Well, I did go and skim the original
(at <http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf )
It's clear the original article should never have been published as
reputable simply by the repeated phrase the author uses of "alarmist
computer models". Without knowing anything else about the author or the
organization with which he is associated that gives away the bias blatantly.
The original article is much less conclusive; in fact it say "we still
don't know, but here's some evidence models need more work". The
abstract follows--draw your own conclusions.
I would be more inclined to make changes if those in political positions
who are trying to do so hadn't previously tried (mostly unsuccessfully
in the US, slightly more so in Europe) to initiate many of the same
economic changes to further an agenda. To me it seems entirely too
convenient to think they are only motivated by the actual phenomenon but
are using it as a lever to achieve goals otherwise unachievable.
I personally think there would be a gradual shift in generation mix and
reduced greenhouse gas emission anyway and that it could be accommodated
w/o the other political and economic impacts if market forces were left
alone (or at least far more nearly alone). Resource allocation by free
markets is remarkably efficient; it's when other constraints are
introduced that things go out of whack.
Realistically, China, India, eastern Europe and the other developing
economies are _not_ going to do anything drastic to slow their
development nor to raise the costs of their expansion to limit their
horizons--they don't have the luxury we have of being able to
contemplate the niceties while they're still struggling w/ the basics.
That being so, whatever the US and Europe do will have very little
impact globally so we're along for the ride like it or not.
That is where all the knee jerking is making a left turn ... no pun
The research paper, by two Phd "Research Scientists" at University of
Alabama, under the auspices of same and presented to a peer review
journal, and which was the subject of the article in Forbes, is getting
drowned out by a hatred of the messenger.
Unfortunate, because it is an article, following established scientific
procedure/methods, that is well worthy of consideration in the search
for valid conclusions to be drawn from both climate computer modeling,
and satellite acquired warming data.
It is imperative that these types of correlations be made and understood
if we are to follow the correct path in any climate change scenario.
There is something very sad about the adamant inability to see past
one's preconceived prejudices to the actual subject research paper.
AFAIAC the words paper, article and publication are synonymous. The
problem is that the manusccript wasn't sufficiently critically examined.
That happens all too often in science, either because of sloppy
reviewing or (unfortunately) because the authors get a helping hand from
the reviewers. DAMHIKT!!!
In this case, the original authors (Spencer and 1 other) are NOT
well-respected in their field see here for references to the
So I very respectfully disagree with you, Karl. The article(s) are
worth only the paper they are printed on or the electrons maltreated by
Not in this context ... the "article" was about the "research paper".
There is a BIG difference.
To paraphrase a bit of commentary, "I will take the word of a reputable
university over the word of one blog poster known to be biased on the
issue. Especially given the nearly hysterical tone in which this one
seems to have been written."
> So I very respectfully disagree with you, Karl. The article(s) are
> worth only the paper they are printed on or the electrons maltreated
> by the pdf's.
As I've reiterated time after time, Han; and what has been my main point
has not changed from the beginning, let's allow traditional scientific
method practices be the final arbiter of that:
"Computer models, or satellite data. Take your pick..."
Come now, Han. Who considers it flawed? ... cite please.
It's only been out three days, fercrissakes ... no time for a "peer
reviewed", _scientific_ rebuttal.
All else is opinion ... and we know what that will get you. :)
Ther are people (and I quoted the reference somewhere) who consider the
methodology questionable or somesuch word.
Karl, this has gone too far. I am stopping here. I am not going to do a
full critique of the Spencer paper because I am not qualified. I just
wanted to show that I had my doubts, and then that there were others, more
knowledgeable than I, who had doubts too.
We're under tornado watch right now ... (Bergen County, NJ)
Just 2 fairly heavy showers. In between we biked to a local diner for a
bit of food.
For a change we went here <http://www.landandsearestaurantnj.com/
rather than here <http://dutchhousetavern.com/
Next time back to the old haunt.
Both all of 0.4 miles from home.
It's Dutch as in Jersey Dutch, descendants from people who fled Nieuw
Amsterdam when the Brits took over. There's many Dutch-like names around
here. A biggish local lumber/construction chain is Kuiken Brothers. A
local (nice) government guy is Van Kruiningen, another name is
Vroegindewey. It's hilarious how they pronounce the names ...
Data are just numbers. They are derived by measurements using techniques,
then calibrated and calculated. Finally they are interpreted. There are
apparently problems with the measurement techniques of SPencer and Braswell
that I am not qualified to fully comprehend.
Han, I hope you know I love you, brother!
You are a worthy opponent, my good friend. And may all our minor
disagreements/debates always be in good spirit!
I'm going to get a glass of wine ... wish we could continue over same
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.