Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll let readers come to their own conclusions. There shouldn't be any issue with alerting people to Spencer's Heartland affiliation if it's nothing to be ashamed of.
I'll let readers come to their own conclusions. There shouldn't be any issue with alerting people to Spencer's Heartland affiliation if it's nothing to be ashamed of.
Roy Spencer was interviewed on Rush Limbaugh's Show. See an excerpt below: [11] RUSH: You called yesterday and you wanted to say that my instincts on this global warming as you've heard me discuss them, are accurate. You started a discussion of the calculations here, these climate models, saying that they do not factor -- because it's not easy to do or maybe it's not even possible to factor -- in the role of precipitation and clouds. Could you start there, and basically whatever you were going to say yesterday, go ahead and launch.
DR. SPENCER: Well, I feel like -- and there are a few of us that are like this -- that the Earth has a natural air-conditioning process which occurs that is mainly through precipitation systems. Now, people will think, “Oh, well, you mean when they come by they cool off the air,” and that's not what I'm talking about. It's about the Earth's natural greenhouse effect which is mostly water vapor and clouds. The Earth has a natural greenhouse effect that keeps the surface of the Earth warm.
RUSH: Isn't it true that the majority of greenhouse gases do come from the sources you just mentioned, not manmade sources?
DR. SPENCER: Well, yeah, that's true. Carbon dioxide is a relatively small part of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect. . . .
There's a big problem with [the accepted explanation for the greenhouse effect], though. It makes it sound like the greenhouse effect is what determines the temperature of the Earth, and actually the truth is it's more the other way around. Given a certain amount of sunlight coming in, that is mostly absorbed at the surface of the Earth, weather processes happen which create the greenhouse effect because most of the greenhouse effect is from evaporated water which then turns into clouds, and of course water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas.
RUSH: I dare say I have to interrupt you at this point because most people who only pay attention to the crisis mongers, believe that there is no greenhouse effect other than that created by man. The whole notion of the greenhouse effect has led people to believe that man has totally manufactured this and that it's totally harmful. What you're saying is it's a natural thing that helps keep the Earth's temperatures moderate?
DR. SPENCER: Yeah, that's right. That's right. All the scientists agree with that. What you're talking about is the fact that the media distorts things so much that people don't get the right information. If you're using the media to rely on to get the science about this issue, you won't.
In July 2011, a paper co-authored by Spencer was published in the journal Remote Sensing, "[which is] a fine [peer-reviewed] journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science," RealClimate found. [6]
His paper looked at a potential connection between clouds and global warming. The paper received significant media attention, and climate change skeptics claimed that it "blow[s] a gaping hole in global warming alarmism." [7]
In Andrew Dessler's view, "[This] paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take Roy Spencer seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants." [8]
In response to the flawed peer review that allowed the publication of the paper, the Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing stepped down. He had this to say: (PDF)
"After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.
With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements. . ." [9]
Despite that being the dominant mode for fans of carbon fuels, at least a few people have begun considering a different possibility... that carbon fuels might at some point become legally encumbered from further extraction and use. The term being used to discuss that portion, if such regulations should come to pass, is "unburnable carbon."
Consol Energy (CNX) inked a deal on Monday to sell five coal mines in West Virginia to Murray Energy in a deal valued at $3.5 billion as it looks to free up cash for its burgeoning gas business.
The Canonsburg, Pa.-based coal and natural gas producer says it is selling the Consolidation Coal subsidiary so that it can focus on growing in gas exploration and production business at a time when the U.S. is experiencing a historic shale boom.
"The sale of these five mines – assets that have long contributed to America's economic strength and our company's legacy – was a very difficult decision for our team,” Consol CEO Brett Harvey said in a statement. “In the end, we concluded that the time had come to sell these mature assets to ownership whose strategic direction is more aligned with those mines.”
Murray will pay $850 million in cash as well as future payments amounting to $184 million, and will take on about $2.3 billion of Consol’s balance sheet liabilities
...and that my friend, is how science actually works.
And again your point is what relative to my original post? Are you suggesting the graph I posted is wrong because Spencer has a bias?(your assertion, not mine) I guess the real question here is are you actually attacking the messenger despite the fact the fact it's accurate?
If you want to discuss bias lets' get to it becsue certainly a majority of these scientists are going to be liberal therefore the slant is going to be towards a liberal agenda. To think otherwise is being naive.
If you want to discuss bias lets' get to it becsue certainly a majority of these scientists are going to be liberal therefore the slant is going to be towards a liberal agenda. To think otherwise is being naive.
Well, that's an unsupported assertion I'd like to see some evidence for.
In contrast, most scientists (56%) perceive the scientific community as politically liberal; just 2% think scientists are politically conservative. About four-in-ten scientists (42%) concur with the majority public view that scientists, as a group, are neither in particular.
The scientists’ belief that the scientific community is politically liberal is largely accurate. Slightly more than half of scientists (52%) describe their own political views as liberal, including 14% who describe themselves as very liberal. Among the general public, 20% describe themselves as liberal, with just 5% calling themselves very liberal.
Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Among the public, there are far fewer self-described Democrats (35%) and far more Republicans (23%). Overall, 52% of the public identifies as Democratic or leans Democratic, while 35% identifies as Republican or leans Republican.
It used to be that the liberal doomsayers usually predicted the catastrophes to happen in the next 20 years.
Now they speak in terms of several decades, long enough so that none of what they say can be proved otherwise.
Like carbon based fuels. It is strange how so few of those against using such fuels are against any of the activities benefiting from their use. They seem to answer up quickly to talk about the use of the fuels but when it comes to the by products of those activities, regardless that they cause pollution, they remain silent.
Open D who yaps up the benefits of EVs and nearly constantly predicts dire consequences for the continued use of gasoline, yet doesn't own an EV is a good example. No doubt there is some form of transportation involved, who knows, perhaps mom owns the EV and that gets the use, could be. In any case, the do as I say, not as I do crowd could never hold a candle to the carbon based fuel fanatics.
Why not examine their "heros" of the environment and their lifestyles? Oh no, thats different because they trade carbon credits and can therefore use personal jet aircraft, drive in limos, heat the outside air at the homes to a toasty 72 degrees in the middle of winter and so on.
There is always an excuse for them. Elon Musk, the favorite of the thread's truly, flys mostly everywhere he goes on a private jet. No doubt that doesn't matter because after all, he does so much good selling Tesla cars to others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
