MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 3:52 pmsheesh, cradle, please give it a break.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 2:31 pmI'm asking you to opine on one specific blog post of Dr Spencers. I'm asking for YOUR scientific repudiation of ONE very specific blog post from Dr Spencer. You need me to break that down for you in simpler terms? Dr Spencer gave 5 of his own opinions. What say you about his opinions? I'm assuming you can stay focused long enough to do so.jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 1:27 pm Father and child debunk Spencer's claim
there are lots of hits under Roy Spencer debunked for you.
Let's see if you can explain this experiment to the rest of us.
Spencer has been discussed, defended, debunked up the ying yang.
Those who want to believe he's a genius will continue to do so, those who see him as a charlatan will continue to see that in his work product.
Enough already.
"At a minimum, I believe the water vapor feedback issue is more complicated than most mainstream researchers think it is."
If you had took the time to read Dr Spencers blog post you would have come to the very last sentence. Are you debunking what he is saying about water vapor? Is it really not more complicated than most mainstream researchers think it is?? Maybe this country could use more charlatans like Dr Spencer and less gullible people like yourself. You sure you don't want to learn how to play poker? Your the kinda guy we are always looking for.