addressed by Paso, who I am not a "fan" of but more respect his use of science to address the links to blogs you post. We have had this discussion before mop, I feel your personal politics gets involved in a desire to fight something you perceive as a liberal conspiracy. Even Glenn Beck believes man plays a role in AGW! He, like your blogs, just like to get the politics stirred up in those wanting to question a vast majority of scientists. In short, after a lot of consideration and thought I come to view the skeptics like the fine gentleman below..
Spencer keeps repeating a claim about the temperature record being off. There are about ten different reasons why Spencer is wrong yet again not the least of which is his refusal and failure to submit his "findings" for peer-review. How many times does he get to be wrong? The GISS and Hadley temperature records are right. The urban heat island effect has been studied and adjustments are made for it. I am not sure how many links you need, but this is a complete red herring. This is like chasing my tail.
paso, sometimes in your exuberance you uncover your lack of logical grounding.....this is a perfect example:
mop, do you have a link for your claim against Real Climate? I think you are wrong, but I am curious to see if there is any support for your claim. I do not believe they take any money from anyone. The people who post articles on Real Climate are real climate scientists. For example, Gavin Schmid works for the Goddard Institute of Space Studies. There are a number of scientists who are on IPCC panels and they each have numerous peer-reviewed publications in various areas. I don't see how this disqualifies them from having opinions and I find that they do a great job of demonstrating what we do and do not know. Real Climate also allows comments on the articles and frequently answers questions. It is easily the most informed site on the internet on this issue. The other two really informed sites are Skeptical Science and Open Mind. Skeptical Science is run by an Australian physicist and Open Mind is run (probably since he remains anonymous for now) by an American mathmetician. My sites and "guys" cannot stand Spencer and Watts because they think they are charlatans (my word not theirs). From what I have seen and understood, I think they are probably right although I have not researched each and every claim. I have seen enough of Spencer and Watts being wrong to not believe a word they post.
Energy, Finance, College Football.. And for my information, what are yours? And couldn't this have been dealt with better with a private PM if you are that interested?
If energy is an area of expertise for you, then you definately should post on this thread and I will value your opinion. My areas are American History, government and a very interested spectator's view of football!
Except this is science and one side is actually "right" and the other is wrong. RC does exist to explain and combat deliberate misinformation and disinformation on climate science. The e-mail is exactly right and nobody should have any problem with this:
