• 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

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, that didn't take long. Roy Spencer has taken Al Gore to the woodshed. Gore is exposed here as the thorough charlatan he's always been.


New book from Dr. Roy Spencer on Al Gore’s fallacies: An Inconvenient Deception

How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy – Al Gore has provided a target-rich environment of deceptions in his new movie. Guest essay by Dr. Roy Spencer After viewing Gore’s most recent movie, An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, and after reading the book version of the movie, I was more than a little…
Continue reading →

. . . Gore is also shown jumping across meltwater streams on the Greenland ice sheet. No mention is made that this happens naturally every year. Sure, 2012 was exceptional for its warmth and snow melt (which he mentioned), but then 2017 came along and did just the opposite with record snow accumulation, little melt, and the coldest temperature ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere for a July.
The fact that receding glaciers in Alaska are revealing stumps from ancient forests that grew 1,000 to 2,000 years ago proves that climate varies naturally, and glaciers advance and recede without any help from humans. . . .

Some of what Gore claims is just outright false. He says that wheat and corn yields in China are down by 5% in recent decades. Wrong. They have been steadily climbing, just like almost everywhere else in the world. Here’s the situation for all grain crops in China:

And that lack of rainfall in Syria that supposedly caused conflict and war? It didn’t happen. Poor farmers could no longer afford diesel fuel to pump groundwater because Assad tripled the price. Semi-arid Syria is no place to grow enough crops for a rapidly growing population, anyway. . . .

 
Jack Hays said:
Well, that didn't take long. Roy Spencer has taken Al Gore to the woodshed. Gore is exposed here as the thorough charlatan he's always been.


New book from Dr. Roy Spencer on Al Gore’s fallacies: An Inconvenient Deception

How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy – Al Gore has provided a target-rich environment of deceptions in his new movie. Guest essay by Dr. Roy Spencer After viewing Gore’s most recent movie, An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, and after reading the book version of the movie, I was more than a little…
Continue reading →

. . . Gore is also shown jumping across meltwater streams on the Greenland ice sheet. No mention is made that this happens naturally every year. Sure, 2012 was exceptional for its warmth and snow melt (which he mentioned), but then 2017 came along and did just the opposite with record snow accumulation, little melt, and the coldest temperature ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere for a July.
The fact that receding glaciers in Alaska are revealing stumps from ancient forests that grew 1,000 to 2,000 years ago proves that climate varies naturally, and glaciers advance and recede without any help from humans. . . .

Some of what Gore claims is just outright false. He says that wheat and corn yields in China are down by 5% in recent decades. Wrong. They have been steadily climbing, just like almost everywhere else in the world. Here’s the situation for all grain crops in China:

And that lack of rainfall in Syria that supposedly caused conflict and war? It didn’t happen. Poor farmers could no longer afford diesel fuel to pump groundwater because Assad tripled the price. Semi-arid Syria is no place to grow enough crops for a rapidly growing population, anyway. . . .
Click to expand...

Spencer takes turns debunking and being debunked. In 2012 he predicted there would be "very little warming" in coming years. Since then we've had the three warmest global years on record. Regarding his criticisms of Gore, I do agree that politicians should leave science to scientists. If that happened the United States might have a saner climate policy.
 
JackA said:
Spencer takes turns debunking and being debunked. In 2012 he predicted there would be "very little warming" in coming years. Since then we've had the three warmest global years on record. Regarding his criticisms of Gore, I do agree that politicians should leave science to scientists. If that happened the United States might have a saner climate policy.
Click to expand...

It looks more and more like Spencer was right in 2012. Those "warmest years" barely exceeded 1998.


[h=1]Cooling: UAH reports the Lowest global temperature anomaly in last 2 years[/h]UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2017: +0.21 deg. C by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. Lowest global temperature anomaly in last 2 years (since July, 2015) The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2017 was +0.21 deg. C, down from the May, 2017 value of +0.44 deg. C (click…

July 4, 2017 in Climate data.
 
Would this Roy Spencer by chance be the same Roy Spencer who wrote...

