• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Roy Spencer Calls Out Al Gore over Gore's Lies

It has been made, by the senator who brought a snowball into the chamber and by many in the Denier crowd, most loudly on talk radio, after the great New England snowstorm a few years ago, when more than three feet of the stuff fell in some places, and excessive moisture was seen as excessive cold.

I think you can count the fringe elements on both sides out.
Some of the alarmist have made some wild predictions also.
Anything not supported by data, is simply hot air.
 
I am a Christian, silly. I am opposed to confirmation science, supported by Spencer and you and others. I dislike racialism, uber nationalism, nativism, white ethno-state nonsense, and antidemocracy.

Then why does it appear you are claiming Christianity and science aren't compatible? What do you mean by "creationist sympathizer?" What were we suppose to believe by your remarks?

Confirmation science? That's what the warmers do. I understand the sciences very, very well. Probably better than 99.9% of the population.
 
James....

Is there anything that I say about the climate sciences that you can disagree with me using your own understanding of the sciences?

Your own words. Explaining to us why and how I am wrong?

Not some link, or plagiarized quote?

Please, by all means. Explain to us how I am wrong about the things I claim.
 
Then why does it appear you are claiming Christianity and science aren't compatible? What do you mean by "creationist sympathizer?" What were we suppose to believe by your remarks? Confirmation science? That's what the warmers do. I understand the sciences very, very well. Probably better than 99.9% of the population.
That is your claim, not mine, as the same is with #53. You think that the evangelical anti-warmers are a majority in the Christian when in fact you make up maybe one in twelve worldwide. No, you do not understand the science at all.
 
It has been made, by the senator who brought a snowball into the chamber and by many in the Denier crowd, most loudly on talk radio, after the great New England snowstorm a few years ago, when more than three feet of the stuff fell in some places, and excessive moisture was seen as excessive cold.

LOL...

Context is everything.

I'll bet your AGW priests you listen to only presented that small snippet.

Here is a link to C-Span: February 26, 2015, Senate Session, Part 2

Here is the first part of the transcript for context that starts 1:53:33 in the video:


