Perhaps fearing that his fast tracked no hurdles rebuttal to Spencer and Braswell wouldn’t be enough to have it the buzz of the blogosphere, highlighted in Real Climate, and blasted all over the web via compliant MSM via the press release, Dessler has made a video on the paper. Watch it below:
Nuke Nemesis says:
September 6, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Nuke . . . that’s four too!
This video should be part of a series:
Climate for dummies, by dummies.
This is actually a good idea. Spencer and Braswell, or someone on their behalf, should make a simple layman video explanation. Put up lots of neutral colored maps and formulas so it looks scientifically accurate to everyone. Or use a red biased map, if they really want to make their point. Of course they won’t be able to use a fancy tag line like, “results that purport to overturn decades of science are almost always wrong”. But I’m sure someone can come up with a better one for them.
Am I dense or did he not mention cloud albedo once?
Dave Wendt says:
September 6, 2011 at 2:55 pm
“Over the years I have often been struck by the thought that there are no analogs of Einstein and Feynman, i e brilliant original thinkers, in the climate field. ”
In my opinion, Ferenc Miskolczi could be described as a brilliant original thinker. His theory boils down to the argument that CO2 can only replace the already existent abundant greenhouse gas water vapor but not change the energy dynamics fundamentally. In this way, he transcends the question of climate sensitivity or what feedback is how strong… Willis Eschenbach mentioned the Constructal Law once, and Miskolczi might have found something similar for the climate.
Dessler sees no merit in S&B’s paper. That might be a problem in the way Dessler’s brain works. I mean he really needs to provide independent empirical evidence of his sanity. Without seeing the independent empirical evidence of Dessler’s sanity, I think we can safely dismiss him as a “crank”.
Either that, or he is just acting in his self-interest and trying to protect his job. It would provide some empirical evidence of his impartiality if he resigned and quit his job and declined all funding from organizations associated with the climate change political establishment – just to prove that he is not doing it just for the money. It would further support his case if he declined to publish further in any controversial journals like GRL where the Team is known to exert a strong influence.
So Mr. Dessler, you want empirical evidence? Then provide some!
O H Dahlsveen says:
September 6, 2011 at 2:04 pm
I hve just , —— I am a scientist! –
But even so I cannot account for this kind of stupidity.
. It is the ability of clouds to keep the sunlight away from the surface that adjusts the surface temperature. I.E. more cloud, = less temperature. – less cloud = more, – or higher temperatures.
————-
Apparently amongst all the scoffing you might have overlooked the possibility that you haven’t the faintest clue what the Spencer or Dessler papers are actually about.
Please look at them over and over and over again until you get it.
This video is the same sort of one sided, condescending drivel we usually have to put up with at election time or on the cheapest of cheap and nasty cable channels. Good grief, is this twerp one of the AGW leading lights?
Looks like Dessler is not taking comments on his video on YouTube. 3000 people have looked at it and there are only 2 comments. One is one day old, one is 2 days old. My comments have not gotten through after 20 hours.
Dessler is a little like Romm. He must have 100% control of the message. Obviously Spencer’s paper was no threat to the science that required an immediate response. The only reason for producing such a quick response and pressuring the publisher to take it on a fast track was to control the message, not to save the science. No matter how wrong Dressler’s paper is; no matter how shabbily it was put together; the fact of it’s existence will allow the warmers to claim that the Spencer paper has been “debunked”.