Dr Roy Spencer Speaks

[icanthearyou 4,463]

ichy and homey. I hear you and realize that you don't like Dr Spencer but he is a preeminent scientist for NASA. What do you think of Congressman Raúl Grijalva's abuse of his position to attack the scientists simply because he disagrees with them. Similarly to the attacks on this board by the green machine.

Did I attack Dr. Spencer?

[AFTiger 282]

ichy, you have commented on everything but the subject.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

ichy, you have commented on everything but the subject.

??????????????????

Did you not understand the question?

[AFTiger 282]

And ICHY is right. Spencer is obviously a shill for the denier industry. He's not discussing science, he's discussion politics. That's his bread and butter.

I did not say he was a shill. I did imply that he is making himself look like a shill though.

ichy and homey. I hear you and realize that you don't like Dr Spencer but he is a preeminent scientist for NASA. What do you think of Congressman Raúl Grijalva's abuse of his position to attack the scientists simply because he disagrees with them. Similarly to the attacks on this board by the green machine.

The question you have avoided is the attack on Sr. Spencer by a US Congressman. If you consider yourself a part of the green machine, so be it.

[AURaptor 1,125]

SIAP:

Top climate scientist says global warming is his religion

“For me, the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems, is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”

http://blog.sfgate.com/djsaunders/2015/02/24/top-climate-scientist-says-global-warming-is-his-religion/

[icanthearyou 4,463]

And ICHY is right. Spencer is obviously a shill for the denier industry. He's not discussing science, he's discussion politics. That's his bread and butter.

I did not say he was a shill. I did imply that he is making himself look like a shill though.

ichy and homey. I hear you and realize that you don't like Dr Spencer but he is a preeminent scientist for NASA. What do you think of Congressman Raúl Grijalva's abuse of his position to attack the scientists simply because he disagrees with them. Similarly to the attacks on this board by the green machine.

The question you have avoided is the attack on Sr. Spencer by a US Congressman. If you consider yourself a part of the green machine, so be it.

You did not ask me a question. How is it possible I have avoided one? I asked you a question and, so far, you have avoided answering. That is where we are.

[AFTiger 282]

Boy ichy, you are kinda dense.

What do you think of Congressman Raúl Grijalva's abuse of his position to attack the scientists simply because he disagrees with them?

[homersapien 11,385]

"Congressman Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) has sent letters to universities requesting information on the sources of financial support of seven climate researchers."

Boy Howdy! That's some "attack" all right. :-\

Course, I can understand why he'd rather not talk about his research that presumably informs his opinion:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/oct/21/global-warming-contrarian-paper-unrealistic-inaccurate

[homersapien 11,385]

February, 2014

In a February 20, 2014 blog post titled, “Time to push back against the global warming Nazis,” Spencer wrote:

When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.

They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.

Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.

I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.

[homersapien 11,385]

This guy is a professional contrarian, if not outright kook:

July 2013

Dr Spencer gave evidence to the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works session on climate change. During the hearing (at 3hr 20s), Dr Spencer was asked by Democrat committee member Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: “Do you believe that the theory of creation actually has a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution”.

The question was apparently in reference to an article which Spencer had written several years earlier in which he stated the “theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution”.

Spencer answered that he believed that “evolutionary theory is mostly religion” and that the DNA molecule could not have happened “by chance”. He also claimed that if he was placed in a debate, he would be able to offer more scientific evidence “supporting that life was created” than an opponent could offer that life had evolved.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Boy ichy, you are kinda dense.

What do you think of Congressman Raúl Grijalva's abuse of his position to attack the scientists simply because he disagrees with them?

Sorry. I have to admit I stopped reading past the part where you accused me of "not liking" Dr. Spencer.

Sorry again for not knowing anything about the congressman or, the abuse of power you allege.

[homersapien 11,385]

March 8, 2007

Roy Spencer appeared on the The Great Global Warming Swindle to talk about the “Great Science Funding Conspiracy.” Spencer claims that “climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding.”

