Daniel,
How to keep this civil when faced with your attacks is getting difficult for me to manage.
How would you like me to attack one of your papers without even bothering to read it. You've attacked the credibility of my research in 1979 without having any knowledge of what it really was, the methodology or pretty much anything else. That really is rather low.
And 1979 was not the beginning of science as we know it. Your dates as to personal computers are not even accurate. Actually I had a personal computer in either late 1979 or early 1980. Cannot quite remember the date. Personal computers were available from 1976 and such computers as TRS-80s were quite popular. It was the IBM PC that first appeared in 1981 but that is not the same thing at all.
Yes, it was difficult or time consuming to obtain data. I already mentioned that. But what difference does that make to whether a study had or has validity? The study was obviously defective because you couldn't simply go online and download huge quantities of data that you are now able to do? What rubbish! There might have been the odd transcription error but probably no more so than the data that is currently being used. It too was transcribed at some point from paper records.
The data went back 80 years. The same data is used in current studies except that the data includes records after 1979. The same statement still holds true. The problem was in locating accurate data. Data known not to have been corrupted by changes in record keeping methodology, equipment, the environment surrounding the equipment etc. That is true for the data whether it is easily downloaded in a comma deliminated file or is available only on paper.
You very specifically asked me to back up any comment I made by explicit references to URLs. Have a look at your previous comments relating to this and see just what you said, yet in response to the very same request made to you, you state:
"Well Archer studies do not walk up to your door, knock politely, and ask to be invited in.
Try a library.
Easy Life ... if you can't stand the heat ... either get out the kitchen or use Google."
Back up your arguments, Daniel, or you have demonstrated you are the worst type of scientist, one willing to criticise any theory that goes against you pet beliefs or the mainstream, but unwilling to even back up such criticisms with reference to any specific research.
Your comment on the theory relating to meteorite effects being "it is just a crackpot looking for attention." is simply appalling. Do you know this scientist? Have you read his research? The interesting thing is he only postulates the meteorite theory as one alternative that bears further investigation. A pretty reasonable thing to suggest. From his research that I have so far been able to read, he makes a number of interesting points and some quite valid arguments concerning just how big an effect intermediate clouds with significant reflectivity have on the earth's climate.
I can only suggest you attempt reasoned arguments with references to studies that support your views other than ?use Google? and actually do more than rubbish others? views if you really want people to do more than what is now happening and really consider what you believe to be right.
Regards
Richard
