‘Skeptics Meeting’ Mildly Ridiculed

What a surprise, though I AM shocked to see some positive coverage of climate realism in this article that hasn’t appeared before in others. First, they admit that almost NO media covered the event. Surprised? Probably not. Doesn’t fit the media’s agenda to admit that global warming has vast problems. Of course, the line about the absence of media coverage could be meant to convey how ‘outside’ the ‘skeptics’ are, and that’s probably more the case.

But, they did actually cover some of Dr. Spencer’s scientific data, which is something that hasn’t been done much in the mainstream media. To actually talk about his cloud data and how it’s a missing variable in the consensus view is very surprising. Even to say that ‘scientist after scientist’ pointed out the flaws in global warming theory was quite a bold move for this writer, who may harbor some secret skepticism of his own.

However, he lost me when he said that skepticism over global warming isn’t new and that it has ‘been around since the 1970s.’ On the contrary, the 1970s was the decade that major media outlets proclaimed global cooling was the problem contributing to a ‘coming ice age,’ which would bring with it nothing but horrendous consequences. (Sounds like familiar fear, huh?)

Global warming? Not so fast, skeptics say at meeting

U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher was in a froth, and his audience loved it.

The California Republican was talking about global warming and could barely contain his disgust.

"Al Gore has been wrong all along!" Rohrabacher yelled into the microphone. "This is outrageous! All of this is wrong! The people who have stifled this debate have an agenda that is just frightening!"

Welcome to the third annual International Conference on Climate Change, a daylong session of speeches and scientific presentations that took place Tuesday just blocks from the U.S. Capitol. Almost no media covered the event.

***

But scientist after scientist at the conference pointed out flaws and shortcomings in the calculations of the IPCC, especially its reliance on computer models to make forecasts.

One researcher, Roy Spencer, a professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, noted that the IPCC did not adequately calculate how clouds play a major role in ground temperatures.

***

Skepticism over climate science is hardly new. Indeed, skepticism has always been a part of scientific discourse and has been around global warming since the 1970s, when the theory first gained credence.

Dr. Roy Spencer's new web site

Another great, skeptical scientist, Dr. Roy Spencer, updated his web presence; check out his great site and blog at http://www.drroyspencer.com! For you alarmist believers out there (ahem...suckers), here's his biography. Even though Barbara Boxer was unable to broach these facts during Spencer's inquisition on Capitol Hill, please note:

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

Neat to see that he is an award-winning scientist who, like climate alarmist Dr. Hansen, hails from NASA. Interesting to note which NASA scientist the news media chooses to interview and mention in their continuing coverage of this scam--hint: it ain't Dr. Spencer. Instead, they've always attempted to paint Spencer as a rogue who is in the pocket of "big oil," and they never mention that he's also a respected NASA scientist!

Why won't Al Gore debate Dr. Spencer (or any other skeptical scientist or meteorologist)? Because he'd have his Nobel Prize handed to him on a silver platter; Al Gore IS A POLITICIAN--and a mediocre one at that. GORE IS NOT A SCIENTIST! He can only parrot what other alarmist scientists have fed him in his silly PowerPoint presentations, while he collects the profits from his lame speeches and carbon offset schemes.

NOW what?? Carbon dioxide is what? Necessary for life on Earth?

What are you, some kind of global warming denying right-wing extremist wacko? The polar bears are drowning!!

I can see I’m just wasting my time…sheesh.

[From 50 Years of CO2: Time for a Vision Test « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.]

Scientists: Are they corruptible?

The angle of the association here to global warming is actually obvious if you think about it. I've written about it many times in this blog.

We skeptics and climate realists are told to more or less "shut up" (to shut off debate) when presenting calm, deliberate, scientific points and data that counter the pseudo-scientific basis of the global warming scam; the authority used to dismiss skeptics and turn off debate--even highly-intelligent, tenured atmospheric scientists--as outliers is based on a politically- and profit-driven "consensus."