Swindle received critical response from the scientific community, including a letter addressed to ABC signed by thirty-seven British Scientists that claimed “the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest. In view of the seriousness of climate change as an issue, it is crucial that public debate about it is balanced and well-informed.”

ABC Australia’s Tony Jones also brings the film's scientific accuracy into question in an interview with the film’s director, Martin Durkin.

[homersapien 11,385]

February 28, 2007

Roy Spencer was interviewed on Rush Limbaugh's Show. See an excerpt below: [11]

http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer

[homersapien 11,385]

July, 2006

Spencer is listed as a “scientific advisor” for an organization called the “Interfaith Stewardship Alliance” (ISA). According to their website, the ISA is “a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development.”

In July 2006, Spencer co-authored an ISA report refuting the work of another religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The ISA report was titled A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor: an Evangelical Response to Global Warming. Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including six that have received a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years. [13]

[AFTiger 282]

Boy ichy, you are kinda dense.

What do you think of Congressman Raúl Grijalva's abuse of his position to attack the scientists simply because he disagrees with them?

Sorry. I have to admit I stopped reading past the part where you accused me of "not liking" Dr. Spencer.

Sorry again for not knowing anything about the congressman or, the abuse of power you allege.

It is certainly clear that Homer doesn't like him. For some reason, homer thinks scientists should be atheists.

[cooltigger21 0]

Boy ichy, you are kinda dense.

What do you think of Congressman Raúl Grijalva's abuse of his position to attack the scientists simply because he disagrees with them?

Sorry. I have to admit I stopped reading past the part where you accused me of "not liking" Dr. Spencer.

Sorry again for not knowing anything about the congressman or, the abuse of power you allege.

It is certainly clear that Homer doesn't like him. For some reason, homer thinks scientists should be atheists.

I don't have enough faith to not believe in God.

[AUDub 11,153]

Boy ichy, you are kinda dense.

What do you think of Congressman Raúl Grijalva's abuse of his position to attack the scientists simply because he disagrees with them?

Sorry. I have to admit I stopped reading past the part where you accused me of "not liking" Dr. Spencer.

Sorry again for not knowing anything about the congressman or, the abuse of power you allege.

It is certainly clear that Homer doesn't like him. For some reason, homer thinks scientists should be atheists.

That's not true. However, the scientific method does fall apart without methodological naturalism. One of those required assumptions, otherwise you end up with "God of the Gaps" hypotheses.

[AFTiger 282]

But what about the political attacks on science?

[homersapien 11,385]

Boy ichy, you are kinda dense.

What do you think of Congressman Raúl Grijalva's abuse of his position to attack the scientists simply because he disagrees with them?

Sorry. I have to admit I stopped reading past the part where you accused me of "not liking" Dr. Spencer.

Sorry again for not knowing anything about the congressman or, the abuse of power you allege.

It is certainly clear that Homer doesn't like him. For some reason, homer thinks scientists should be atheists.

Please stop lying about me. Most of the scientists who formed the pillars of the discipline believed in God.

As far as Dr. Spencer is concerned, I've never met him. I just know him by reputation. Apparently - since you keep throwing up as the gold standard for the case against AGW - you are not familiar with him at all.

[homersapien 11,385]

Boy ichy, you are kinda dense.

What do you think of Congressman Raúl Grijalva's abuse of his position to attack the scientists simply because he disagrees with them?

Sorry. I have to admit I stopped reading past the part where you accused me of "not liking" Dr. Spencer.

Sorry again for not knowing anything about the congressman or, the abuse of power you allege.

It is certainly clear that Homer doesn't like him. For some reason, homer thinks scientists should be atheists.

That's not true. However, the scientific method does fall apart without methodological naturalism. One of those required assumptions, otherwise you end up with "God of the Gaps" hypotheses.

[AUDub 11,153]

Boy ichy, you are kinda dense.

What do you think of Congressman Raúl Grijalva's abuse of his position to attack the scientists simply because he disagrees with them?

