Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
It's the UAH satellite dataset. I'm very surprised that anyone conversant on the climate debate isn't familiar with it.
Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD
www.drroyspencer.com
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.
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
I'm fine with it here, provided the discussions stay less political and more scientificWe can probably merge this in with a relevant SRP thread.
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.
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).
Another excerpt from the Guardian.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).
Another excerpt from the Guardian.
We have already established why they are not a credible source for anything.
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.
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.
No we haven’t. Please provide links of this, if you can.Another excerpt from the Guardian.
We have already established why they are not a credible source for anything.
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.
So what exactly are we arguing here?
I'm not sure. When did you join in?
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.
Oh yes, we have. You just dont think the clear bias of their content is problematic, which is why you keep trotting it out.No we haven’t. Please provide links of this, if you can.
What?
That has nothing to do with their admitted erroneous statement.
So spencer believes Humans are causing global warming inline with the scientific consensus 0.13C/Decade . What are you arguing then?
Are you an idiot?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?