The "consensus" is very questionable, since many once part of the consensus are abandoning their old theories, and we know of at least 31,000 scientists who are brave enough to declare AGW a huge lie.

One must ask: Can scientists have corrupt motivations, and can they internally justify their actions to the point of actually harming mankind? Dr. Ivins here apparently (and allegedly) did just that and only killed himself after it was apparent he was going to be held to account.

Now, I know alarmists will attempt to say that this is what denying, outlying, "flat-earth" scientists do, but they never think to question the authoritative basis of their own beliefs--authorities like Al Gore, Heidi Cullen, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Prince Charles, James Hansen, Bill Nye, and the list goes on. These names are seen time-and-again in the media to offset the credentials of actual climatologists who question--quite sanely--the scientific basis of the global warming cult; climatologists such as Dr. Roy Spencer (UAH and formerly with NASA), Dr. William Gray (CSU) and Dr. Richard Lindzen (MIT) make sensical, well-thought counter-arguments to the alarmism, but the usual tactic from the contrary side is to "name call" and denigrate with PC terminology designed to close off debate to the public's awareness (words like "denier," "consensus," and "IPCC").

Anthrax scientist Bruce Ivins stood to benefit from a panic - Los Angeles Times:

Bruce E. Ivins, the government biodefense scientist linked to the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001, stood to gain financially from massive federal spending in the fear-filled aftermath of those killings, the Los Angeles Times has learned.

Ivins is listed as a co-inventor on two patents for a genetically engineered anthrax vaccine, federal records show. Separately, Ivins also is listed as a co-inventor on an application to patent an additive for various biodefense vaccines.

Dr. Spencer endures Sen. Boxer (non-PhD)

Senator Barbara Boxer (who has no scientific credentials whatsoever) challenges a leading climate scientist (formerly with NASA), AGW skeptic, and IPCC member with a political zinger and thinks that this debunks anything technical he just said? She just verified that she's a huge moron, which I already knew. This sham is so audaciously transparent!

These alarmists never debate based on scientific findings, counter-theories, fundamental climatology, or raw data such as presented in Dr. Spencer's testimony; it's always "you're in bed with big oil," "you're Rush Limbaugh's chosen climate expert," "but the consensus says...", "the IPCC says...", "you're a denier," "you're a flat-earther," or "you're an outlier." Stop name-calling and insults as your only retort to real knowledge in some lame attempt to discredit an antithetical view; to do so means you're just a zealot--arguing so that your belief isn't shaken.

Here's news for you alarmists...Roy Spencer, just like climate expert Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, is part of the UN's IPCC, even though they disagreed with what was put in those IPCC reports that made bold, questionable proclamations about man's role in the climate. They're in that group of scientists conveniently portrayed by political hacks like Boxer, Cullen, Reid, Gore, Nye, and so on as part of the "consensus," when nothing could be further from the truth! When these "consensus" scientists stand up and scream, "I didn't say that!" the political hacks are quick to jump on them with irrelevant banter in an attempt discredit and silence them. Dr. Spencer, don't you know you're just supposed to shut up and take it? That's how alarmists work.

Many from the IPCC and "consensus" have denounced the theory that manmade CO2 drives climate change. Many more are changing their minds today and recognizing they were wrong.

Wake up before these charlatans scam you for all you're worth! Please check out Dr. Spencer's site, read, and be educated. Buy his book and learn.

Don't believe that alarmists only shout, name-call, insult, or anything else except debate based on the actual scientific knowledge? Watch this video and see for yourself (warning: ADULT LANGUAGE!). This is the sort of baloney we're up against--thoughtless minors who've been brainwashed by the media, politicians, and overzealous professors. He keeps spouting "science" throughout this diatribe, but I'm still waiting to hear his "conclusive science":

Dr. Roy Spencer releases "Climate Confusion"

Get your copy today! Hear from a REAL climate scientist (not Al Gore) on the anthropogenic global warming theory.

Climate Confusion, by Roy Spencer (Encounter Books):

"Climate Confusion"

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. (released March, 2008, by Encounter Books)

Now available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble