- Jan 1, 1970
keithr said:Nope, I couldn't care less about his religious views, neither do I
care in the least about the religious views of the members of the
**A person that holds 'Intelligent Design' as some kind of rational view is
seriously suspect. In fact, I would be concerned about any person, that
claims to be a scientist, who hold any kind of supernatural beliefs.
Spencer is part of this organisation:
Here is part of their platform:
1.. We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent
design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are
robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited
for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is
no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming
and cooling in geologic history.
2.. We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human
flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject
poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it.
With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if
energy is to be abundant and affordable.
3.. We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels,
will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
4.. We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because
the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately
need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.
Disturbing stuff. Spencer is listed as a prominent signer:
It seems clear that Spencer STARTS from a theological POV and moulds his
science to fit that view. Are you certain you want to get on this idiot's
train of thought?
Spencer's own words:-
"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."
Do you have any cites to prove him a liar?
**Certainly, but it gets very messy. Probably easier to refer you to the
organisation that has unravelled the paper trail:
And, of course, here is where he has worked for the Heartland Institute:
The Heartland Institute is a 'front' for big tobacco and big oil (along with
In short, Spencer is a religious nutter, who is (partly) paid by big oil.
Yes, it worries me that they start out from the point of view that he
is wrong, and then go looking for evidence to support that.
**No, I do not. Spencer is a religious fruit-cake. ANYTHING he says must be
viewed with deep suspicion.
not the scientific method.
**Indeed. Which is why I supplied a number of cites that criticise Spencer's
claims. Did you look at them?
Some of it, unfortunately, I am not in a position to confirm or
dispute their modelling,
**This present discussion is not specifically about the modelling. It's
about the fact that AGW is occuring. IOW: We only need look at the
but I am by nature suspicious of the results
of computer modelling, basically it tends to be high speed guessing.
**Indeed. And the modelling of climate is improving all the time.
The problem is extremely complex and all attempts to model climate
have been gross simplifications. Even the models to predict tomorrows
weather rarely agree with each other.
**Bullshit. The BoM has a very impressive success rate with determining
weather over a 24 hour period. It is less successful over 48 hours and even
less so over 72 hours and so on. However, we are not discussing weather.
We're discussing climate. BIG difference.
I have an open mind on the subject (which probably puts me in a
minority of one) global warming is without doubt, but the cause is very
much open to question.
**Well, no, it is not "Very much open to question". There is a small amont
of doubt about why it is occuring. Around 5% at present.