OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Comments from actual climate scientists about Spencer's new paper
http://thinkprogress.org/romm....spencer
| Quote |
As the famous critique goes, “Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good”:
1.“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.
2.“It is not newsworthy,” Daniel Murphy, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cloud researcher, wrote in an email to LiveScience.
3.NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth in an email: “I have read the paper. I can not believe it got published. Maybe it got through because it is not in a journal that deals with atmospheric science much?”
4.Trenberth and John Fasullo at RealClimate: “The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper.”
|
The whole blog post linked to above for further refutations of Spencer's 'work'*.
*I use the term 'work' instead of the proper description "the creation of a flight of fancy that manages to match current data while making non-current predictions that are physically impossible".
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