Sorry. I have to admit I stopped reading past the part where you accused me of "not liking" Dr. Spencer.

Sorry again for not knowing anything about the congressman or, the abuse of power you allege.

It is certainly clear that Homer doesn't like him. For some reason, homer thinks scientists should be atheists.

That's not true. However, the scientific method does fall apart without methodological naturalism. One of those required assumptions, otherwise you end up with "God of the Gaps" hypotheses.

That's pretty good

[AFTiger 282]

What was before the big bang?

[homersapien 11,385]

What was before the big bang?

Well, I think there are some hypothesizes - or small "t" theories - but no one really knows.

Why do you ask?

[AUDub 11,153]

I like Hawking's response to that question:

...like asking what is north of the North Pole.

[AFTiger 282]

So what about the political attack on science?

Climatist Jihad?

Climate Crisis extremists attack experts who challenge claims of imminent climate Armageddon

ISIL and other Islamist jihad movements continue to round up and silence all who oppose them or refuse to convert to their extreme religious tenets. They are inspiring thousands to join them. Their intolerance, vicious tactics, and growing power seem to have inspired others, as well.

After years of claiming the science is settled and unprecedented manmade catastrophes are occurring right now, Climate Crisis, Inc., is increasingly desperate. Polls put climate change at the bottom of every list of public concerns. China and India refuse to cut energy production or emissions. Real-world weather and climate totally contradict their dire models and forecasts. Expensive, subsidized, environmentally harmful renewable energy makes little sense in world freshly awash in cheap, accessible oil, gas, and coal.

Perhaps worse, Congress is in Republican control, and in 23 months the White House and Executive Branch could also shift dramatically away from the Freezing-Jobless-in-the-Dark Side of the Force.

Climate Crisis industrialists are also fed up with constant carping, criticism, and questions from growing numbers of experts who will not kowtow to their End of Days theology. Once seemingly near, their dream of ruling a hydrocarbon-free world of “sustainably” lower living standards become more remote every week. Extremist factions had dreamed of a global climatist caliphate and want vengeance.

So borrowing from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton mentor Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, they have gone on the attack: Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. A good tactic is one your people enjoy. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions. They’ve also borrowed from the Islamic State playbook:Silence your enemies.

Led by Greenpeace associate Kert Davies, this Climatist Jihad wing of the climate chaos movement has launched a well funded, carefully choreographed vendetta of character assassination and destruction, vilifying dangerous manmade climate change “deniers” and trying to destroy their careers. Their Big Green, Big Government and media allies are either actively complicit, rooting from the sidelines or silent.

Instead of bullets, bombs, and beheadings, they use double standards, Greenpeace FOIA demands, letters from Senator Ed Markey and Congressman Raul Grijalva,RG threats of lost funding and jobs, and constant intimidation and harassment. Submit, recant, admit your guilt, renounce your nature-rules-climate faith, Climatist Jihadis tell climate realists. Or suffer the consequences, which might even include IRS, EPA and Fish & Wildlife Service swat teams bursting through your doors, as they did with Gibson Guitars.

Their first target was Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics scientist Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon. Working closely with Greenpeace’s Climate Investigations Center, the Boston Globe and New York Times alleged that Dr. Soon received $1.25 million from the fossil fuel industry, but failed to disclose those funds when his scientific papers were published and falsely claimed he had no conflict of interest.

The charges are bogus. Harvard had full knowledge of Dr. Soon’s research financing and took 40% of the grant money off the top: some $500,000! The details are all public records, and Dr. Soon has a solid track record of going where his careful and extensive research takes him – regardless of where the money comes from. Not a scrap of evidence suggests that he falsified or fabricated data or conclusions, or twisted his science to satisfy research sponsors, on any of the numerous topics he has studied.