MR. INHOFE: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA. MR. INHOFE: I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT I BE RECOGNIZED AS IF IN MORNING BUSINESS FOR SUCH TIME AS I SHALL CONSUME. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION. MR. INHOFE: MR. PRESIDENT, I'M REMINISCENT WITH THE SNOW ON THE GROUND, OF FIVE YEARS AGO, AND THE OCCUPIER OF THE CHAIR, I SAY, MR. PRESIDENT, WAS NOT HERE AT THAT TIME, AND SO YOU DON'T HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF KNOWING THE STORY THAT'S BEHIND THIS. AND THE STORY THAT'S BEHIND THIS WAS THAT'S BACK WHEN THEY FIRST STARTED ALL THE HISSSTERRIA ON GLOBAL WARMING AND IT HAPPENED TO BE A SNOWSTORM THAT HAD BEEN UNPRECEDENTED. SET A RECORD THAT YEAR AND THERE'S A CHARMING FAMILY OF SIX I SAY TO MY FRIEND IN THE CHAIR THAT BUILT THIS AND THEIR PICTURE IS HERE. AND THAT HAPPENS TO BE MY DAUGHTER AND HER FAMILY OF SIX. AND AT THAT TIME IT GOT A LOT OF ATTENTION, ACTUALLY GOT A LOT OF NATIONAL ATTENTION AND IN CASE WE HAVE FORGOTTEN BECAUSE WE KEEP HEARING THAT 2014 HAS BEEN THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD, I ASK THE CHAIR, YOU KNOW WHAT THIS IS? IT'S A SNOWBALL JUST FROM OUTSIDE HERE. SO IT'S VERY, VERY COLD OUT. VERY UNSEASONABLE. SO, MR. PRESIDENT, CATCH THIS. WE HEAR THE PERPETUAL HEADLINE THAT 2014 IS -- HAS BEEN THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD. BUT NOW THE SCRIPT HAS FLIPPED AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT SINCE WE HEAR IT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN ON THE FLOOR OF THIS SENATE. SOME OUTLETS ARE REFERRING TO THE RECENT COLD TEMPERATURES AS THE SIBERIAN EXPRESS, AS WE CAN SEE WITH THE SNOWBALL OUT THERE, THIS IS TODAY, THIS IS REALITY. OTHERS ARE PRINTING PICTURES OF A FROZEN NIAGARA FALLS, 4,700 SQUARE MILES OF ISLES THAT FORMED ON THE GREAT LAKES IN ONE NIGHT. IT'S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. SO LET'S TALK MORE ABOUT THE WARMEST YEAR CLAIM. ON JANUARY 16, NASA'S GODDARD INSTITUTE OF SPACE STUDIES AND THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION -- THAT'S NOAA -- CONCLUDED THAT 2014 WAS THE WARMEST YEAR IN MODERN RECORD WHICH STARTS IN 1880. NASA RELIED ON READINGS FROM OVER 3,000 MEASURING STATIONS WORLDWIDE AND FOUND AN INCREASE OF JUST .2-DEGREE OVER THE PREVIOUS RECORD -- .02-DEGREE OVER THE PREVIOUS RECORD. THE POINT LEFT OUT WAS THAT THE MARGIN OF ERROR WHICH ON AVERAGE IS 0.1% DEGREE CELSIUS, SEVERAL TIMES GREATER THAN THE AMOUNT OF WARMING, AND SO IN REALITY IT IS SO FAR WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR THAT IT IS NOT REALLY RECORDABLE. THIS DISCREPANCY WAS QUESTIONED AT A PRESS CONFERENCE AND NASA'S GISS DIRECTOR BACKTRACKED. THIS IS THE GODDARD INSTITUTE OF INSTITUTE OF SPRAYS STUDIES, BACKTRACKED ON THE WARMEST YEAR HEADLINE SAYING THERE WAS ONLY A 38% CHANCE THAT 2014 WAS THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD. ANOTHER RECENT REPORT ISSUED BY THE BERKEY EARTH SURFACE TEMPERATURE PROJECT USING DATA FROM MORE THAN 30,000 TEMPERATURE STATIONS CONCLUDED THE -- THAT IN THE EVENT -- IF 2014 WAS THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD, IT WAS BY LESS THAN 0.01 DEGREES CELSIUS. AGAIN, BELOW THE MARGIN OF ERROR ULTIMATELY MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCLUDE THAT 2014 WAS THE WARMEST YEAR. ADDITIONAL CLIMATE EXPERTS INCLUDING A UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GEOPHYSICIST DAVID DEMOCRATTING HAVE STATED THAT THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD STATEMENT IS ONLY RELEVANT WHEN THE RECORD ACTUALLY BEGAN. OTHERS STATE THAT THE RECORD-SETTING CONCLUSIONS ISSUED IN THE JANUARY -- ISSUED IN JANUARY REQUIRE THE USE OF INCOMPLETE DATA BECAUSE THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE DATA RISE MUCH LATER FROM UNDERDEVELOPED AND DEVELOPING NATIONS.

He speaks for quite a while, so laughing at a short snippet is very, very ignorant.
 
That is your claim, not mine, as the same is with #53. You think that the evangelical anti-warmers are a majority in the Christian when in fact you make up maybe one in twelve worldwide. No, you do not understand the science at all.

Believe as you wish. I asked you a question, you wiggle around it. I do know science. Spencer is not a complete creationist. He belongs to a society with that name in it, but doesn't believe the world is only 6,000 years old, as "creationist" implies. To bring such things up is a huge strawman.

Do you have any rational arguments?
 
Believe as you wish. I asked you a question, you wiggle around it. I do know science. Spencer is not a complete creationist. He belongs to a society with that name in it, but doesn't believe the world is only 6,000 years old, as "creationist" implies. To bring such things up is a huge strawman. Do you have any rational arguments?
You are running around in circles. You make statements then ascribe them to me. You and Spencer believe in confirmation science. You are in the very small minority in the Christian world as well as the science world.
 
You are running around in circles. You make statements then ascribe them to me. You and Spencer believe in confirmation science. You are in the very small minority in the Christian world as well as the science world.
Your opinion is we believe in confirmation science. have any evidence of it?

I know, without doubt, that the solar influence is stronger than what it is recognized for. This means the warming influence of other factors cannot be as strong as claimed, or there are stronger cooling factors not recognized.

What do you know of the severe loss of evapotranspiration?

What do you know about the differences in temperature reading with thermometers and thermometers?

Do you understand any of these sciences?

In electronics, for transducers, which is better? A current transducer or a voltage transducer?

Pick a climate topic, and I dare you to try to debate it with me.
 
Oh...

I am not Christian, but I do respect some of them.
 