Roy Spencer | The Evolution Crtisis said:
"I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world."
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays simply does not understand the science of this.

I have better things to do than guide him, so I will leave that to others.

Spencer was wrong.
 
JamesBY said:
Jack Hays simply does not understand the science of this.

I have better things to do than guide him, so I will leave that to others.

Spencer was wrong.
Click to expand...

Ignorant nonsense compounded (it seems) by cowardice.
 
Jack Hays said:
It looks more and more like Spencer was right in 2012. Those "warmest years" barely exceeded 1998.


[h=1]Cooling: UAH reports the Lowest global temperature anomaly in last 2 years[/h]UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2017: +0.21 deg. C by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. Lowest global temperature anomaly in last 2 years (since July, 2015) The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2017 was +0.21 deg. C, down from the May, 2017 value of +0.44 deg. C (click…

July 4, 2017 in Climate data.
Click to expand...

One also has to consider that there is background warming that is not considered part of AGW,
like the warming between 1910 and 1944,
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1910&lasttrendyear=1944
.13 C per decade.
It makes the .15 C per decade between 1978 and 2014 seem not so significant.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1978&lasttrendyear=2014
Even if the endpoint includes the know weather event of the 2015 2016 El Nino, the trend is only .17 C per decade.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1978&lasttrendyear=2017
This means that the total of Human contribution is likely only about .04 C per decade.
Scary stuff!:mrgreen:
 
JamesBY said:
Yes, you are a creationist and believe in Confirmation Science.

Why you hate real science is rooted in your creationist bigotry.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you won't get far with that nonsense, but thanks for playing.
 
longview said:
One also has to consider that there is background warming that is not considered part of AGW,
like the warming between 1910 and 1944,
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1910&lasttrendyear=1944
.13 C per decade.
It makes the .15 C per decade between 1978 and 2014 seem not so significant.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1978&lasttrendyear=2014
Even if the endpoint includes the know weather event of the 2015 2016 El Nino, the trend is only .17 C per decade.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1978&lasttrendyear=2017
This means that the total of Human contribution is likely only about .04 C per decade.
Scary stuff!:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

ssssshhhh you aren't supposed to post facts and actual science.

that was one of the biggest eggs that they flopped.
the last one back in 2008 where the solar minimum caused about 100 years of warming to get wiped out in that year.

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/glocool_articles2.pdf

global temps dropped .65-.75 degrees that year.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
It looks more and more like Spencer was right in 2012. Those "warmest years" barely exceeded 1998.


[h=1]Cooling: UAH reports the Lowest global temperature anomaly in last 2 years[/h]UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2017: +0.21 deg. C by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. Lowest global temperature anomaly in last 2 years (since July, 2015) The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2017 was +0.21 deg. C, down from the May, 2017 value of +0.44 deg. C (click…

July 4, 2017 in Climate data.
Click to expand...

Please. 1998 was a fluke year, made for cherry picking. The year stands alone on the graph like a giant in a freak show, owing its progency to a record El Nino the year before. What is significant is the greater warmth of the decade of the 2000's over the decade of the 1990's followed by even warmer decade we are presently experiencing.
 
JackA said:
Please. 1998 was a fluke year, made for cherry picking. The year stands alone on the graph like a giant in a freak show, owing its progency to a record El Nino the year before. What is significant is the greater warmth of the decade of the 2000's over the decade of the 1990's followed by even warmer decade we are presently experiencing.
Click to expand...

The recent "warmest years" we're also El Niño products, so you can put that "where the sun don't shine." Whether the current decade is "even warmer" remains to be seen.

I note your attempt to stay away from the thread topic. I have yet to see a defense of Gore.
 
Jack Hays said:
The recent "warmest years" we're also El Niño products, so you can put that "where the sun don't shine." Whether the current decade is "even warmer" remains to be seen.

I note your attempt to stay away from the thread topic. I have yet to see a defense of Gore.
Click to expand...

A single year doesn't make a trend and when it stands alone, as 1998 stands, an objective observer would accept it as an aberration, yet climate change deniers hang on to 1998 like the holy grail. It's transparently pathetic.

