4 ms·

It's just crazy. Even this quote from article is an exaggeration: As I’ve written about before, climate change is going to be bad, and it will hold back human

It's just crazy. Even this quote from article is an exaggeration: As I’ve written about before, climate change is going to be bad, and it will hold back humanity from thriving as much as we should this century. It will likely cause mass migration and displacement and extinctions of many species. The global tropospheric temperature has been steadily increasing at a rate of only 0.13C per decade over the last forty years[0]. [0] https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/ https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-...

fallingfrog 4y ago
Roy Spencer is a creationist, just FYI, and that link is to a climate change denial website. The RSS examined the same data and got .184.
- wrycoder 4y ago
  Spencer is not a global warming "denialist". He believes that warming is occurring, but that it is modest. The link is to Spencer's personal website, not some random "climate change denial website". RSS has their own data from their own satellites. Here's Spencer's remarks on the discrepancy between the satellite measurements[0]. I have no opinion on Spencer's theology, since it is irrelevant and does not appear in his climate science work. Your slur of "creationist" is likely no more valid than calling him a "denialist". [0] https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/ https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-s...
  - momdad420 4y ago
  - fallingfrog 4y ago
    "creationist" definitely wasn't meant as a slur in the sense that its a word he chose to describe himself. There shouldn't be any link between the two- logically there is none- but yet nearly all people who doubt climate change are fundamentalist christians. I sure don't know why, I wish someone could explain it to me. I think it could possibly be some thought process like "this is all a ploy to undermine the power of the west by taking away fossil fuels, which is a land that god has blessed due to our virtuous obedience to the word of god, and therefore the people pushing the narrative of climate change are against god". Something like that. But again I don't really know. I'm sure he's a perfectly decent person though. And you know, some of the hype is overblown, like that uninhabitable earth book, which I'm pretty sure most scientists disagree with.
    - wrycoder 4y ago
      Do "creationists" call themselves by that term? Or do they view it as dismissive of their beliefs? To say, "nearly all people who doubt climate change are fundamentalist christians" is a pretty sweeping statement. I'm not a Christian myself, and I don't actually know any fundamentalists. Yet, about 80% of the older crowd I hang with are negative about the actuality of human-caused global warming (and 80% of the younger crowd, e.g. HN, are very worried). I believe that only perhaps one percent of people have any personal exposure to climate science, in the sense that they have at least scanned the IPCC reports, read some of the refereed papers presenting alternate views, and formed their own opinions. The other 99% in the US are divided into two tribes, whose members form their opinions by listening to the tribal influencers. In the resulting polarization, if I know someone's opinion on a specific issue, I can pretty well predict their opinion on many other issues, including global warming. I'm personally a "luke-warmer", like Spencer. My position is that we are still coming out of the last ice age - there was ice a mile thick where I sit only fifteen thousand years ago, so some warming is expected. My background is physics, and I've been following climate science pretty closely for over twenty years. It's increasingly apparent that the tropospheric temperature record, as measured by satellite, is not in agreement with the computer models that are the source of all the excitement. It's also apparent that the official position on global warming is gradually being adjusted downward. Getting off fossil fuels is a very good idea. We need to switch to solar and nuclear energy. Personally, I get about half my heat from burning locally grown wood, including from my own property. We grow a good part of our own food and keep chickens. I don't have any high energy toys, and I believe in treading lightly on the earth. I'm an independent thinker, and I don't fall into either tribe. There is an interview with Spencer, done following Google's demonetization of his website for spreading disinformation[0]. I'd recommend at least reading the preface to his short book[1], which is part of the Kindle sample on Amazon. I'll include a paragraph from the book's conclusion: Given that CO2 is necessary for life on Earth, yet had been at dangerously low levels for thousands of years, the scientific community needs to stop accepting the premise that more CO2 in the atmosphere is necessarily a bad thing. Global greening has been observed by satellites over the last few decades, which is during the period of most rapid rises in atmospheric CO2. The benefits of increasing CO2 to agriculture have been calculated to be in the trillions of dollars. Crop yields continue to break records around the world, due to a combination of human ingenuity and the direct effects of CO2 on plant growth and water use efficiency. Spencer, Roy. Global Warming Skepticism for Busy People (pp. 126-127). Kindle Edition. [0] https://youtu.be/CZy8mgD05QA https://youtu.be/CZy8mgD05QA [1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07H57WVYJ/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07H57WVYJ/ref=dbs_a_def_r...

