Dr Roy Spencer Speaks

[DKW 86 7,426]

What was before the big bang?

You see there are two differing opinions here.

1) A Miracle occurs at creation and voila' we have the Universe. Call that Creationism.

2) Then you have the Evolutionists view, that basically says, First, A MIRACLE HAPPENS and all this matter appears out of absolute nothing and voila' it completely randomly aligns itself into the complicated forms of aminos strings complete with just the cosmically complicated levels of 230+ enzymes in exactly the correct ratios and then the pixie dust comes along and all manages to somehow JUST happen to create life.

Hope i got all that right. But, basically, the miracle happens in the beginning or in the middle or somewhere. There is a reason why this is all called theory.

No. You didn't get it right. Nothing in the above passage makes any sense at all, and you should feel bad for having typed it out.

I hope you realized it was all tongue in cheek...but apparently you didnt.

And apparently you caught it before the final version as i was editting.

[AUDub 11,153]

What was before the big bang?

You see there are two differing opinions here.

1) A Miracle occurs at creation and voila' we have the Universe. Call that Creationism.

2) Then you have the Evolutionists view, that basically says, First, A MIRACLE HAPPENS and all this matter appears out of absolute nothing and voila' it completely randomly aligns itself into the complicated forms of aminos strings complete with just the cosmically complicated levels of 230+ enzymes in exactly the correct ratios and then the pixie dust comes along and all manages to somehow JUST happen to create life.

Hope i got all that right. But, basically, the miracle happens in the beginning or in the middle or somewhere. There is a reason why this is all called theory.

No. You didn't get it right. Nothing in the above passage makes any sense at all, and you should feel bad for having typed it out.

I hope you realized it was all tongue in cheek...but apparently you didnt.

Oh, don't get all testy. I laughed, didn't I? It was funny whether you meant it to be or not.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

So the green machine refuses to answer the question. The thread was not about Stephen Hawking or even global warming. The question is should politicians interfere with science research? Homer, Homer, ICHY,------- anybody?

First, Raptor is the one asking about Hawking's view on AGW as a threat.

No. Politicians should not interfere with climate research.

What is the "green machine"?

Actually I was but, you know,,,,,,,,,,,,,, me, Raptor, same thing.

Well, I was responding to Raptor. I figured you could look it up on your own.

Hey, don't give me more credit than I deserve. And, I don't do anything that I can get Stry or Big to do for me.

I think Big is on to me though. That or he put me on ignore.

Been struggling with a plumbing disaster all day. How do you break connection between the copper pipe and the shutoff valve to the toilet, you may ask? My 9 year old can now answer. Water everywhere.

One plus, though. I have now learned how to sweat pipe. Easier than I expected.

Been there. Done that. It's all about the flux.

Another tip: Before pulling the trigger on a nail gun, think about where the pipes are in the walls.

[AUDub 11,153]

As for the question, ICHY, I seriously doubt Hawking has downgraded his opinion on the threat global warming poses. He has been very clear on the matter.

[WarTim 3,456]

So the green machine refuses to answer the question. The thread was not about Stephen Hawking or even global warming. The question is should politicians interfere with science research? Homer, Homer, ICHY,------- anybody?

First, Raptor is the one asking about Hawking's view on AGW as a threat.

No. Politicians should not interfere with climate research.

What is the "green machine"?

Actually I was but, you know,,,,,,,,,,,,,, me, Raptor, same thing.

Well, I was responding to Raptor. I figured you could look it up on your own.

Hey, don't give me more credit than I deserve. And, I don't do anything that I can get Stry or Big to do for me.

I think Big is on to me though. That or he put me on ignore.

Been struggling with a plumbing disaster all day. How do you break connection between the copper pipe and the shutoff valve to the toilet, you may ask? My 9 year old can now answer. Water everywhere.

One plus, though. I have now learned how to sweat pipe. Easier than I expected. :cool:/>

Amazing what our children can force us to learn. My oldest,when she was 4, attempted to flush our cat...

[icanthearyou 4,463]

As for the question, ICHY, I seriously doubt Hawking has downgraded his opinion on the threat global warming poses. He has been very clear on the matter.

But, it doesn't make his list of top threats to humankind? Not exactly the kind of guy to overlook something. I have to admit, that makes me wonder.

[AUDub 11,153]

So the green machine refuses to answer the question. The thread was not about Stephen Hawking or even global warming. The question is should politicians interfere with science research? Homer, Homer, ICHY,------- anybody?

First, Raptor is the one asking about Hawking's view on AGW as a threat.

No. Politicians should not interfere with climate research.

What is the "green machine"?

