Roy Spencer Oral Testimony for 19 March 2007

[GaryC 7]

So now we see that government money for research into "global warming" is dependent on what your expected outcome will be. This ladies and gentlemen is how we get this so-called "consensus".

"University of Alabama Climatologist Roy Spencer's Oral Testimony

March, 19 2007

I would like to thank the Chairman and members of the Committee for the opportunity to provide my perspective on the subject of political interference in government-funded science.

I have been performing NASA-sponsored research for the last twenty-two years.

Prior to my current position as a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, I was Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, and was an employee of NASA from 1987 to 2001."

During the period of my government employment, NASA had a rule that ANY interaction between its scientists and the press was to be coordinated through NASA management and public affairs. Understandably, NASA managers do not appreciate first learning of their scientists' findings and opinions in the morning newspapers.

It was no secret within NASA that I was skeptical of the size of the human influence on global climate. My views were diametrically opposed to those of Vice President Gore, and I believe that they were considered to be a possible hindrance to NASA getting full congressional funding for Mission to Planet Earth.

So, while Dr. Hansen was freely sounding the alarm over what HE believed to be dangerous levels of human influence on the climate, I tried to follow the rules. On many occasions I avoided answering questions from the media on the subject, and instead directed reporters to John Christy, my co-worker and a university employee.

Through the management chain, I was politely told what I was allowed to say in congressional testimony. In fact, my dodging of committee questions regarding my personal opinions on the subject of global warming was considered to be quite humorous by one committee, an exchange which is now part of the congressional record.

I want to make it very clear that I am not complaining -- I am only relating these things because I was asked to. I was, and still am, totally supportive of NASA's Earth satellite missions…but I understood that my position as a NASA employee was a privilege, not a right, and that there were rules I was expected to abide by.

Partly because of those limits on what I could and couldn't say to the press and congress, I voluntarily resigned from NASA in the fall of 2001. Even though my research responsibilities to NASA have NOT changed since resigning, being a university employee gives me much more freedom than government employees have to express opinions.

So, while you might think that the political influence on our climate research program started with the Bush Administration, that simply isn't true. It has ALWAYS existed. You just never heard about it because NASA's climate science program was aligned with Vice President Gore's desire to get rid of fossil fuels.

The bias started when the U.S. climate research program was first initiated. The emphasis on studying the PROBLEM of global warming, of course, presumes that a problem exists. As a result, the funding has ALWAYS favored the finding of evidence for climate CATASTROPHE rather than for climate STABILITY.

This biased approach to the funding of science serves several goals which favor a specific political ideology:

1) It grows government science, environmental, and policy programs, which depend upon global warming remaining as much a threat as possible.

2) It favors climate researchers, who quite naturally have vested interests in careers, pet theories, and personal incomes.

3) And, it provides justification for environmental lobbying groups, whose very existence depends upon sustaining public fears of environmental disaster.

I'm NOT claiming that a global warming science program isn't needed -- It IS. We DO need to find out how much of our current warmth is human-induced, and how much we might expect in the future. I'm just pointing out that the political interference flows both ways -- but not everyone has felt compelled to complain about it.

(This concludes my oral testimony).

http://muskegonpundit.blogspot.com/

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's a lot of contradictory information flying around on that issue - the "Hollywoodisation" article from yesterday being a case in point.

Even this guy is saying at the end of that article that studying Global Warming and human contribution to it is necessary.

A lot of people seem to want to discount the theory in its entirety merely because they object to the presentation of it which allegedly skews the science. It seems to me that the more we respond to political arguments with political arguments, the more distanced we become from the science itself. Invariably you end up with the one side that accepts human influenced GW as proven beyond any possibility of doubt, and the other that denies it as "complete myth".

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Did you people know that global warming is occurring on Mars too? No people there. I wonder what's causing it on the Earth and Mars.... hmmmmm Could it be the SUN???

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

it's due to al gore. he invented mars.

Did you people know that global warming is occurring on Mars too? No people there. I wonder what's causing it on the Earth and Mars.... hmmmmm Could it be the SUN???

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The planet Mars is undergoing significant global warming

[Scott & Lai 12]

The planet Mars is undergoing significant global warming

I'm sure it is because of all the probes and landers we've sent there, so Mars warming is also the U.S.A's fault...

[GaryC 7]

This throws into doubt any study that is directly or indirectly funded by the government. Any government study, any college research that gets funds from the government, all of it. The left has been strong-arming the scientists all along to get the results they want. I wonder why this didn't get any air time on the news? Oh- sorry, silly question.

