Scientific Fraud

[killersheep]

I opened it and admittedly it is all Greek to me. For argument sake lets agree he has a bad model. That makes him in line with 98% of all climate models promoting 100% AGW. Why is his hypothesis any less valid than theirs?

I don't know of ANY models that promote 100% AGW, any at all. I would like for you support that claim to start with. Let's look at this another way to make this clearer..............

What these guys all agree on Spencer and the majority
1. Global Warming is real. The earth is getting warmer.
2. Natural causes can effect global warming.
3. Man has an effect on CO2 emissions.
4. Man has an effect on global warming.
Spencer agrees with all these things and has put forth these things on the record.

What they disagree on Spencer vs. the majority.
1. The degree and net effect of CO2 emissions.
2. If man's effect on CO2 and global warming is nullified by natural cycles
3. Spencer claims (and this is part of his predictive model) that clouds CAUSE climate change rather than being a result of the weather.

NOW before I beg the question too much and answer the implied question of why should we accept the status quo?

The status quo are working on a model that is being tuned to match reality by adding inputs and refining inputs as we learn more on the science. Is it abhorrent that data was misused? Of course all of those should be shunned by the community at large. But what if we were to take honest data and enter it into the models that exist. Well then we are at a good starting point. If the output says no hockey stick, then so be it. If regressive testing shows inconsistencies then we adjust the model and move on, this is science. The foundation of these models is okay, but garbage in, garbage out.
These models have been tested and retested more recently than climategate in three independent studies that are peer reviewed and published. I can link to these if you are actually interested in reading them.

In opposition to this, the Spencer model is based on false premises from the start, go ahead open that spread sheet again, look for the excel function RAND (which generates a random number) it is used four times in his calculations to represent a real input, FOUR TIMES (2 randomized numbers per input for two inputs). We can see that each data point on his graph is created from calculations using a random number generator four times over. It is also based on the dismissed conclusion that clouds CAUSE climate change as highlighted above. So three of the four primary inputs (proofs in action of his hypothesis) are inconclusive.

I hope I illustrated this to your satisfaction without being too dickish.