# Global warming, by Dr. Roy Spencer



## billc (Jun 30, 2011)

Dr. Spencer is a climatologist who has made a video to explain global warming.  Dr. Spencer is the climatologist that Rush Limbaugh sites whenever global warming comes up as a topic on his show.  

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/d...efts-global-warming-agenda-is-flat-out-wrong/

About the video:

For too long, the left has had sole domain of the entertainment/political sphere.  They&#8217;ve used creative methodologies to teach, to indoctrinate.  Now, the right is fighting back.  With the help of Declaration Entertainment, Encounter Books has begun a new series of educational videos designed to teach about the crucial political issues of our time in an entertaining way.  This new video is unique content, never tried by our side of the aisle.  It&#8217;s Dr. Roy Spencer, who you&#8217;ve heard on the Rush Limbaugh Show, explaining &#8220;Why the Left&#8217;s Global Warming Agenda Is Flat Out Wrong,&#8221; with incredibly cool video content.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 30, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Dr. Spencer is a climatologist who has made a video to explain global warming. Dr. Spencer is the climatologist that Rush Limbaugh sites whenever global warming comes up as a topic on his show.
> 
> http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/d...efts-global-warming-agenda-is-flat-out-wrong/
> 
> ...


 
You cite Rush as an attempt to bolster trust?


----------



## granfire (Jun 30, 2011)

Hallo Spencer


----------



## billc (Jun 30, 2011)

Of course.  You would expect me to site a lefty?  Besides, Dr. Spencer is an actual, honest to goodness climatologist.

Here is his website:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/

About Dr. Spencer:

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA&#8217;s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA&#8217;s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer&#8217;s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA&#8217;s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
........................

Wether Rush likes him or not, this guy is an actual scientist involved with climate research.  He just hasn't swallowed the global warmnin kool-aid that is so fashionable in the scientific community today.
........................

From wikipedia:

Roy W. Spencer is a climatologist and a Principal Research Scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA&#8217;s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA&#8217;s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. Spencer's research suggests that global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity&#8217;s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution and suggests that natural, chaotic variations in low cloud cover may account for most observed warming.[1][2]


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 30, 2011)

So, when I quote a professor who's one if not *the* leading authority on German history you say that he's been brain washed by the 'lefties' when what he says doesn't agree with your version of history so why should we believe anyone you quote?

By the way lefty (or left footer) has a connection here in the UK especially in Scotland that is perjorative, I think your use of the word 'lefty' is insulting in the manner you write it but it does show interestng signs of clinical paranoia according to a pyschiatrist mate of mine.


----------



## billc (Jun 30, 2011)

Tez, you dissapoint but you do not surprise me.  First, the subtle charge of racism to try to silence me, and now the charge of mental illness.  Hmmm...typical.  

As to the german history guy, my guys are at a minimum, economists, and the one I like to site won the nobel prize.  He also meets your standard of being alive at the time the nazis came to power.  It isn't my version of history, but theirs and it differs in that the programs and behaviors of the socialists in germany and italy are little different from any of the other socialist murdering states.

Does your quack friend recommend a nice stay in a labor camp so that I can once again become a right thinking citizen?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 30, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Tez, you dissapoint but you do not surprise me. First, the subtle charge of racism to try to silence me, and now the charge of mental illness. Hmmm...typical.
> 
> As to the german history guy, my guys are at a minimum, economists, and the one I like to site won the nobel prize. He also meets your standard of being alive at the time the nazis came to power. It isn't my version of history, but theirs and it differs in that the programs and behaviors of the socialists in germany and italy are little different from any of the other socialist murdering states.
> 
> Does your quack friend recommend a nice stay in a labor camp so that I can once again become a right thinking citizen?


 

What on earth are you talking about racism for? I said nothing nor even hinted at anything rascist, you really are quite a worrying person!

My 'quack' friend as you put it is a senior officer in the Royal Air Force, not long back from treating troops in Afghan, yours as well as ours.