fallingfrog 4y ago

Roy Spencer is a creationist, just FYI, and that link is to a climate change denial website. The RSS examined the same data and got .184.

wrycoder 4y ago
Spencer is not a global warming "denialist". He believes that warming is occurring, but that it is modest. The link is to Spencer's personal website, not some random "climate change denial website". RSS has their own data from their own satellites. Here's Spencer's remarks on the discrepancy between the satellite measurements[0]. I have no opinion on Spencer's theology, since it is irrelevant and does not appear in his climate science work. Your slur of "creationist" is likely no more valid than calling him a "denialist". [0] https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/ https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-s...
- momdad420 4y ago
- fallingfrog 4y ago
  "creationist" definitely wasn't meant as a slur in the sense that its a word he chose to describe himself. There shouldn't be any link between the two- logically there is none- but yet nearly all people who doubt climate change are fundamentalist christians. I sure don't know why, I wish someone could explain it to me. I think it could possibly be some thought process like "this is all a ploy to undermine the power of the west by taking away fossil fuels, which is a land that god has blessed due to our virtuous obedience to the word of god, and therefore the people pushing the narrative of climate change are against god". Something like that. But again I don't really know. I'm sure he's a perfectly decent person though. And you know, some of the hype is overblown, like that uninhabitable earth book, which I'm pretty sure most scientists disagree with.
  - wrycoder 4y ago
    Do "creationists" call themselves by that term? Or do they view it as dismissive of their beliefs? To say, "nearly all people who doubt climate change are fundamentalist christians" is a pretty sweeping statement. I'm not a Christian myself, and I don't actually know any fundamentalists. Yet, about 80% of the older crowd I hang with are negative about the actuality of human-caused global warming (and 80% of the younger crowd, e.g. HN, are very worried). I believe that only perhaps one percent of people have any personal exposure to climate science, in the sense that they have at least scanned the IPCC reports, read some of the refereed papers presenting alternate views, and formed their own opinions. The other 99% in the US are divided into two tribes, whose members form their opinions by listening to the tribal influencers. In the resulting polarization, if I know someone's opinion on a specific issue, I can pretty well predict their opinion on many other issues, including global warming. I'm personally a "luke-warmer", like Spencer. My position is that we are still coming out of the last ice age - there was ice a mile thick where I sit only fifteen thousand years ago, so some warming is expected. My background is physics, and I've been following climate science pretty closely for over twenty years. It's increasingly apparent that the tropospheric temperature record, as measured by satellite, is not in agreement with the computer models that are the source of all the excitement. It's also apparent that the official position on global warming is gradually being adjusted downward. Getting off fossil fuels is a very good idea. We need to switch to solar and nuclear energy. Personally, I get about half my heat from burning locally grown wood, including from my own property. We grow a good part of our own food and keep chickens. I don't have any high energy toys, and I believe in treading lightly on the earth. I'm an independent thinker, and I don't fall into either tribe. There is an interview with Spencer, done following Google's demonetization of his website for spreading disinformation[0]. I'd recommend at least reading the preface to his short book[1], which is part of the Kindle sample on Amazon. I'll include a paragraph from the book's conclusion: Given that CO2 is necessary for life on Earth, yet had been at dangerously low levels for thousands of years, the scientific community needs to stop accepting the premise that more CO2 in the atmosphere is necessarily a bad thing. Global greening has been observed by satellites over the last few decades, which is during the period of most rapid rises in atmospheric CO2. The benefits of increasing CO2 to agriculture have been calculated to be in the trillions of dollars. Crop yields continue to break records around the world, due to a combination of human ingenuity and the direct effects of CO2 on plant growth and water use efficiency. Spencer, Roy. Global Warming Skepticism for Busy People (pp. 126-127). Kindle Edition. [0] https://youtu.be/CZy8mgD05QA https://youtu.be/CZy8mgD05QA [1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07H57WVYJ/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07H57WVYJ/ref=dbs_a_def_r...