Actually I was but, you know,,,,,,,,,,,,,, me, Raptor, same thing.

Well, I was responding to Raptor. I figured you could look it up on your own.

Hey, don't give me more credit than I deserve. And, I don't do anything that I can get Stry or Big to do for me.

I think Big is on to me though. That or he put me on ignore.

Been struggling with a plumbing disaster all day. How do you break connection between the copper pipe and the shutoff valve to the toilet, you may ask? My 9 year old can now answer. Water everywhere.

One plus, though. I have now learned how to sweat pipe. Easier than I expected.

Been there. Done that. It's all about the flux.

Another tip: Before pulling the trigger on a nail gun, think about where the pipes are in the walls.

I'm actually very careful about that sort of thing. I had to map where the electrical lines were during the (ongoing) process of automating everything, I know where the water lines are well enough for going on with.

[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.

Many of these guys got funding back in the late 70s and early 80s by creating The Coming Ice Age Crisis.

Yes, i and many more can plainly see that whatever the crisis du jour is, that is right where SOME of these guys will be with their hands out.

Not sure I get your meaning, but incidentally speaking, the idea that the scientific community in general was postulating a "coming ice age" is bogus. That was a media-fueled phenomenon based on a one opinion.

[homersapien 11,385]

What was before the big bang?

You see there are two differing opinions here.

1) A Miracle occurs at creation and voila' we have the Universe. Call that Creationism.

2) Then you have the Evolutionists view, that basically says, First, A MIRACLE HAPPENS and all this matter appears out of absolute nothing via a Big Bang Episode where Sheldon calls Penny stupid or something and voila' it completely randomly aligns itself into the complicated forms of aminos strings complete with just the cosmically complicated levels of 230+ enzymes in exactly the correct ratios and then the pixie dust comes along and all manages to somehow JUST happen to create life.

Hope i got all that right. But, basically, the miracle happens in the beginning or in the middle or somewhere. There is a reason why this is all called theory.

Wrong. "Evolutionists" (meaning every serious scientist in the field) make no claims whatsoever about what they don't know. They may hypothesize, but they don't make claims.

And please, look up the scientific definition of "Theory". I am tired of explaining it.

[AURaptor 1,125]

So the green machine refuses to answer the question. The thread was not about Stephen Hawking or even global warming. The question is should politicians interfere with science research? Homer, Homer, ICHY,------- anybody?

First, Raptor is the one asking about Hawking's view on AGW as a threat.

No. Politicians should not interfere with climate research.

What is the "green machine"?

No, I wasn't. BigBens did, which was followed by ICHY's question, to which I answered, later on.

See, you can't even follow the basics of reading a thread on a message board correctly.

[DKW 86 7,426]

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.

Many of these guys got funding back in the late 70s and early 80s by creating The Coming Ice Age Crisis.

Yes, i and many more can plainly see that whatever the crisis du jour is, that is right where SOME of these guys will be with their hands out.

Not sure I get your meaning, but incidentally speaking, the idea that the scientific community in general was postulating a "coming ice age" is bogus. That was a media-fueled phenomenon based on a one opinion. :bs:

homer, you couldnt get the meaning in a good straight forward wet dream.

The idea that the Looming Ice Age was brought forward by ONE person is just freaking ludicrous.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

PLEASE DO NOT THINK I AM ADVOCATING ANYONE USE "SKEPTICAL SCIENCE" AS A VALID SOURCE.

I AM USING IT PROVE THE MOUTH BREATHING, KNUCKLE DRAGGING, DROOLING TOOL WRONG IN HIS ASSERTIONS.

In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

[homersapien 11,385]

So the green machine refuses to answer the question. The thread was not about Stephen Hawking or even global warming. The question is should politicians interfere with science research? Homer, Homer, ICHY,------- anybody?

First, Raptor is the one asking about Hawking's view on AGW as a threat.

No. Politicians should not interfere with climate research.

What is the "green machine"?

No, I wasn't. BigBens did, which was followed by ICHY's question, to which I answered, later on.

See, you can't even follow the basics of reading a thread on a message board correctly.

I'm sorry. My mistake. I read you're post #63 in isolation and I interpreted it to mean you were asking about Hawking yourself.

I will say it was a reasonable mistake considering there was no quote included to specify exactly what you were talking about, so perhaps you contributed to my error by making an ambiguous post?

[AURaptor 1,125]

So in the " confusion " , you still felt the need to comment anyways.

[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.

Many of these guys got funding back in the late 70s and early 80s by creating The Coming Ice Age Crisis.

Yes, i and many more can plainly see that whatever the crisis du jour is, that is right where SOME of these guys will be with their hands out.