----------



## billc (Jun 30, 2011)

Hmmmm...from my thread, More lefty Bad behavior: U2 the vicitm post #4

From Tez:

Well they are sort of left, in a sort of arty way lol!

If you replace the 'right' 'women','Jews', 'Gays', 'Catholics' or the 'blacks' for the 'lefties' in Billcihaks post we would be looking at some of the most bigotted posts on this site and people would be up in arms about it. If someone posted up so many posts slagging off the Right, there would be uproar so why is billcihak allowed to get away with frankly some of the most outrageous posts here, some people even think it's amusing but again replace the 'left' with the ethnic/sexual/gender/political/religious group of your choice and see how his posts read.
This is an observation which needs thinking about not an attack btw.
............................

Hmmm...sounds like a hint of implying racism to me...hinting at racism on the part of someone who disagrees with you is a fairly lazy way to debate someone and in and of itself is a typical tactic used against someone who is conservative.  Your using it does not serve you well Tez.  Perhaps your friend needs some R&R.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 30, 2011)

Dear me knickers in a twist!

Over here as I said '_leftie_' is a perjorative word for a Roman Catholic derived from 'left footer' because it's believed that the Irish navvies used their left foot on their spades and kicked a football with their left foot. It's often used as an insult for Celtic Football Club (where the manager has just escaped being murdered and is still receiving death threats) in Glasgow, the sectarian hatred between Catholics and Protestants that you see in Northern Ireland is also rife in Scotland. In Northern Ireland we've just had three days of rioting because of this violence so perhaps when you call people 'lefties' you may like to consider that here it reads as if you are doing the equivilant of calling black people the N word! leftie is not a good expression to use, of course if you want to appear ignorant to more than just the Americans crack on.

You have an uncanny knack of misunderstanding what non Americans ie Greeks, the British. Germans, Russians etc etc are about which is odd as you seem to have a penchant for making up history for them and deciding what our politics are. Most amusing the way you chase your tail.


----------



## billc (Jun 30, 2011)

Well, for my across the pond friends, an American "lefty" is someone who believes in a large central government, high taxes, lots of government spending, government involvement in large parts of an individuals life including but not limited to...what food you can eat, in restaraunts and public schools, what lightbulbs you can put in your lamps, wether you can drive without a seatbelt, what kind of toilet you have, they also place the lives of  animals over the lives of humans, wether you can own firearms, where your children can go to school, your healthcare, your retirement, and the list goes on and on.  

That is a "lefty" here in America.  I direct my posts to an American audience so you could write down what an American lefty is so you know that I am not referring to a british Lefty.  What you call the same sort of person on your side of the pond would be interesting to know.  It  might avoid confusion.
.........

I am a Roman Catholic just for the record.


----------



## granfire (Jun 30, 2011)

nah, Tez, lefty is an insult here, too, or should I say especially here.
Right up there, head to head, nose to nose with 'liberal' 

which as per definition brought forth by billi, Stoessel, and Rush equals one being a fascist commy


----------



## billc (Jun 30, 2011)

Actually, a facist would be an Italian socialist under Mussolini, where a communist would be someone following the teachings of Marx.  You do find communists here in the States, they mostly attend rally's attended by S.E.I.U. and other liberal groups.  Or like Van Jones, they work for president Obama.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 30, 2011)

Nice to know it's only Americans you are condescending to then, however, whatever your target audience you seem to pontificate on subjects that you know little about ie other countries! and now of course it's global warming, something which affects the whole world. You manage however to say the same things in every thread regardless of it's subject. Everything seems to be down to the left wing even though you don't actually have a left wing as such in America! what on earth would you do if you met a real communist or socialist or even a fascist for that matter? 

This thread isn't about global warming, it's about the left...again. Look at the OP, it's not for a discussion on global warming, there's another thread up for that. 

Q. what do we call the type of people you descibe?  A. people.

Do you always lecture people? I've never found it a redeeming virtue in people. 

