Joined: Oct. 2009
Comments from actual climate scientists about Spencer's new paper
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.