spencer
stoat | September 6, 2011Not me guv, but Tom Fuller (just when I'd given up hope he would ever say something sensible). You might say, "well der". But this chimes in very neatly with a not-fully-discussed problem with the Spencer and Braswell error, which Gavin talks about at RC: With better peer review, Spencer could perhaps have discovered these things for himself, and a better and more useful paper might have resulted. By trying to do an end run around his critics, Spencer ended up running into a wall.
Spencer and his ilk are afraid of peer review. Not for the reasons that they give - that the vast conspiracy will…
stoat | September 3, 2011One issue about the infamous Spencer and Braswell (incidentally, who is Braswell? Everyone is ignoring him, is he a nonentity? ) is, of course, who were the referees? The suspicion voiced in various places is that Spencer managed to wangle skeptics in as his referees; indeed, Wagner in his resignation letter says "The managing editor of Remote Sensing selected three senior scientists from
renowned US universities... the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors" (note the slight contradiction in there: first off,…
stoat | September 2, 2011This couldn't be more damming:
the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing... should therefore not have been published... I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing... I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper's conclusions in public statements
Spencer and the Mystery Journal refers, as does the eerily-similar von…
stoat | July 26, 2011"Dr" Roy Spencer has finally and conclusively demolished all arguments opposing his position that... well, whatever his position is. Read All About It.
But that isn't the interesting bit, obviously. The interesting bit is that the black helicopters are coming for him and his tin-foil hat:
Given the history of the IPCC gatekeepers in trying to kill journal papers that don't agree with their politically-skewed interpretations of science (also see here, here, here, here), I hope you will forgive me holding off for on giving the name of the journal until it is actually published.
So, great paper…
stoat | March 5, 2011And apsmith's Mathematical analysis of Roy Spencer's climate model has the story.
Poor Roy. He has backed himself so far into a corner that he no longer has anyone competent to discuss his ideas with, with the result that he publishes (in a book, because no-one would publish it in a journal) utter twaddle. It is really very difficult to do science all by yourself, and Spencer is certainly failing.
[2015 update: I often think of this post, and this concept, when reading the stuff from the Dork Side. Its not just Spencer; Curry is in the same boat and then so is JoNova with her Force X stuff;…
stoat | July 29, 2010Header shamelessly stolen from Coby. But his post is so wonderful that I can't help re-saying it.
So: Roy Spencer says that the basic greenhouse effect mechanism is sound; or perhaps, more weakly, that the basic mechanism is phyically possible. You might think that is not very strange, after all it isn't really very dificult. But alas so many poor innocent young and not-so-young wannabe "skeptics" have been exposed to the denialist meme "cold things can't make warm things warmer; the upper atmophere is colder than the surface; therefore the atmosphere doesn't heat the surface; therefore the…
illconsidered | July 29, 2010Dr Roy Spencer, normally a darling of the septics, is getting the full denialist savaging over at his own blog for daring to defend the physical basis for the greenhouse effect.
CanadaFreePress saw "NASA" in his job title and must have mistaken him for Jim Hansen as they hold nothing back in their scorn.
All very amusing!
illconsidered | May 22, 2010Roy Spencer, darling of the climate skeptic community, says he is not very organized, as Phil Jones said of himself, and that
"if you asked me to find original data from 20 years ago I'd have great difficulty too. We just didn't realise in those days how important and controversial this would all become - now it would just all be stored on computer."
This is quoted in a BBC article on the recent Heartland climate conference in New York.
Spencer goes on to say:
"Phil Jones has been looking at climate records for a very long time. Frankly our data set agrees with his, so unless we are all…
stoat | May 18, 2010David Appell has a rather dramatic graph:
It is from Roy Spencer. As DA says: I'm sure those skeptics who pored over every detail of the sea ice this winter will be touting this picture soon :-).
[Update: BCL points me to http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2009/07/pielke-sr-respnds.html which again suggests problems with UAH. Well, we all know we should use RSS anyway. Hopefully they will provide the funky interface
Update: Picture post: 'hottest April ever' says Nurture -W]
stoat | February 14, 2010As I was about to write up the latest smoggy stuff, I thought I'd better check out Eli in case he had written it up first. And lo, I thought, Condolences referred to the death of Christy's scientific reputation. But no, it is about real death. So I need to press on.
[[John Christy]] has been a bit of a skeptic for ages. Quite where he gets it from is unclear - perhaps because he and Spencer did the first version of the [[satellite temperature record]] and, well, they got it wrong. In that it showed cooling, and so they became the poster boys for the real septics like Singer and Michaels and…