Zed

Should you look back in, you can see the clear difference in trend between UAH and RSS here:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

UAH has the higher trend.

While you have your doubts about Spencer's integrity, perhaps this will dispel them at least a little?

Zed

No problem - happens to me a lot.

Thanks for the tip on following up the funding.

As I said earlier, I don't automatically accord Spencer a clean bill of health, nor am I comfortable with some of his political affiliations. But he could still be right about clouds. And if he isn't then someone will come along with a convincing demonstration of why he is in error. Until that happens, I will wait and see.

I'm pretty sure you know I am a 'lukewarmer' rather than a flat-out contrarian, so you will know that I don't want to pick a fight with you about the essentials.

I'm going to guess that you acknowledge that there are misrepresentations on both 'sides' and that the war of attrition debate is not helped by them. Likewise the strong language.

I really do appreciate you efforts to come up with an alternative to the d-word. Hopefully some of the more excitable language here might be shamed away, in time.

Although I'm probably succumbing to wishful thinking here...

BBD - sorry, crossover posts.

Look at the organisations he's part of, and click on them for details of Exxon funding. You can be fairly confident it's right, simply because they'd get sued every which way since Sunday if it wasn't accurate. Can one point a finger and explicitly say that Roy Spencer is paid money to counter AGW science? Of course not. But to be that involved in so many groups paid by Exxon to, y'know, that word Andrew doesn't like which I'm still looking for a replacement for, is surely sufficient to paint what must be an accurate picture.

Zed

Sounds like the real flu. Take it easy.

Understood re S&B 2010, but to be honest it is a really interesting paper. If obviously flawed, I reckon it would have been very publicly shredded by now. We shall see.

For the record, when you are on form you are often spot-on. It is unfortunate that the debate has got so entrenched that fewer and fewer participants seem able to play football in no-man's land.

BBD, almost gone thanks, seriously though, it's been kicking around my system for a month? That's like some Victorian ailment that necessitated taking abed in the sickroom whilst the bad vapours cleared.

His 2010 paper - I honestly don't know. I've kind of written him off for good on account of past errors and behaviour. I'm not actually inclined to start really poring through the most recent paper, as he's good at what he does, and it can take a really, really long time to find where the fudge is. My assumption is that if he gets one that not easily falsified, then it will go very big indeed, very quickly. In the interim, I'm happy to (lazily) let someone else go though it with a toothcomb. Gavin will probably do it, he's dedicated like that.

And for the record, I believe you to be closer to actual scepticism, than most posters here.

Zed

I've looked at the Exxon Secrets link and there's no clear indication that Spencer is being actively funded by Exxon or anyone else. What am I missing?

Thanks for the links Zed

Sorry to hear that you've been stricken. Hope it clears up soon.

I spend quite a bit of time at RC and I have a saved link to Exxon Secrets too... But re the RC post, it refers to old data, not the central question of whether Spencer & Braswell 2010 is in error. I note there has been no substantive riposte to this paper as yet. S&B freely admit that their 2008 paper was flawed.

You might find this odd, but I am as suspicious of Spencer's political affiliations as you are. But let's stick to the science.

Oh dear...

In Denial - Climate on the Couch

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y92mn

Weird. Couldn't post last night. Couldn't post this morning. Managed to post the comment below and have now successfully posted elsewhere too.

I'm having trouble posting comments in the Legal Unpleasantries and Culpability threads. I get the captcha box every time and an error message appears saying (In Google Chrome)

This webpage is not available
The webpage at http://www.bishop-hill.net/process/CreateJournalEntryComment?moduleId=902845&entryId=10355407 might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address.
Error 101 (net::ERR_CONNECTION_RESET): Unknown error.

Tried to post with Google Chrome 9.0.597.84
and
Firefox 3.6.8