I'm curious though why should we believe a climatologist when you don't believe a historian about history? If you think an ecomomist is a better arbiter of history than a historian perhaps a astrologist should be consulted on global warming? After all I bet they have crystal balls.


----------



## billc (Jun 30, 2011)

No, a better arbiter of what a socialist is since socialism is first and foremost an economic system, and science is science, and a climatologist knows the climate.  My point of view is that there are people with different theories about global warming and cooling.  The people like Dr. Spencer have not been shown to destroy data to keep it out of other scientists research and haven't tried to keep scientists with different theories out of the scientific peer reviewed journals.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 30, 2011)

billcihak said:


> No, a better arbiter of what a socialist is since socialism is first and foremost an economic system, and science is science, and a climatologist knows the climate. My point of view is that there are people with different theories about global warming and cooling. The people like Dr. Spencer have not been shown to destroy data to keep it out of other scientists research and haven't tried to keep scientists with different theories out of the scientific peer reviewed journals.


 
Allegations without accompanying proof?

I don't think you are able to objectively look at any evidence because of your right wing bias towards everything. You will only believe 'proof' that comes from a right wing source or media pundit. Someone from generations of Americans, born and bred in America but with left wing beliefs could tell you that he came from the USA and you wouldn't believe him simply because of his politics. It's unwise to distort facts to make them fit your beliefs, it just leads to huge disillusionment when you realise you are wrong.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 30, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Besides, Dr. Spencer is an actual, honest to goodness climatologist.



As are the thousands of climatologists who disagree vehemently with Dr. Spencer.  Spencer is vastly outnumbered.  But of course, this one guy is telling the truth the and thousands of others are all liars.  How convenient.

You will note, by the way, that all those other climatologists do not refer to "the left", "the right", or any sort of "agenda" in their scientific papers.

Further education: The Republican War On Science.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 30, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> As are the thousands of climatologists who disagree vehemently with Dr. Spencer. Spencer is vastly outnumbered. But of course, this one guy is telling the truth the and thousands of others are all liars. How convenient.
> 
> You will note, by the way, that all those other climatologists do not refer to "the left", "the right", or any sort of "agenda" in their scientific papers.
> 
> Further education: The Republican War On Science.


 

sounds like someone might be on a payroll...


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 30, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Of course. You would expect me to site a lefty? Besides, Dr. Spencer is an actual, honest to goodness climatologist.
> 
> Here is his website:
> 
> ...


 

funny stuff, keep it comin'.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 30, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> sounds like someone might be on a payroll...



Some day we will all look back on the denialist industry like we look back now at the "studies" produced by tobacco companies over the decades showing that tobacco was harmless and didn't cause cancer.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 30, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> As are the thousands of climatologists who disagree vehemently with Dr. Spencer. Spencer is vastly outnumbered. But of course, this one guy is telling the truth the and thousands of others are all liars. How convenient.
> 
> You will note, by the way, that all those other climatologists do not refer to "the left", "the right", or any sort of "agenda" in their scientific papers.
> 
> Further education: The Republican War On Science.


 
It's also important to note that dissent is an essential part of the scientific process, and, with Dr. Spencer-_a legitimate, gainfully employed climatologist whose work is peer reviewed_-that's what we're seeing. Note that he's still gainfully employed, hasn't been blacklisted, isn't being stifled or pressured to change his findings.......

that the vast majority of those in his field disagree with him is another story.


----------



## billc (Jun 30, 2011)

From a little paper across the pond, the Climate-gate scandal where scientific data on global warming was destroyed to keep it out of the hands of manmade global warming skeptics, and scientific journals were manipulated to keep out people who had different theories on global warming and cooling:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...rst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

From the article:

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely &#8211; not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

******Below is part of the important stuff***********

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.


----------



## billc (Jun 30, 2011)

From the telegraph article:

Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.
But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is  what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? 
************************

I guess that would be the evidence part...


