And I’m glad Dr. Spencer is coming out and calling it like it is.
It’s not often you hear a distinguished scientist rip into his colleagues as Roy Spencer does at his blog here yesterday. His essay is a reaction to the House vote to suspend the funding the corrupt IPCC. Here are some excerpts:
On the IPCC:
Politicians formed the IPCC over 20 years ago with an endgame in mind: to regulate CO2 emissions.”
Science progresses by investigating alternative explanations for things. Long ago, the IPCC all but abandoned that search.”
On the most vocal AGW scientists (natural climate change deniers):
They apparently do not realize that ‘settled science’ is an oxymoron. The most vocal climate scientists defending the IPCC have lost their objectivity.”
They have a theory — more CO2 is to blame — and they religiously stick to it.”
I am ashamed for our scientific discipline and embarrassed by their behavior. Is it any wonder that scientists have such a bad reputation among the taxpayers who pay them to play in their ivory tower sandboxes? They can make gloom and doom predictions all day long of events far in the future without ever having to suffer any consequences of being wrong.”
They have gotten away with too much, for too long.”
On energy policy:
Making our most abundant and affordable sources of energy artificially more expensive with laws and regulations will end up killing millions of people.”
You really need to read his entire post to appreciate it. And I certainly would love to see Dr Spencer get “the opportunity to cross examine these (natural) climate change deniers in a court of law”. These cowards have ducked debate long eneough.
5 responses to “Dr Roy Spencer Rips Climate Scientists – “Ashamed For Our Scientific Discipline””
Dr. Spencer is late to the party, since those critical of the IPCC-sponsored “consensus” have been saying what he just did for a long time, some of them for many years. Why applaud him, and not the rest of us who saw the truth well before him? He has yet to admit that there is no greenhouse effect of warming due to increases in atmospheric CO2, whatsoever. In truth, he is still in the early stages of finally confronting the unpalatable truth, that the “consensus” of “97% of all climate scientists” is not just wrong, it is incompetent (and on the political side, fraudulent). And it is too late for merely an open scientific debate (the internet has been open, but too many minds have been, and continue to be, closed); too much injustice has been done, too many villains are still in positions of power (all of our scientific institutions have been suborned, and a whole generation of students has been taught nonsense), and too many lies continue to be told in order to escape blame. Everyone who has promulgated the false “consensus” should be thrown out of their comfortable positions (and that means the leaders of the AAAS, NAS, APS, and all the rest), and all of climate science should be vetted by scientists well outside of that infected field (in fact, outside of the earth sciences entirely). And climate science is just the tip of the iceberg of what is wrong in modern science: Belief substituted for proof, prejudice for insight, dogma for open inquiry and intellectual honesty.
So it is, Harry. Climatology needs besides physicists also statisticians. Sooner or later they will tell us that global temperature cannot be measured because annual temperatures on the Northern hemisphere correlate zero or negatively with those in the Tropics and the Southern hemisphere. Those of the Southern hemisphere correlate negatively with the Tropics. Only within these regions annual temperatures can be established reliably. Since 1701 the Northern hemisphered warmed with 0.4 degrees Celsius per century, whereas the Tropics and Southern hemisphere cooled with almost the same amounts. Even on the Northern hemisphere the present temperatures are below those in the early nineteenth century. There is no ‘unprecedented’ global warming. This story is the result of incompetent analysis. Read my lips.
I thank Dr. Spencer for sticking his neck out and telling it how it is and you Pierre for publishing this.
Is it the solar minimum that makes regimes topple? 😉
Excellent article, I’ve rarely seen someone’s argument so comprehensively torn to shreds.