45 share
high reader interest
"There's no sign of global warming hurting productivity yet," Spencer added. "But the IPCC – which seems to be immune from facts – continues to insist that global warming is hurting our crops… when there's really no observational evidence for it. They are more and more in the realm of theory which is increasingly divorced from observation from the real world."(Go to Breitbart.com, here, for a one hour video discussion by Dr. Spencer; at least visit the video for a few minutes and you will see why he is a man to be trusted.)
And who is Dr. Roy Spencer? Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist,Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.
He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. (Wikipedia).
Visit Dr. Spencer's site: drroyspencer.com
Visit Dr. Spencer's site: drroyspencer.com
Wow. the fellow knows how to spell "juxtapose," and resents my getting personal in some of my response to his silliness and outright lies. He is fine with personal attacks as long as he is on the offensive.
ReplyDeleteCase in point: he includes in his commentary this, "Keep in mind - according to Smithson, the U.S Military is lying; they are part of a Utopian conspiracy, he describes these Navy Admirals and climate scientists as "maggots" that are "everywhere".
He knows, without a doubt, that I voiced criticism of SOME in the military, those who were willing supporters of the brand of Marxism being pushed upon our country, by the current "leadership." I called them maggots and I continue to think in those terms. But this is what Anarchist do - they pretend to care about truth, while embellishing an opponents comments, then stating that embellishment as fact, for the remainder of their pathetic and misdirected lives. Readership needs to get this in their collective mind -- the Anarchist Left lies as a matter of strategy and minions such as my anonymous opponent are willing addicts to this course of action. Let me make my case:
Anonymous is a practiced disciple of a man we know as Saul Alinsky. Back in 1971, Alinsky wrote a book entitled Rules for Radicals, and, more than 40 years later, this piece of literary tripe is still in print, still in demand by those who would tear down our system of governance, and, I am talking about the "United States of America." Their goal is to replace our rule of law (the Constitution) and Founding Principles with a world view that is a proven failure when measured against personal freedoms, the principles necessary for upward mobility, transparency (i.e. "open honesty") as to rule of government(s), and, outright decency.
In the opening pages of his prologue, Alinsky writes (I have this book in my library), "Remember, we are talking about revolution, not revelation." He continues with, "There are no rules for revolution anymore than there are rules for love or rules for happiness" (both quotes from p xvii), and, thus, this communist clown is well deserving of the branding, "anarchist." In his "third rule of 'ends and means,' " Alinsky takes an axiom used in warfare, and applies it to his theory for social change: "that, in war, the ends justifies almost any means (p.29)." The irony of this statement, is that Alinsky and his Maggot Minions, do not believe this is how war is to be waged . . . without rules. There is a "fairness" component that actually renders them unfit to lead a nation and its fighting force into war, but who cares about reality, right?
As a result of this thinking, my anonymous opponent, a true “one percenter” (I know who he is) and parrot of Marxist profanity, busies himself, in this particular case, with a continual misrepresentation of what I have written. He is following the rules dictated to him by others. Included in these rules is Alinsky’s fifth rule for radical change, “ridicule is man’s most potent weapon” (p. 128), and, so, Anonymous uses terms such as “denier” and “creationist” in a desperate effort to avoid the issues of the debate.
His characterization of my commentary, is deliberate and designed for ridicule, all, because he cannot deal with the several issues I have presented.
As to Dr. Roy Spencer, he was a senior NASA scientist for climate studies and was one of the principles in the development of satellite imaging (RSS) in the charting of world temp averages. His work with RSS and satellite imaging is fully accepted in the world of science. He is ONLY "discredited" by the Utopian truth deniers from the Marxist Left, The fact of the matter is this; these deniers will challenge the credentials of ANYONE, no matter how qualified, if they are not preaching the government sanctioned rhetoric on climate change. Understand that all federal agencies and scientific entities receiving federal funds, are not allowed to posit any information that challenges the warming claims of the Distributionist hordes . . . . . . anyone. I would encourage the reader to cut and paste this into a search engine and decided for yourselves: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/10/Dr-Roy-Spencer-Science-Knows-Almost-Nothing-About-Global-Warming. You will fall in love with this man. The video is an hour long presentation at the International Conference on Climat Change. Case closed.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that these truth deniers will say anything, will misinform on any issue, and will twist any presentation, in order to win the discussion. THAT is a fact of their debate, They live in the Saul Alinsky moment, and are not to be trusted at all. When folks believe there are no rules for (their) revolution, they are fully capable of lying about anything, and making it sound plausible.
ReplyDeleteI am one of those "warming alarmists" you write about. I have never studied Alinsky, know absolutely nothing about his "social theory," and do not consider myself a "revolutionary." Soooo, what about me, Maestro?
ReplyDeleteLook, I am not opposed to the debate, or we would not have debate on this blog. I actually like debating. As far as the specifics of your comment, you can be an "alarmist" without being a Alinskian. If you are open to civil debate, are not committed to twisting everything said, by the opposition (that would be me), and are willing to take your position based on how you see the evidence, that really is fine by me. But, if you use the warming arguments to further the cause of a Redistributed, One World social order, frankly, I do not believe you and would put you in same category of any, communist/social reformer. Such is the problem with attaching yourself to a faction of this society that has no rules when it comes to debate. the pool is already polluted, and - right or wrong - you are standing the middle of it.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great case study of how the right wing approach a scientific issue.
ReplyDelete1) They do not go with the scientific community, they cherry pick one contrarian, often quoted on a conservative political site. (like Breitbart)
2) They can not discuss the science without throwing in something about a "utopian conspiracy" or "Alinsky" (who?)
3) They malign their opponents - like the US Military, 9 of the world leading climate labs (which are in agreement) - as "maggots" that are "eveywhere".
4) They show a fundamental misinterpretation of data, and often parrot lies (the 30's was the warmest decade), and red herrings (global warming on Mars, bad science from 40 yrs ago), etc... not very scientific in their thinking.
5) They attack the messenger ... whether it be the Navy Artic Roadmap (http://www.navy.mil/docs/USN_arctic_roadmap.pdf), or just a commenter on this blog (moron, 1%er, flunked faith 101, etc...)
Great case study. Refer to this in future posts on this issue. You'll hear the same from Smithson.
It's really entertaining... and remember - the science of Global Climate Change is all about Alinsky because like "maggots, they are everywhere"!!
1) there are thousands of scientists, who do not believe in alarmist warming for the purpose of redistribution of wealth.
ReplyDelete2) It is the politic of a borderless, One World social economy that that drove the hunger bomb, acid rain, the mini ice age, death by pollution and, finally, the Katrina initialed "end of the world" global disaster scare and global warming which is occurring only in certain regions of the world - like I say, it ain't global is it ain't global.
3) Maggot refers to Progressive/Marxists, whether in our military or in the WH.
4) ALL of the facts presented in this blog are fully defensible or come from government documents and charts.
5) The Arctic loses almost all of its ice, this time of year, every year. When it returns, it is often as strong an ice flow as ever. The South Pole is gaining ice. The heat wave in my California Central Vallye? We call it "summer."