A whole bunch. He is my favorite because he is the most hated and reviled man among all the scientists that do research in this field. If you go to his site and read his blogs he references countless other of his fellow scientists that he has done research with. JHU hates his guts so that gives him all the credibility in the world in my book... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... rojections since you asked
Hate is a strong word. Spencer has been de-bunked
How has been debunked? I have read countless hours of his blog site in the comments section. There are people in this field of science that disagree with and they go back and forth all the time. I think you are confusing debunking for disagreeing with his research. I do know there are vast numbers of people on the environmental extremist side that are working tirelessly attempting to discredit Dr Spencer's work. They even spend more time doing so than researching on their own. For further clarification... Dr Spencer's work covers quite a spectrum of scientific issues. I am guessing maybe a hundred. Which ones have been debunked? Some, most of them or all if them...
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
A whole bunch. He is my favorite because he is the most hated and reviled man among all the scientists that do research in this field. If you go to his site and read his blogs he references countless other of his fellow scientists that he has done research with. JHU hates his guts so that gives him all the credibility in the world in my book... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... rojections since you asked
Hate is a strong word. Spencer has been de-bunked
How has been debunked? I have read countless hours of his blog site in the comments section. There are people in this field of science that disagree with and they go back and forth all the time. I think you are confusing debunking for disagreeing with his research. I do know there are vast numbers of people on the environmental extremist side that are working tirelessly attempting to discredit Dr Spencer's work. They even spend more time doing so than researching on their own. For further clarification... Dr Spencer's work covers quite a spectrum of scientific issues. I am guessing maybe a hundred. Which ones have been debunked? Some, most of them or all if them...
A whole bunch. He is my favorite because he is the most hated and reviled man among all the scientists that do research in this field. If you go to his site and read his blogs he references countless other of his fellow scientists that he has done research with. JHU hates his guts so that gives him all the credibility in the world in my book... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... rojections since you asked
Hate is a strong word. Spencer has been de-bunked
How has been debunked? I have read countless hours of his blog site in the comments section. There are people in this field of science that disagree with and they go back and forth all the time. I think you are confusing debunking for disagreeing with his research. I do know there are vast numbers of people on the environmental extremist side that are working tirelessly attempting to discredit Dr Spencer's work. They even spend more time doing so than researching on their own. For further clarification... Dr Spencer's work covers quite a spectrum of scientific issues. I am guessing maybe a hundred. Which ones have been debunked? Some, most of them or all if them...
I'm talking meat and potatoes and your bringing up marshmallow fluff from the same organizations that I mentioned are working so hard to discredit the man. You swallow the bait hook line and sinker. Read up on some of the specific things Dr Spencer has researched and discussed for many years. Maybe educating yourself and coming to your own conclusions might be beneficial for you. When I get home tonight I will throw a couple of these your way. If you get curious you can debunk Dr Spencer's research into Pacific Decadal Ocsillation.
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
A whole bunch. He is my favorite because he is the most hated and reviled man among all the scientists that do research in this field. If you go to his site and read his blogs he references countless other of his fellow scientists that he has done research with. JHU hates his guts so that gives him all the credibility in the world in my book... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... rojections since you asked
Hate is a strong word. Spencer has been de-bunked
How has been debunked? I have read countless hours of his blog site in the comments section. There are people in this field of science that disagree with and they go back and forth all the time. I think you are confusing debunking for disagreeing with his research. I do know there are vast numbers of people on the environmental extremist side that are working tirelessly attempting to discredit Dr Spencer's work. They even spend more time doing so than researching on their own. For further clarification... Dr Spencer's work covers quite a spectrum of scientific issues. I am guessing maybe a hundred. Which ones have been debunked? Some, most of them or all if them...
I'm talking meat and potatoes and your bringing up marshmallow fluff from the same organizations that I mentioned are working so hard to discredit the man. You swallow the bait hook line and sinker. Read up on some of the specific things Dr Spencer has researched and discussed for many years. Maybe educating yourself and coming to your own conclusions might be beneficial for you. When I get home tonight I will throw a couple of these your way. If you get curious you can debunk Dr Spencer's research on Pacific Decadal Occilation. Something he just dreamed up on night out of thin air
I didn’t say Dr. Spencer is incompetent. He is knowledgeable on various subjects. What I said was that some of his pronouncements have been debunked. Is that not true?
