No it doesn’t. Only contrary scientific research can cast doubt on his scientific research.

It is sad how many global warming alarmists there are who can’t rebut someone’s science, so instead they engage in ad hominem attacks. It has gotten to the point where they think such an attack demonstrates anything but their own ignorance.

Indeed, but what is religion if not dogma? What are heretics, if not those who question or reject religion?

Dyson states he is a humanist. Humanists are atheists.

Newton lived in a time when literally EVERYONE was religious. It was pumped into your brain from the day you were born. You couldn’t NOT be religious, at least not openly: atheists were indeed branded heretics and persecuted. No-one even considered the possibility of god not existing back then, it was taken as read, no-one questioned it.

And no, we shouldn’t reject Newton’s findings, because they have been reproduced thousands of times over hundreds of years by hundreds of scientists. Also, Newton’s religious views had no impact on that area of his science. He also researched occults studies, alchemy and the apocalypse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies#Newton.27s_alchemical_research_and_writings

But in today’s society, when people are open to the idea of the non-existance of God, it is frankly embarrassing for a scientist to proclaim a disbelief in truly settled science, based on stories written in a 2,000 year old book.

It doesn’t make Spencer’s findings incorrect, but it casts some doubt on his scientific credentials (as it does on Newton’s other areas of work), unless these results can be reliably re-produced by some other, independent parties.

Sorry for the rant

This post:
Posted by: Vince | August 26, 2008 at 12:42 PM was not me.

Who is ‘James Hanson’ and why do you declare him wrong? More importantly as far as this thread goes, do you declare Roy Spencer right? Do you think scientists generally are in agreement with your ‘declarations’?

This is what is known as an ad hominem argument; arguing from the characteristics of the arguer rather than the content of the argument itself. It’s a well-known logical fallacy. And whatever you might say about a creationist, someone who accepts ad hominem arguments as a basis for making scientific judgements is quite definitely not a good scientist.

I have no more problem with declaring Roy Spencer wrong on ID than I do on declaring James Hanson wrong on catastrophic warming (and right on ID). Only people who rely on authority would think this argument could have any weight.

I wonder what Freeman Dyson thinks of scientists who hold beliefs outside of the mainstream?

Oh wait, I have a quote and a link (I suggest that everyone interested in climate science and public policy read the full [prose] article, not just the following excerpt):

In the modern world, science and society often interact in a perverse way. We live in a technological society, and technology causes political problems. The politicians and the public expect science to provide answers to the problems. Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide answers. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, “Sorry, but we don’t know”. The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities. So it happens that the experts who talk publicly about politically contentious questions tend to speak more clearly than they think. They make confident predictions about the future, and end up believing their own predictions. Their predictions become dogmas which they do not question. The public is led to believe that the fashionable scientific dogmas are true, and it may sometimes happen that they are wrong. That is why heretics who question the dogmas are needed. [emphasis added]

Probably it is because he actually performs science

Dunno, I’m just guessing.

You got anything to impeach his publications?