He has received incredible flak from environmentalist pressure groups, media outlets, and even his own university – and has courageously stood behind his research, analyses, and findings, which continue to withstand intense scientific scrutiny. Harvard-Smithsonian recently said it “does not support Dr. Soon’s conclusions on climate change,” and Harvard Earth and Planetary Sciences Professor Daniel Schrag averred that Soon’s approach to finding global average temperatures was perhaps not “as honest as other approaches.” But they offer not a scintilla of evidence to support their allegations of inaccuracy and dishonesty, and give him no opportunity to respond.

Indeed, one of the most prominent aspects of the climate imbroglio is the steadfast refusal of alarmist scientists to discuss or debate their findings with experts who wsoonargue that extensive, powerful natural forces – not human CO2 emissions – drive Earth’s climate and weather. “Manmade disaster” proponents also refuse to divulge raw data, computer codes, and other secretive work that is often paid for with taxpayer money and is always used to justify laws, treaties, regulations, mandates, and subsidies that stifle economic growth, kill jobs, and reduce living standards.

Dr. Soon is not the only target. The Climate Jihadists are also going after Robert Balling, Matt Briggs, John Christy, Judith Curry, Tom Harris, Steven Hayward, David Legates, Richard Lindzen, and Roger Pielke, Jr. More are sure to follow, because their work eviscerates climate cataclysm claims and raises serious questions about the accuracy, credibility, integrity, and sanctity of alarmist science.

Climate Crisis, Inc., wants a monopoly over the issue. Its members focus almost exclusively on alleged human causes of climate change and extreme weather events – and would love to see skeptics silenced. Crisis proponents will not even attend scientific conferences where skeptics discuss natural causes and alarmists have opportunities to defend their hypotheses, models, and evidence. (Perhaps the FCC needs to investigate this monopoly and issue “climate neutrality” rules, to ensure honest and balanced discussion.)

It fits a depressing pattern: of the White House, Democrats, and liberals shutting down debate, permitting no amendments, conducting business behind closed doors, not allowing anyone to read proposed laws and regulations, rarely even recognizing that there are differing views – on ObamaCare, ObamaNetCare, IRS harassment of conservative donors and groups, PM Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, or climate change.

The Climate Crisis industry thrives on tens of billions of dollars annually, for one-sided climate research, drilling and fracking studies, renewable energy projects, and other programs, all based on dubious claims that CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions threaten climate stability and planetary survival.

Businesses, job holders, and consumers pay the huge costs of complying with the resultant regulations and soaring energy costs. Taxpayers pay for much of the researchgreenpeacecriminals and propaganda that drives the rulemaking. Russia and hard-Left foundations have also contributed billions to the process; and government unions, environmental pressure groups, and renewable energy companies give generously to researchers and to politicians who keep the alarmist research programs, regulatory processes, mandates, and subsidies alive.

All of this raises another elephantine issue. If a couple million dollars over a decade’s time creates near-criminal conflict-of-interest and disclosure problems for skeptic/realist scientists, what effects do billions of dollars in research money have on alarmist researchers and their universities and institutions?

Few, if any, alarmist researchers have disclosed that their work was funded by government agencies, companies, foundations, and others with enormous financial, policy, political, and other interests in their work, ensuring that their conclusions support manmade factors and debunk natural causes. Many of those researchers have signed statements that their research and papers involved no conflicts, knowing they would not get these grants, if their outcomes did not reflect the sponsors’ interests and perspectives.

Moreover, ClimateGate, IPCC revelations, and other investigations have revealed extensive and troubling incidents of manipulated data, faulty models, wild exaggerations, and completely baseless claims about hottest years, disappearing glaciers, coastal flooding, and other “crises.” And those claims severely impact our energy costs, jobs, living standards, economic growth, and freedoms.

We need to end the double standard – and investigate the alarmist researchers and institutions.

Or better yet, let us instead have that all-out, open, robust debate that climate realists have long sought – and alarmists have refused to join. Equal government and other money for all research. All cards and evidence on the table. No more hiding data and codes. Answer all questions, no matter how tough or inconvenient. And let honest science decide what our energy and economic futures will be.

- See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2015/02/28/climatist-jihad/#sthash.uYVp78YQ.dpuf