[Su Campu]

Originally Posted by Deep Easterly

I can't offer anything to the climate change debate on here but I agree with Su Campu that it was a little low bringing somebodies religious beliefs into the argument and with an almost derogatory tone. So what if someone has a belief in God? Not believing in such is still a belief therefore the same thing. So much for our 'tolerant' society...

They did it because they thought they could avoid discussing his work. It's worked.....

[sharper]

Originally Posted by Su Campu

And the fact that the UAH data is the one that most closely matches the radiosonde data is not relevant? No, cos the RSS data is more appealing, as it shows more warming!

I didn't mention anything about RSS. The literature shows that that where UAH data needed a correction which lead to an increase it came from outside UAH.

When were discussing temperature records I presented both UAH and RSS and never mentioned a preference for RSS. In fact I don't have a preference for RSS and never even hinted at one, you just made that up.

[Su Campu]

Originally Posted by sharper

I didn't mention anything about RSS. The literature shows that that where UAH data needed a correction which lead to an increase it came from outside UAH.

When were discussing temperature records I presented both UAH and RSS and never mentioned a preference for RSS. In fact I don't have a preference for RSS and never even hinted at one, you just made that up.

Yes, and I would have thought that you would have got the tongue in cheek comment. Obviously I was wrong.

You still have not answered two questions:

a) About your theory.
b) About the relevance of the UAH and radiosonde data.

[sharper]

Originally Posted by Deep Easterly

I can't offer anything to the climate change debate on here but I agree with Su Campu that it was a little low bringing somebodies religious beliefs into the argument and with an almost derogatory tone. So what if someone has a belief in God? Not believing in such is still a belief therefore the same thing. So much for our 'tolerant' society...

MiNdGaM3 has not arbitrarily introduced someone's private religious belief to the discussion. Spencer is a member of and is publicly associated with a religious organisation that issues statements in relation to climate. He has also interjected himself into the evolution debate on the side of creationism.

When you mix your religion with your science in a very public way it's perfectly fair to have that mentioned.

[sharper]

Originally Posted by Su Campu

Yes, and I would have thought that you would have got the tongue in cheek comment. Obviously I was wrong.

"I was misquoted", "I was joking". Those seem to be your go-to defences.

[sharper]

A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming

Note the authors: E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., Paul K. Driessen, Esq.,
Ross McKitrick, Ph.D., and Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.

Spencer does get to publicly author religious reports for religious organisations on the topic of climate change then have that ignored.

[Su Campu]

Right then, you're obviously not going to contribute a climatological viewpoint on this thread so I'm not wasting my time on it. It's almost as painful as watching yer one from Albania singing.

[sharper]

Originally Posted by Su Campu

Right then, you're obviously not going to contribute a climatological viewpoint on this thread

You asked me to discuss extreme weather predictions so I did.

Then you asked me to discuss Spencer so I did.

Now you want to discuss something else again having utterly failed to show even the basics of anything you've argued.

Incidentally, you're the one who refuses to use any of Spencer's work so I have no idea why you're accusing other people of "ignoring his work". You want to dismiss the UAH record as completely unreliable.

[Su Campu]

Originally Posted by sharper

You asked me to discuss extreme weather predictions so I did.

You didn't answer my question about your views.

Then you asked me to discuss Spencer so I did.

You only discussed Spencer's religious beliefs. You (or Mindgame) didn't discuss what is wrong with the science in his paper I quoted. Unfortunately, his religious beliefs do not automatically null and void his work, unless you can prove his SCIENCE is flawed.

Now you want to discuss something else again having utterly failed to show even the basics of anything you've argued.

No, just the things you avoided discussing.

Incidentally, you're the one who refuses to use any of Spencer's work. You want to dismiss the UAH record as completely unreliable.

Again telling lies. I quoted one of his papers. YOU and Mindgame said it was not reliable but avoided saying why, instead reverting to another personal attack.

I said the UAH is probably the lesser of the two evils as it closer matches the upper air data. That makes it much less "completely unreliable".

[sharper]

Originally Posted by Su Campu

Again telling lies. I quoted one of his papers.

You dismiss him when his temperature record is inconvenient for your UHI theory and invoke him when he sounds like he's saying something you like about models being wrong.

You dismiss UAH because it disagrees with model projections yet invoke the creator of the UAH record on how models are wrong.

Interesting eh?

Spencer's 2008 paper is extensively debunked here. In short, it bears little relationship to physical reality and was tweaked to produce the answer he wanted.