A whole bunch. He is my favorite because he is the most hated and reviled man among all the scientists that do research in this field. If you go to his site and read his blogs he references countless other of his fellow scientists that he has done research with. JHU hates his guts so that gives him all the credibility in the world in my book... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... rojections since you asked
Hate is a strong word. Spencer has been de-bunked
How has been debunked? I have read countless hours of his blog site in the comments section. There are people in this field of science that disagree with and they go back and forth all the time. I think you are confusing debunking for disagreeing with his research. I do know there are vast numbers of people on the environmental extremist side that are working tirelessly attempting to discredit Dr Spencer's work. They even spend more time doing so than researching on their own. For further clarification... Dr Spencer's work covers quite a spectrum of scientific issues. I am guessing maybe a hundred. Which ones have been debunked? Some, most of them or all if them...
I'm talking meat and potatoes and your bringing up marshmallow fluff from the same organizations that I mentioned are working so hard to discredit the man. You swallow the bait hook line and sinker. Read up on some of the specific things Dr Spencer has researched and discussed for many years. Maybe educating yourself and coming to your own conclusions might be beneficial for you. When I get home tonight I will throw a couple of these your way. If you get curious you can debunk Dr Spencer's research into Pacific Decadal Ocsillation.
In particular I like this graph from the Guardian article:
512cdcb4-5f38-4d94-bf05-5a05ccbf17f9-bestSizeAvailable.png (11.71 KiB) Viewed 1490 times
Shows how his research keeps getting updated and in doing so keeps getting closer to the actual data conclusions provided by the other climate researchers. Quite indicative of bad initial research. Why should we trust what he says when you see crap like this?
analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that color=#0000BF]]66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW,[/color]] 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Does anyone else read this to mean that 66% of PEEr reviewed abstracts express NO position on AGW ? Does this also mean that it is a fabrication, distortion, to claim that 97% represents peer reviewed abstracts/endorsements, when the very study claims otherwise.
Last edited by runrussellrun on Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
A whole bunch. He is my favorite because he is the most hated and reviled man among all the scientists that do research in this field. If you go to his site and read his blogs he references countless other of his fellow scientists that he has done research with. JHU hates his guts so that gives him all the credibility in the world in my book... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... rojections since you asked
Hate is a strong word. Spencer has been de-bunked
How has been debunked? I have read countless hours of his blog site in the comments section. There are people in this field of science that disagree with and they go back and forth all the time. I think you are confusing debunking for disagreeing with his research. I do know there are vast numbers of people on the environmental extremist side that are working tirelessly attempting to discredit Dr Spencer's work. They even spend more time doing so than researching on their own. For further clarification... Dr Spencer's work covers quite a spectrum of scientific issues. I am guessing maybe a hundred. Which ones have been debunked? Some, most of them or all if them...
I'm talking meat and potatoes and your bringing up marshmallow fluff from the same organizations that I mentioned are working so hard to discredit the man. You swallow the bait hook line and sinker. Read up on some of the specific things Dr Spencer has researched and discussed for many years. Maybe educating yourself and coming to your own conclusions might be beneficial for you. When I get home tonight I will throw a couple of these your way. If you get curious you can debunk Dr Spencer's research into Pacific Decadal Ocsillation.
In particular I like this graph from the Guardian article:
Shows how his research keeps getting updated and in doing so keeps getting closer to the actual data conclusions provided by the other climate researchers. Quite indicative of bad initial research. Why should we trust what he says when you see dump like this?
I wonder where that fair minded man of science schtick of your went? I can only say the same thing to you I have said to others... go to Dr Spencer's blog site scroll down to the comments and take him to task. He debates people that disagree with him all of the time on substance. If you have a bone to pick... pick it with him. Unless of course you are not up to the task. In fairness to you what do you think of Dr Spencer's research and observations about PDO? Is it just more garbage science from Dr Spencer?
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that color=#0000BF]]66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW,[/color]] 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Does anyone else read this to mean that 66% of PEEr reviewed abstracts express NO position on AGW ? Does this also mean that it is a fabrication, distortion, to claim that 97% represents peer reviewed abstracts/endorsements, when the very study claims otherwise.
