Dessler says that Spencer’s model matches the data, but it is still wrong.
“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, said of Spencer’s new study.
http://www.livescience.com/
Arthur Smith says that Spencer mismatches the data by a few trillion degrees.
Arthur Smith has now done the full mathematical proof for what I showed by playing around with MATLAB. UPDATED UPDATE: Arthur went on to show that, given the mathematical form of Spencer’s model, he would have to start his model at?To = negative a few trillion degrees in 1000 A.D. to have his model produce a suitable anomaly in 1900 to adequately fit the 20th century data.
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/
Discover Magazine says they are against ad homs – at the end of about 10 paragraphs of them.
I was also surprised to find Spencer is a big supporter of Intelligent Design. I was initially reticent to mention that, since it seems like an ad hominem.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/
I’m not going to be the one to bring up the subject of Kennedy’s religion. – Richard Nixon
