What the hell are you talking about? We were asked to refrain from entering the looming religious domain by the moderator and I’ve respected that. What question have I left unanswered for you? Can’t see how I’ve “jumped” anywhere. As I recall, your last comment paternally accused me of needing more education (which I agree with – I will never know too much and my education is the work of a lifetime). So, you tell me, where’s my response supposed to head from there if I ‘stay on the map’?

And of course you’re notably silent on the fraudulent use of outdated data…

You jump all over the map. You changed the point of what was being talked about. And you did not answer my question.

This is my last comment to you on this.

I will take your point on not playing the man, though however much we might like to segregate them in our minds, the “man and the ball” interact repeatedly and in complex ways in the real world and it can be informative to look at the history of one with respect to the other. Spencer’s, on several topics, is dubious which is what makes me reflexively look askance at his output.

Ferdinand, thank you for your input, I stand corrected.

JWT, it is your perjogative to see me as uneducated (laughs) but I’m not the one who thinks the work of thousands of climate specialists over several decades can just be discarded if what they tell me doesn’t fit my worldview or my politics. Neither am I one to jump at any and all conflicting evidence that fits said worldview, even if it’s based on uncorrected, outdated and dishonest data:

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback/

Cheers, hope everyone enjoys their lunch.

Your opinion is not that important to me Matt.

You strike me as not be well educated. I’m not trying to be insulting.

“Our critics are our friends–they show us our faults.”

~Benjamin Franklin

[snip - Joel, I'm not going to let you open the door on discussions of people's religious view here. Please don't post on it again. - Anthony]

Whatever. What I gave was an actual link where Spencer expresses his SCIENTIFIC views, not his religious views, in regards to evolution and intelligent design. Given that there must be at least 20 posts above on that subject where people were speculating about both what his scientific and religious views were, it seemed like a post with actual evidence would be useful.

“to think he knows better than thousands of specialists in this field who have reached a consensus which is in no way ‘in doubt’”

You don’t have to be a mind slave to the dictates of Authority (Consensus).

You can be a free man who thinks for himself, and reasons from the evidence.

Science is not decided by numbers, or votes, it only takes one fact to disprove a theory.

Join the Rebellion…

Might I suggest that the key point is leaving the man out of it, and instead address the evidence that he presents.

Evidence is king.

Enough said, if you don’t want to address the evidence that is your choice – just don’t expect to remain credible.

There are not thousands of specialists in cloud cover. There are only a handful and even then, there is a lot of discussion on the effect of clouds.

What is sure is that climate models don’t reflect reality about cloud cover: expecially not in the tropics:
http://www.nerc-essc.ac.uk/~rpa/PAPERS/olr_grl.pdf
Several people I have met (in virtual world) which are directly involved in clouds research are quite surprised to hear that (all!) climate models see clouds as a positive feedback for a warmer world. Most of them see warmer – more clouds – more reflection of incoming sunlight, thus a negative feedback.

And there is/was a trend in cloud cover not related to GHGs, which may in part explain the increase in ocean heat content of the oceans in the tropics and thus the increase in tenperature since about 1990. See the very readable pages at NASA from Wielicki and Chen:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/DelicateBalance/

Since the publications of Wielicki and Chen, I always wondered which was cause and effect. Less clouds causing more warming or reverse or both cause ánd effect… At least there is now a method which points to clouds as forcing of climate. The next problem to solve is what causes less clouds to form…

Thus all together, Dr. Spencer is not alone to look at clouds as a cause and not only as an effect…

Have I understood what you are saying? The biosphere is more than capable of handling the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere and turns much of it into O2 (and biomass) with the aid of sunlight?

Richard, A mature forest is more or less in equilibrium: warm season growth and all year decay have an average zero CO2 balance, including what animals eat and breath.
—————————————-Endquote

Hmmmm, you are perhaps talking about a model mature forest ? :-)

I shall not brag about extensive knowledge on e.g. the “Taiga”. Bur I assume a lage fraction of this huge terrestrial forest ecosystem can be regarded as “mature”. I am not convinced you are correct in a biogeochemical sense, though .
In addition to the fixed carbon in the standing stock biomass, the soil has accumulated carbon (Dry weight – Ash) since since last glaciation.

In addition some areas has accumulated huge C-deposits in Sphagnum spp peatlands. Admittingly a substantial fraction of the fixed carbon by Sphagnum spp is rapidly released, but much is relesed as recalitrant molecules like humic acids. A significant amount is exported out of the system throug the river catchments and winds up in the oceans as a part of the oceanic DOC (Gelbstoff). I would think both humic acid and gelbstoff has a half-life making them to carbon sinks (despite being in solution).

Cassanders
In Cod we trust

My point is perfectly proved, at any rate, by the fact that Spencer has the gall to think he knows better than thousands of specialists in this field who have reached a consensus which is in no way ‘in doubt’, however much the bunch of you like to think so in this little corner of the web.

Smokey, what did you want an answer to?

Have I understood what you are saying? The biosphere is more than capable of handling the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere and turns much of it into O2 (and biomass) with the aid of sunlight?

Richard, A mature forest is more or less in equilibrium: warm season growth and all year decay have an average zero CO2 balance, including what animals eat and breath. In NH warm months, about 50 GtC is absorbed by plant growth and in the cold months about the same quantity is released by (soil) bacteria, fungi,…

The moment that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase (for whatever reason), plant growth is stimulated, all other necessities (water, nutritients, fertiliser, sunlight) available in sufficient quantities. But even then, 100% more CO2 only gives 30-80% more growth, depending of plant carbon capture type.
As other necessities are often the growth limiting factor, the increase of plant growth is relative modest and currently about 1.5 GtC/yr of the 7+ GtC/yr emitted by humans… Add to that the oceans which absorb about 2 GtC/yr extra, then we are at what is observed: an increase of about 4 GtC/yr in the atmosphere…

What is it you think I mean?

Einstein did say, at one point in his life, “I do not believe in a personal God”. He did not say he did not believe in God at all. Because, it is unmistakable that he did.

I was pointing out something about scientific findings. Is it safe for me to say that you only like the scientific findings of people who do not believe in God?

It has been a number of years since I looked at this. I went through a phase where I had to satisfy myself of the falseness of the (young earth) Creationist myths. What struck me as an side effect was just how many of the remarkable steps along the way remain unexplained. I think that the works of Stephen Jay Gould (I think I have all of his books) nicely lay out the wonder and mystery of it all.

Reply: OK STOP RIGHT THERE! This discussion goes no farther. Discussions of Creationism and Evolution are strictly prohibited. ~ charles the moderator

Of course, ultimately Spencer’s current work will rise or fall on its own merits. However, on the basis of his previous judgment and track record, I am not going to be holding my breath.