You saying Roy Spencer’s arguments have not been debunked?
I am saying , or debunking, the group YOU thinks debunked Dr. Spencer. Rather, I am providing their own FACTS/stats into a discussion started by others.
Do you agree with me, that the 97%, at the very best, is an embellished claim regarding consensus, when their own research shows that 2 of 3 make NO mention of AGW ? yes or no
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:39 pm
I am saying , or debunking, the group YOU thinks debunked Dr. Spencer. Rather, I am providing their own FACTS/stats into a discussion started by others.
Do you agree with me, that the 97%, at the very best, is an embellished claim regarding consensus, when their own research shows that 2 of 3 make NO mention of AGW ? yes or no
Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research...
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:39 pm
I am saying , or debunking, the group YOU thinks debunked Dr. Spencer. Rather, I am providing their own FACTS/stats into a discussion started by others.
Do you agree with me, that the 97%, at the very best, is an embellished claim regarding consensus, when their own research shows that 2 of 3 make NO mention of AGW ? yes or no
Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research...
I am good with that.
Why beat the dead consensus horse, especially if you are one of them there teacher types at fancy U. ?
1 in 10 .......1 in 30.......1 in 40......these are vanishingly small proportions, correct? I can't find ANY numbers attributed to this quote.....you?
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Interesting link Holmes... I appreciate their invite to buy whatever they were selling. I politely turned it down. I may be wrong but when you post a link to support your chain of thought should it not have some relevance to your point?
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:39 pm
I am saying , or debunking, the group YOU thinks debunked Dr. Spencer. Rather, I am providing their own FACTS/stats into a discussion started by others.
Do you agree with me, that the 97%, at the very best, is an embellished claim regarding consensus, when their own research shows that 2 of 3 make NO mention of AGW ? yes or no
Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research...
I am good with that.
Why beat the dead consensus horse, especially if you are one of them there teacher types at fancy U. ?
1 in 10 .......1 in 30.......1 in 40......these are vanishingly small proportions, correct? I can't find ANY numbers attributed to this quote.....you?
Anyway, I was talking about Roy Spencer's old assertions being debunked. Are you saying, Roy Spencer's claims were not debunked? A vanishing small number of people believe NFL games are fixed. I don't have that number either but I am using something called common sense...as opposed ton NON sense.
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:39 pm
I am saying , or debunking, the group YOU thinks debunked Dr. Spencer. Rather, I am providing their own FACTS/stats into a discussion started by others.
Do you agree with me, that the 97%, at the very best, is an embellished claim regarding consensus, when their own research shows that 2 of 3 make NO mention of AGW ? yes or no
Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research...
I am good with that.
Why beat the dead consensus horse, especially if you are one of them there teacher types at fancy U. ?
1 in 10 .......1 in 30.......1 in 40......these are vanishingly small proportions, correct? I can't find ANY numbers attributed to this quote.....you?
Anyway, I was talking about Roy Spencer's old assertions being debunked. Are you saying, Roy Spencer's claims were not debunked? A vanishing small number of people believe NFL games are fixed. I don't have that number either but I am using something called common sense...as opposed ton NON sense.
which claims ?
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:39 pm
I am saying , or debunking, the group YOU thinks debunked Dr. Spencer. Rather, I am providing their own FACTS/stats into a discussion started by others.
Do you agree with me, that the 97%, at the very best, is an embellished claim regarding consensus, when their own research shows that 2 of 3 make NO mention of AGW ? yes or no
Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research...
I am good with that.
Why beat the dead consensus horse, especially if you are one of them there teacher types at fancy U. ?
1 in 10 .......1 in 30.......1 in 40......these are vanishingly small proportions, correct? I can't find ANY numbers attributed to this quote.....you?
Anyway, I was talking about Roy Spencer's old assertions being debunked. Are you saying, Roy Spencer's claims were not debunked? A vanishing small number of people believe NFL games are fixed. I don't have that number either but I am using something called common sense...as opposed ton NON sense.
Interesting link Holmes... I appreciate their invite to buy whatever they were selling. I politely turned it down. I may be wrong but when you post a link to support your chain of thought should it not have some relevance to your point?
