The Rise Of 21st Century Witch Burners

Fanatic journalist says that 97% of scientists believe that typhoons never used to happen in the Philippines, and refuses to let an expert speak on the subject. Hertsgaard believes that all scientists support his position, because he refuses to talk to anyone who doesn’t. He has created a consensus in his mind by only talking to people who agree with his worldview.

Here is Dr. Roy Spencer’s bio.

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

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.

I have not seen any writing from the scientific community which blames the typhoon on global warming.

h/t to Dave G

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to The Rise Of 21st Century Witch Burners

  1. David A says:

    The journalist, from Beserkly Calif. Why am I not surprised.

  2. Kent Clizbe says:

    And here is Spencer’s opponent’s background:

    Mark Hertsgaard (www.markhertsgaard.com) is an independent journalist who has covered politics, the media and the environment for 20 years for leading outlets around the world, including Vanity Fair, Time, The Nation, L’espresso and the BBC. He is the author of six books, including most recently, “HOT: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth.”

    And, did he mention? He has a daughter, who he loves very much: “He is a Fellow of the New America Foundation, the environment correspondent for The Nation, and a co-founder of the group, Climate Parents. A single father, he lives in San Francisco with his daughter, Chiara, who never fails to make him smile.”

    So he’s qualified.

    Denier!

    Shut up!

  3. gator69 says:

    That 97% just keeps going, and going, and going… the Ecoliar Bunny.

  4. Joseph says:

    How is one supposed to “debate” when no one (i.e. Mark) will listen to the facts?

  5. jimash1 says:

    First he says that no one should interview “deniers” when reporting about “climate change”.
    Then he denies that he only interviews scientists who agree with the climate change hypothesis.
    hippocritter

    • John Q. Galt says:

      While accusing Dr. Spencer of being a Conspiracy Theorist! The balls on that guy. Surprised he didn’t drop the Faked Moonwalking meme. Haha.

  6. rah says:

    Dr.Spencer is way too nice, balanced, and reasoned for such “debates”. When the “Drama-Greens” start reverting to the touch stones of their faith and the volume and intensity elevates as they try to dominate by pure bluster a little smile, even a snicker or eye roll becomes appropriate. Such actions often elicit a even more aggressive response that makes the spittle really begin to fly. When the other side is unarmed with accurate information and relies on faith you must make them vehement to the point where they appear to lose reason. It is no different than trying to debate the legitimacy of Israels existence with the likes of a Yassar Arafat. That is how you win such a “debate”.

    • Psalmon says:

      He follows the AGW debating rules almost perfectly:
      1. Call names: Denier, etc.
      2. Answer facts with no facts: He talks over Roy’s attempt at facts
      3. Invoke moral authority: He never stops doing this
      4. Declare victory: Don’t even talk to this guy Spencer it’s malpractice

      To debate these guys you have to know their playbook and cut them off/call them out on each of these steps. Point out their name calling. Force them to respond to facts. Call out their retreat to the 97% thing. Force them to answer facts. Point out the guy’s game.

  7. Dave says:

    Hertsgaard did the impossible, he made Piers Morgan appear rational.

  8. GoneWithTheWind says:

    You will notice the journalist had to (as in had no other choice) resort to talking over his opponent and making sure his opponents points remained unheard. Common sense and experience tells you that people who are confident they are right and their opponent is wrong don’t do that. In fact they don’t have to do it because as an individual speaks and expounds on a subject in which they are wrong it becomes obvious that they are wrong.

  9. John Q. Galt says:

    This is why they blow the dog whistle and never actually mention any sciencey ideas that would be an interesting topic to explore. The bigoted “d-word” hatespeech is all they are interested in broadcasting each and every time they speak.

  10. Anto says:

    I can’t wait until Hertsgaard and his ilk experience their Harold Camping Moment.

  11. I covered Hertsgaard back in 2011, when Senator Inhofe stopped him dead in his tracks: “Global Warming Alarmist ambushes Sen. Inhofe – can the alarmist withstand a congressional ambush on him?” http://ow.ly/qMypN

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s