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 1, 2011)

elder999 said:


> It's also important to note that dissent is an essential part of the scientific process, and, with Dr. Spencer-_a legitimate, gainfully employed climatologist whose work is peer reviewed_-that's what we're seeing. Note that he's still gainfully employed, hasn't been blacklisted, isn't being stifled or pressured to change his findings.......
> 
> that the vast majority of those in his field disagree with him is another story.



Agreed.  It isn't even Dr. Spencer who annoys me, it's an entire political movement who will hold up one individual as the expert who we should listen to (who _just so happens_ to agree with them) and ignore the thousands upon thousands of equally or better qualified individuals who disagree.  You can talk about facts and reality all you want, but that's twisting reality and the scientific process into a pretzel.

Also, a more general observation, I've known my share of quixotic crusaders who hold to outdated theories when the evidence and the field has passed them by.  Not a one of them though has described the rest of the field as having a "leftist agenda" or implicitly described everyone else as liars or political stooges.  Just a friendly tip for Dr. Spencer if he wants his dissent to be taken seriously by anyone other than movement conservatives.  Of course, the denialist industry pays well, maybe he doesn't care.


----------



## Blade96 (Jul 1, 2011)

Tez and the others here have got a point, Bill. I disagree with Tez over circumcision but I agree with her much more often than not. She is actually quite intelligent woman.


----------



## granfire (Jul 1, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Tez and the others here have got a point, Bill.



Pinko Fascist.


----------



## Blade96 (Jul 1, 2011)

granfire said:


> Pinko Fascist.



i, Pinkie Fascist.


----------



## billc (Jul 1, 2011)

I never said Tez wasn't intelligent.  Where did the data come from that convinced the scientists who support man made global warming?  East Anglia?


----------



## billc (Jul 1, 2011)

Here is an article from the gatewaypundit.com:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ns-from-post-admits-global-warming-is-a-scam/

From the article:

Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned this week from his post with the biased American Physical Society.
He admitted global warming climate change was nothing but a scam in his resignation letter.

The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emiritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence&#8212;it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d&#8217;être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford&#8217;s book organizes the facts very well.) I don&#8217;t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it&#8230;


----------



## billc (Jul 1, 2011)

At Michael Crichtons website he posted a multi-part video than contains a debate on global warming.

http://www.crichton-official.com/video-iq2debate-part1.html


----------



## billc (Jul 1, 2011)

A nice article on the climate-gate scandal chronicaling the attempts to destroy data, and keep skeptics from being heard.

http://www.examiner.com/climate-cha...ovide-unwanted-scrutiny-of-climate-scientists

A reminder of the scandal: (knowing the top guys in charge of global warming research did this, how can you trust anything they report?)

On the surface, the emails seem to indicate scientists modified data to fit the anthropogenic global warming theory, tried to silence dissenting opinions and reflect a concerted effort to restrict access to climate data possibly by deleting it.

Emails from Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit, are arguably the most controversial. In multiple messages the director discusses his resistance to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests even alluding to destroying data rather than sharing it. In one message he says, &#8220;I think I&#8217;ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.&#8221; Jones apparently considered ways to stymie or limit FOIA requests by &#8220;removing station data&#8221; and &#8220;omit some other countries&#8221; because &#8220;it would annoy them [those requesting the data].&#8221;

Jones also exhorts his colleagues to delete email discussions saying in an email to Michael Mann, &#8220;Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He&#8217;s not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don&#8217;t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.&#8221;

The scientists also apparently struggled to account for the cooling the earth has seen over the last 10 years. One scientist, Mick Kelly, discussed giving a presentation and rather than include the cooling he said, &#8220;I&#8217;ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that&#8217;s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.&#8221;

Kevin Trenberth, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), was particularly frustrated by computer models that failed to predict the cooling. He said, &#8220;The fact is that we can&#8217;t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can&#8217;t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.&#8221;

The scientists also did not approve of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and its choices allowing opposing views to be heard. The group&#8217;s trade publication, Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) was targeted by Michael Mann as he wrote, &#8220;I&#8217;m not sure that GRL can be seen as an honest broker in these debates anymore.&#8221; He however acknowledged the publication's importance saying, &#8220;We can&#8217;t afford to lose GRL.&#8221;

Mann seemed particularly concerned about a &#8216;contrarian&#8217; with the name Saiers, presumably James Saiers of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. &#8220;Apparently, the contrarians now have an &#8220;in&#8221; with GRL. This guy Saiers has a prior connection w/ the University of Virginia Dept. of Environmental Sciences [where Saiers completed his PhD] that causes m some unease,&#8221; Mann wrote.