Your opinion is we believe in confirmation science. have any evidence of it? I know, without doubt, that the solar influence is stronger than what it is recognized for. This means the warming influence of other factors cannot be as strong as claimed, or there are stronger cooling factors not recognized. What do you know of the severe loss of evapotranspiration? What do you know about the differences in temperature reading with thermometers and thermometers? Do you understand any of these sciences? In electronics, for transducers, which is better? A current transducer or a voltage transducer? Pick a climate topic, and I dare you to try to debate it with me.
Nothing to debate. Your own language guts your pronouncements. All of the terms don't mean what you think they mean, but continue right ahead anyway. And thank you for admitting finally that you are not a Christian.
 
Nothing to debate. Your own language guts your pronouncements. All of the terms don't mean what you think they mean, but continue right ahead anyway. And thank you for admitting finally that you are not a Christian.

Finally?

Was I ever asked?

I have no doubt we are spiritual beings at our core. I am simply open to the differing beliefs as I know there is life beyond death. I just am realistic, and deal with things in a scientific manner. I take to the literal interpretation of the Torah, where "God" is plural. So much more, but no need to get into that here.

AGW is real. The alarmists view of catastrophic results is not.
 
Finally? Was I ever asked? I have no doubt we are spiritual beings at our core. I am simply open to the differing beliefs as I know there is life beyond death. I just am realistic, and deal with things in a scientific manner. I take to the literal interpretation of the Torah, where "God" is plural. So much more, but no need to get into that here. AGW is real. The alarmists view of catastrophic results is not.
I appreciate that you are trying to understand.
 
It has been made, by the senator who brought a snowball into the chamber and by many in the Denier crowd, most loudly on talk radio, after the great New England snowstorm a few years ago, when more than three feet of the stuff fell in some places, and excessive moisture was seen as excessive cold.


When any of those people post on DP you can take it up with them.
 
Those are computer model simulations, and the CMIP5 has been notorious for inaccuracy.

Have any facts?
Uh huh, and let me guess, you have some special reason to dismiss satellite and weather balloon measurements too.

Cooling_Stratosphere.gif


It's a well established fact that the stratosphere is cooling, as predicted by AGW theories. Even guys like Spencer, Christy, and the Cato institute acknowledge it. It really and truly is the fingerprint of the greenhouse effect, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.
 
Uh huh, and let me guess, you have some special reason to dismiss satellite and weather balloon measurements too.

Cooling_Stratosphere.gif


It's a well established fact that the stratosphere is cooling, as predicted by AGW theories. Even guys like Spencer, Christy, and the Cato institute acknowledge it. It really and truly is the fingerprint of the greenhouse effect, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

That's better.

A 0.5 degree cooling vs. a 0.3 degree warming...

Isn't it interesting that the model shows about twice the change as the measurements?

I wasn't saying the warming/cooling was wrong. I was saying models can't calculate correctly. The general trend of these CMIP5 models is about double that of reality.

Please stop jumping to conclusions of what I mean with your confirmation bias.
 
Honest climate scientist found

Posted on 08 Sep 17 by PAUL MATTHEWS 18 Comments
A few weeks ago, Al Gore made the untrue claim that “climate-related extreme weather events have grown far more numerous and far more destructive” in the time between his original film and the sequel. This claim was widely reported, by the BBC, the Guardian, News24, and in Gore’s Conversation with Mark Maslin. Since then, I’ve been … Continue reading

. . . Well, I’m pleased to be able to say that I have found that there is at least one honest climate scientist on the planet. He wrote an e-book in response to Gore’s film remarkably quickly, but I have only just become aware of it.
Better still, Roy Spencer’s An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy is currently the #1 bestseller in Amazon’s Environmental Science category. In fact at the moment it’s even #1 in the whole of Science and Math: . . .

 
Honest climate scientist found

Posted on 08 Sep 17 by PAUL MATTHEWS 18 Comments
A few weeks ago, Al Gore made the untrue claim that “climate-related extreme weather events have grown far more numerous and far more destructive” in the time between his original film and the sequel. This claim was widely reported, by the BBC, the Guardian, News24, and in Gore’s Conversation with Mark Maslin. Since then, I’ve been … Continue reading

. . . Well, I’m pleased to be able to say that I have found that there is at least one honest climate scientist on the planet. He wrote an e-book in response to Gore’s film remarkably quickly, but I have only just become aware of it.
Better still, Roy Spencer’s An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy is currently the #1 bestseller in Amazon’s Environmental Science category. In fact at the moment it’s even #1 in the whole of Science and Math: . . .


I am amazed at the number of people who still respect such Charlatans.
 
Back
Top Bottom