Not sure I get your meaning, but incidentally speaking, the idea that the scientific community in general was postulating a "coming ice age" is bogus. That was a media-fueled phenomenon based on a one opinion. :bs:

homer, you couldnt get the meaning in a good straight forward wet dream.

The idea that the Looming Ice Age was brought forward by ONE person is just freaking ludicrous.

http://www.skeptical...ns-in-1970s.htm

PLEASE DO NOT THINK I AM ADVOCATING ANYONE USE "SKEPTICAL SCIENCE" AS A VALID SOURCE.

I AM USING IT PROVE THE MOUTH BREATHING, KNUCKLE DRAGGING, DROOLING TOOL WRONG IN HIS ASSERTIONS.

In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

OK, fine. It was more than just one. :-\ My point is that it was hyped by the media as if it were a general consensus.

You got me. I was posting from memory and didn't bother to look it up. Congratulations to you for looking it up and correcting me.

And congratulations for using a good site that references their claims.

[homersapien 11,385]

So in the " confusion " , you still felt the need to comment anyways.

No, I wasn't confused. I was in error.

I thought by your post you were also asking. You didn't include anything in the post to make me think otherwise.

I apologized and said I was wrong, what else do you need?

(P.S.: You left out the dancing banana in celebration of my error. )

[AURaptor 1,125]

Homie - you being in error is so commonplace, " dancing banana abuse " is a real thing unless I show some restraint,

[homersapien 11,385]

Homie - you being in error is so commonplace, " dancing banana abuse " is a real thing unless I show some restraint,

That's BS and you know it.

One thing though, If I do make an error I will man-up and concede that I did. That's a ---- of a lot more than you can say.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Homie - you being in error is so commonplace, " dancing banana abuse " is a real thing unless I show some restraint,

That's BS and you know it.

One thing though, If I do make an error I will man-up and concede that I did. That's a hell of a lot more than you can say.

This is the truth. If that makes me a "liberal" or, a member of the "Jonestowners", or a member of the "PC crowd", or a member of the "posse" or, whatever this weeks meme is, then so be it.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Homie - you being in error is so commonplace, " dancing banana abuse " is a real thing unless I show some restraint,

That's BS and you know it.

It was part joke, part not. But don't tell me what I " know ".

One thing though, If I do make an error I will man-up and concede that I did. That's a ---- of a lot more than you can say.

And yet another " error ".

[DKW 86 7,426]

OK, fine. It was more than just one. :-\ My point is that it was hyped by the media as if it were a general consensus.

You got me. I was posting from memory and didn't bother to look it up. Congratulations to you for looking it up and correcting me.

And congratulations for using a good FTFY site that references their claims.

Well, i didnt say i agreed with half of their craziness there, but i knew if they had the info, then you wouldnt go off on a "denial by source" tangent.

You see, we can actually have a discussion of peers and it be informative for all.

[homersapien 11,385]

OK, fine. It was more than just one. :-\ My point is that it was hyped by the media as if it were a general consensus.

You got me. I was posting from memory and didn't bother to look it up. Congratulations to you for looking it up and correcting me.

And congratulations for using a good FTFY site that references their claims.

Well, i didnt say i agreed with half of their craziness there, but i knew if they had the info, then you wouldnt go off on a "denial by source" tangent.

You see, we can actually have a discussion of peers and it be informative for all.

Well, every item of their "craziness" is referenced, so I suggest you educate yourself.

[DKW 86 7,426]

OK, fine. It was more than just one. :-\ My point is that it was hyped by the media as if it were a general consensus.

You got me. I was posting from memory and didn't bother to look it up. Congratulations to you for looking it up and correcting me.

And congratulations for using a good FTFY site that references their claims.

Well, i didnt say i agreed with half of their craziness there, but i knew if they had the info, then you wouldnt go off on a "denial by source" tangent.

You see, we can actually have a discussion of peers and it be informative for all.

Well, every item of their "craziness" is referenced, so I suggest you educate yourself.

You know, Crazies arent forbidden from quoting or siting other Crazies.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

OK, fine. It was more than just one. :-\ My point is that it was hyped by the media as if it were a general consensus.

You got me. I was posting from memory and didn't bother to look it up. Congratulations to you for looking it up and correcting me.

And congratulations for using a good FTFY site that references their claims.

Well, i didnt say i agreed with half of their craziness there, but i knew if they had the info, then you wouldnt go off on a "denial by source" tangent.

You see, we can actually have a discussion of peers and it be informative for all.

Well, every item of their "craziness" is referenced, so I suggest you educate yourself.

You know, Crazies arent forbidden from quoting or siting other Crazies.

When you say siting, do you mean citing?