Its just too much to sit back and watch without comment. By now everyone is familiar with the SB/Dressler brouhaha. Dressler thoroughly embarrassed himself and the team. A small feat, but noteworthy. As I stated on my previous post, I’ve little to add to the critique of Dressler’s paper, so I’ll just re-refer people to these two blogs.
One doesn’t need to dig into Dressler’s paper any further. Its tripe. It doesn’t even rise to psuedo-science. Sadly, but predictably, this is the part where the
‘luke warmers’ skeptic apologists come scuttling out to mitigate the damage. How does one mitigate the damage? Two things, first, completely ignore the strawman arguments, lack of logic and contradictory writings and pretend Dressler’s paper is of equal validity as Spencer’s. Then, attack Spencer’s paper with spurious criticisms.
Steve McIntyre has really nice, yet funny, take on the issue. http://climateaudit.org/2011/09/06/the-stone-in-trenberths-shoe/ . I recommend reading it. Though, I’m wondering why it was presented in such a manner? Steve Mac completely destroys the technical part of Dressler’s paper. Personally, I found nothing compelling to venture that deep, but, Steve’s a statistician, so……. But, here’s the thing. While Steve Mac does entirely destroy Dressler, there’s no follow through. No coup de gras. Steve, put these people out of our misery! While I can certainly appreciate civility, there is a time and place for everything, and in this particular instance, Dressler and Trenberth et al are deserving of the civility and sense of decorum they’ve extended to others, which would be none.
Then there is the self proclaimed dialoguer Judy Curry. Apologists love her site. it reinforces their belief in compromise and moderation. One critique of Spencer’s paper is that he didn’t put all of the models tested on a graphic…….. sigh. The implication is that Spencer was trying to hide something. Section 2.2 of SB11 clearly states, “While we computed results for 14 of the models archived, here will present results for only the 3 most sensitive models (MIROC3.2-hires; IPSL-CM4; MIROC3.2-medres), and the 3 least sensitive models (FGOALS; NCAR PCM1; GISS-ER), where their sensitivity to transient carbon dioxide forcing was
estimated by ….”Apparently, he was suppose to include all of the models on the graph to have some nonsensical graphic representation. This is simply another attack on Dr. Spencer that carries no validity. It doesn’t matter if some other models may appear more appeasing and appealing on the graph. There isn’t a model out there that is worth a damn. Spencer was suppose to include all of the useless models on a graph? That’s the dumbest thing …… ok, maybe not the dumbest, but it is a vapid proposition.
I’ve read both papers. There is no doubt as to which one was a scientific endeavor and which one was nothing but an intellectually and morally void attempt at discrediting other people.
I don’t know why people insist on trying to moderate the greater CAGW discussion. Maybe its their way of hedging their bets. It isn’t a smart thing to do. It lends validity where none exists and makes it more difficult for skeptical science to be accepted into the mainstream science. This is something we expect from the team. Not anyone else.
Maybe Steve Goddard is onto something. Maybe it is Sencer’s religious beliefs that we see coming into play here. I hope not, but I can’t find any legitimate reason for SB11 to be lowered to the level of Dressler11 . It simply isn’t accurate to view the papers in an equal manner.
UPDATE! Spencer responds.
Spencer has given his one day response to Dressler at WUWT . It was a short one, which, would be expected, because Dressler was pretty much content free. But here’s something he shared that I thought was interesting……. apparently, Dressler used something called AMIP models. Evidently, these models don’t allow for cloud changes to change the temps. So, presto! Proof that clouds can’t change temps. ……… because the models used don’t allow for clouds to change temps. Sigh…….. its worse than I thought. He addresses other things that have already been discussed here and elsewhere and does so quite well. But, I hope he revisits some to spend more time on them. I’m sure he will. I’d share more of what he stated, but I always think it best to go to the source. Just click on the link to read Dr. Spencer in his own words.