Continue reading on Examiner.com ClimateGate emails provide unwanted scrutiny of climate scientists - National Climate Change | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/climate-cha...-scrutiny-of-climate-scientists#ixzz1Qs46Gzi1



Continue reading on Examiner.com ClimateGate emails provide unwanted scrutiny of climate scientists - National Climate Change | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/climate-cha...-scrutiny-of-climate-scientists#ixzz1Qs3rjhRX

Continue reading on Examiner.com ClimateGate emails provide unwanted scrutiny of climate scientists - National Climate Change | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/climate-cha...-scrutiny-of-climate-scientists#ixzz1Qs3S8ijG


----------



## billc (Jul 1, 2011)

Here is a really choice part of the e-mails from climate-gate:

Tom Wigley, a senior scientist in the Climate and Global Dynamics Division at NCAR, felt though that they could deal with Saiers by getting him removed from the AGU. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.
.........................

These guys are top researchers in Global warming and they are so confidant in their conclusions that they are destroying data and trying to destroy the people who want to check their research.  Why shouldn't any thinking person be concerned about the research when the U.N. guys and NASA guys are doing this?


----------



## billc (Jul 1, 2011)

The corruption that seems to be involved in the global warming campaign is  another reason to doubt these guys.  

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

The chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), based in New Delhi, was awarded up to £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion's share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers.

It means that EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognise as bogus. The revelation comes just a week after The Sunday Times highlighted serious scientific flaws in the IPCC's 2007 benchmark report on the likely impacts of global warming.

The IPCC had warned that climate change was likely to melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 - an idea considered ludicrous by most glaciologists. Last week a humbled IPCC retracted that claim and corrected its report.
...................................................

How many of the scientists who support the theory of man made global warming are basing their support on corrupt data?  Shouldn't that be examined before they are sited as a consensus on global warming?
......................................

Who are the skeptics:  http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6795858.html

Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.
Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974&#8211;87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.


Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6795858.html#ixzz1Qs7vNuvR

But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people's endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel's report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.
Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to &#8220;strongly reconsider&#8221; her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS' true position.


Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6795858.html#ixzz1Qs79sDL8


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 1, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Also, a more general observation, I've known my share of quixotic crusaders who hold to outdated theories when the evidence and the field has passed them by. Not a one of them though has described the rest of the field as having a "leftist agenda" or implicitly described everyone else as liars or political stooges. Just a friendly tip for Dr. Spencer if he wants his dissent to be taken seriously by anyone other than movement conservatives. Of course, the denialist industry pays well, maybe he doesn't care.


 
hmmm... maybe this is his coded way of saying, "I don't really believe this crap, but it pays well..."


----------



## billc (Jul 1, 2011)

On top of climate-gate, where scientists were so confident in their research they destroyed the data to keep others from studying it, and anyone who questioned their theory or data were targeted in attempts to keep them out of peer reviewed journals...we have satellitegate...

http://www.climatechangedispatch.co...-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful

From the article:

US Government admits satellite temperature readings &#8220;degraded.&#8221; All data taken offline in shock move. Global warming temperatures may be 10 to 15 degrees too high.

The fault was first detected after a tip off from an anonymous member of the public to climate skeptic blog, Climate Change Fraud (view original article) (August 9, 2010).


----------



## billc (Jul 10, 2011)

This article from sweetness and light highlights why the unproven theory of man made global warming is dangerous.  It empowers the worst of the worst of the world buearacrats to damage the world economy the way they damage indivual economies around the world.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/un-says-going-green-will-cost-76-trillion


----------