I'm not attempting to stay away from Gore. I am staying away. I said at the top I agree with Spencer that politicians should not try to be scientists.
 
JackA said:
A single year doesn't make a trend and when it stands alone, as 1998 stands, an objective observer would accept it as an aberration, yet climate change deniers hang on to 1998 like the holy grail. It's transparently pathetic.

I'm not attempting to stay away from Gore. I am staying away. I said at the top I agree with Spencer that politicians should not try to be scientists.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you can't set aside 1998 and then trumpet the recent "warmest years."
 
JackA said:
A single year doesn't make a trend and when it stands alone, as 1998 stands, an objective observer would accept it as an aberration, yet climate change deniers hang on to 1998 like the holy grail. It's transparently pathetic.

I'm not attempting to stay away from Gore. I am staying away. I said at the top I agree with Spencer that politicians should not try to be scientists.
Click to expand...

Gore was not attempting to be a scientist. He was being a liar.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but you can't set aside 1998 and then trumpet the recent "warmest years."
Click to expand...

Don't misquote me, please. I pointed out that the years conflicted with Spencer's prediction. What I "trumpeted" was the warming trend that has occurred during the years since 1998 as compared with the entire decade of the 1990's, and earlier decades for that matter.
 
JackA said:
Don't misquote me, please. I pointed out that the years conflicted with Spencer's prediction. What I "trumpeted" was the warming trend that has occurred during the years since 1998 as compared with the entire decade of the 1990's, and earlier decades for that matter.
Click to expand...

They did not conflict. There was only a brief aberration and the test has not been concluded.
 
Gore is simply an emotional target used by the right-wing to avoid taking responsibility for AGW, and continuing their denials in public. If they can pull at conservative leaning peoples desire to resist being aligned with those 'tree hugging liberals' they can win enough of them to keep the denial train going - without having to address the science at all.

Spencer has made so many basic mistakes and repeated so many lies, his peers have lost all respect for him. He'll talk about urban heat islands, 'no warming in ten years', and even question the well established link between greenhouse gases and warming. Most of it's basic bunk that was addressed twenty years ago by researchers, but has found new life on the internet, and should know better than to repeat.

Meanwhile, the cooling trend in the lower stratosphere and warming in the troposphere, clearly illustrate a greenhouse effect.

hgvbmjgjyh.jpg
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes. Spencer is a creationist. Gore is divorced. Neither fact is relevant.
Click to expand...

Divorce is not relevant, of course. If you are also saying that a scientific approach (in this case a bad one) is not relevant to your denier theories I think you are being a little hard on yourself.
 
JackA said:
Divorce is not relevant, of course. If you are also saying that a scientific approach (in this case a bad one) is not relevant to your denier theories I think you are being a little hard on yourself.
Click to expand...

Scientists with any number of religious viewpoints contribute effectively around the world. Their religious viewpoints have nothing to do with their "scientific approach." To claim otherwise without evidence is bigotry.
 
MovingPictures said:
Gore is simply an emotional target used by the right-wing to avoid taking responsibility for AGW, and continuing their denials in public. If they can pull at conservative leaning peoples desire to resist being aligned with those 'tree hugging liberals' they can win enough of them to keep the denial train going - without having to address the science at all.

Spencer has made so many basic mistakes and repeated so many lies, his peers have lost all respect for him. He'll talk about urban heat islands, 'no warming in ten years', and even question the well established link between greenhouse gases and warming. Most of it's basic bunk that was addressed twenty years ago by researchers, but has found new life on the internet, and should know better than to repeat.

Meanwhile, the cooling trend in the lower stratosphere and warming in the troposphere, clearly illustrate a greenhouse effect.

hgvbmjgjyh.jpg
Click to expand...
Does the average of many simulations make it better? or do the errors in the assumptions accumulate?
You really cannot say what is happening in the lower stratosphere, or troposphere, based on simulations.
The only empirical data related to AGW, is a paper Fildman, et al 2015
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
They found a much lower energy imbalance to added CO2 than is required to support the IPCC's
catastrophic predictions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom