-
LIVE: St Kilda v Western Bulldogs - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Saints at 51% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Earth Sciences Today is hot
- Thread starter Kildonan
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It's the UAH satellite dataset. I'm very surprised that anyone conversant on the climate debate isn't familiar with it.
Spencer being a favourite target of warmists, here is their preferred RSS satellite dataset showing the same hiatus.
ANyone funded by the fraudulent Heartland institute should be a target and a legit one too. Spencer is a climate denier and evolution denier and thinks intelligent design should be a scientific theory. Which 'scientist' would tell you that creationism should be a 'scientific theory' and evolution is in 'crisis'? Belief is fine but when belief gets in the way of 'scientific method' then it's cooked.
do a search on “Roy Spencer” and you will see that he is a pure manipulator of data for his agenda. (although he is not a denier, i believe he is a paid shill, there are lots of evidence for this)
Here is one of just many examples:
https://www.google.com/url?client=i...FjAAegQIARAC&usg=AOvVaw1i419yfggaNXMM_nMd83KO
and lastly Spencer does "believe", majority of the warming has been caused by humans, i quote Spencer here from your own blog.
" yes, I actually “believe” most of the warming in our data is caused by humans. Do you never read anything I write? Because I tire of repeating myself"
He just has a problem with computation.
Last edited:
As I said, a favourite target of warmists because a) he doesn't subscribe to climate alarmism and b) he's respected.
His blog also says "Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE".
PS You just called Spencer a denier and not a denier, one after the other. You sound like a militant.
What about the RSS data?
He is a denier in evoluton and denies the calculation behind climate change but he is not a denier that man plays a major role in climate change. Hence is not a denier and a denier at the same time.
He is conncted and funded by the heartland institute, i told you, anyone associated with that institute has zero credibility.r las
and regarding your last line, what you make of this (from his own site)
Trend line of 0.13C/decade, consistent with the scientifc consensus
Last edited:
He is a denier in evoluton and denies the calculation behind climate change but he is not a denier that man plays a major role in climate change. Hence is not a denier and a denier at the same time.
He is conncted and funded by the heartland institute, i told you, anyone associated with that institute has zero credibility.r las
and regarding your last line, what you make of this (from his own site)
Trend line of 0.13C/decade, consistent with the scientifc consensus
He's an advisor to the Heartland Institute, i.e. they sought him out for expert climate opinion to inform their climate policy. Likewise he's addressed the US Senate several times as a climate expert, under both Democrat and Republican governments.
His religious beliefs are neither here nor there when it comes to climate. I've read plenty of Spencer's notes and even a book without realising he was a creationist until it was pointed out on a forum by someone trying to denigrate his work.
The chart is what it is and has shown an uptick since 2014. As you say, Spencer does not deny global warming and even thinks a majority of it is human-caused. Yet like Lomborg he is hated by the alarmists for not comforming to groupthink.
Werewolf
Underminer
Veteran
10k Posts
Western Bulldogs Board Tipping Champion
Western Bulldogs - Josh Prudden Player Sponsor 2016
Western Bulldogs - Zaine Cordy Player Sponsor 2016
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2016
Western Bulldogs - Mitch Honeychurch Player Sponsor 2016
SuperCoach Club Board Championship League Member
I'm fine with it here, provided the discussions stay less political and more scientific
He is PAID by them. And not just them by exxon as well. If you produce a peer reviewed scienific paper i will take a look at it, but deniers keep posting stuff with people with clear conflict of interest while saying scientists who argue for climate change do it for the "grants". Yet all the deniers have done is produce blog posts and people who associate themselves with fraud institutions or fossil fuel companies. This is a science board so please produce scientific papers and not blog posts.
Roy Spencer authored a new report, published by the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), titled “A Guide to Understanding Global Warming Data. The Guardian notes that the Texas Public Policy Foundation has received substantial funding from both the tobacco and fossil fuel industries, including $65,000 from ExxonMobil and at least $911,499 from Koch-related foundations since 1998, as well as over $3 million from “dark money” groups Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund
A leaked email from the Heartland Institute's Joe Bast included a note to “find independent funding for Roy Spencer, David Schnare, Willie Soon, Craig Idso, David Legates, etc
Roy Spencer was among individuals listed as creditors in Peabody Energy's 2016 bankruptcy filings, reports the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD/PRWatch).
This is a science forum can people here produce scientific peer reviewed papers and not blog posts like they do in SRP board. Thanks
Plenty of experts produce work for "think tanks", both liberal- and conservative-leaning. If fuel companies also contribute to those bodies because of their philosophical leanings, that doesn't equate to working for or being paid by those companies.
His website specifically states "Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE". So feel free to go ahead and call him a liar, but don't expect anyone to bankroll your court case.
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #86
Another excerpt from the Guardian.
We have already established why they are not a credible source for anything.
Not all are guardian links, only the 2 paragraph is and there are links to the original documents if you click it (PDF)
If NASA supported his work (he is a FORMER nasa climatologist) why doesn't his research appear anywhere on their journals/sites? please produce Spencers peer reviewed climate "science" (or denial) work supported by all these organisations, you claim they do.
Currently team leader of the microwave imaging team for NASA's Aqua satellite and was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
His reputation is sound and I don't need to defend him. You seem to know all about him already, so you can produce your own list.
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #90
I wonder what that erroneous statement was.
No we haven’t. Please provide links of this, if you can.
So wait a minute, NASA's position is clear on climate change, kindly tell me if NASA supports Spencers position in Climate change? all this time i have been hearing that how NASA is wrong on CO2 on climate change, now you are presenting his NASA credentials to make an argument? kindly show me a peer review paper (spencers) stating CO2 doesn't affect global temperatures. If at all his RSS feed does prove 0.13C/Decade which is in line with NASA's models. So what exactly are we arguing here?
I'm not sure. When did you join in?
Heartland Institute 'Red Team' Climate Lists Revealed, And Science Deniers Are Upset With Pruitt
The Heartland Institute has been pushing a “red team” agenda on climate for at least eight years, and claim the roots of the idea started at a meeting in Milan in 2003 organized by Fred Singer and his Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). And the infamous den of denial has enjoyed the...
the email clearly stated they were looking at funding Spencer.
So spencer believes Humans are causing global warming inline with the scientific consensus 0.13C/Decade . What are you arguing then?
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #96
What?Heartland Institute 'Red Team' Climate Lists Revealed, And Science Deniers Are Upset With Pruitt
The Heartland Institute has been pushing a “red team” agenda on climate for at least eight years, and claim the roots of the idea started at a meeting in Milan in 2003 organized by Fred Singer and his Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). And the infamous den of denial has enjoyed the...www.desmogblog.com
the email clearly stated they were looking at funding Spencer.
That has nothing to do with their admitted erroneous statement.
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #97
Oh yes, we have. You just dont think the clear bias of their content is problematic, which is why you keep trotting it out.
Proper independant peer-review takes place outside of your own inner sanctum.
Did you click the links given by the guardian? his association with groups funded by koch brothers and heartland institute? i am asking for a peer reviewed scientific paper from him, is it too much to ask for in a science forum? or a blog post where he cooks the graphs is enough?
The consensus isn't 0.13 degrees/decade.
I was querying the linear temperature increase shown on a chart posted by someone else, and asked what happened to the post-1998 hiatus shown by the UAH/Spencer, RSS and HadCRUT datasets.
Then you arrived, trying to discredit Spencer.
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #100