[Niels Bohr 72]

ROFLMAO

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This throws into doubt any study that is directly or indirectly funded by the government. Any government study, any college research that gets funds from the government, all of it. The left has been strong-arming the scientists all along to get the results they want. I wonder why this didn't get any air time on the news? Oh- sorry, silly question.

Again political arguments detract from the science - all that we seem to see here is one political argument after another for and against global warming, a big game of "he said, she said". Doubtless because few if any people here have any background as a climatologist to add anything substantive from a purely scientific point of view. From the article above:

I'm NOT claiming that a global warming science program isn't needed -- It IS. We DO need to find out how much of our current warmth is human-induced, and how much we might expect in the future.

Incidentally what this guy is describing isn't untypical from what happens in a lot of corporate research programmes - remember those cigarette companies who paid for (and technically owned) all that research on the effects of smoking and chose not to disseminate what was unfavourable to their business...

I agree with you that the debate is politically skewed - but I don't believe that the entire argument for human induced global warming can be thrown out because of a couple of naysayers. For the most part - that argument seems to be a justification for continuing to trash the environment on a fairly wide scale.

Edited March 22, 2007 by erekose

[GaryC 7]

This throws into doubt any study that is directly or indirectly funded by the government. Any government study, any college research that gets funds from the government, all of it. The left has been strong-arming the scientists all along to get the results they want. I wonder why this didn't get any air time on the news? Oh- sorry, silly question.

Again political arguments detract from the science - all that we seem to see here is one political argument after another for and against global warming, a big game of "he said, she said". Doubtless because few if any people here have any background as a climatologist to add anything substantive from a purely scientific point of view. From the article above:

I'm NOT claiming that a global warming science program isn't needed -- It IS. We DO need to find out how much of our current warmth is human-induced, and how much we might expect in the future.

Incidentally what this guy is describing isn't untypical from what happens in a lot of corporate research programmes - remember those cigarette companies who paid for (and technically owned) all that research on the effects of smoking and chose not to disseminate what was unfavourable to their business...

I agree with you that the debate is politically skewed - but I don't believe that the entire argument for human induced global warming can be thrown out because of a couple of naysayers. For the most part - that argument seems to be a justification for continuing to trash the environment on a fairly wide scale.

I didn't say throw out. I said throws into doubt. How much of what these studies say that get government funding can we believe now? This is from the horse's mouth.

The bias started when the U.S. climate research program was first initiated. The emphasis on studying the PROBLEM of global warming, of course, presumes that a problem exists. As a result, the funding has ALWAYS favored the finding of evidence for climate CATASTROPHE rather than for climate STABILITY.

And how about this?

This biased approach to the funding of science serves several goals which favor a specific political ideology:

1) It grows government science, environmental, and policy programs, which depend upon global warming remaining as much a threat as possible.

2) It favors climate researchers, who quite naturally have vested interests in careers, pet theories, and personal incomes.

3) And, it provides justification for environmental lobbying groups, whose very existence depends upon sustaining public fears of environmental disaster.

I draw your attention to the second point. That all by itself skews any result they may get. It says that they are going in trying to prove their own theories and not doing real science. Even Steven would have to agree that they are not using "the scientific process" to test their theories. The are going in with a preconceived notion and then trying to gather data to support that.

This has been my argument all along. It's junk science and it is far from proven. The left has their own agenda and have been stacking the deck.

Remember, this isn't some right wing hack talking in this statement. It is NASA's top climate scientist.

I have been performing NASA-sponsored research for the last twenty-two years.

Prior to my current position as a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, I was Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, and was an employee of NASA from 1987 to 2001."

He had to quit his job so he could speak his mind while the others in NASA that went along with this Global Warming nonsense were allowed to speak freely.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There are several issues regarding Global Warming that Gary seems to be confused about. First, the theory of Global Warming (that greenhouses gases affect the earth's temperature) is NOT junk science nor has it been refuted by Dr. Spencer or the scientific community. Gary, am I correct that you believe the theory of Global Warming is junk science?

Secondly, the issue that a significant amount of greenhouses gases in earth's atmosphere come from human activity - this also is not refuted by Dr. Spencer or the scientific community, yet I know from many posts of yours Gary, that you also don't believe this is factual, right?

Lastly, (and this is where Dr. Spencer is making his point) he is stating that we don't know with certainty, how much of an impact human activity has on Global Warming. Surprisingly, Gary, if you could pull yourself away from the political rhetoric and actually read what the scientists are saying with regard to Global Warming, you will see that Dr. Spencer is not saying anything overtly controversial or contradictory to the community of climate scientists around the world.

Here's something worth noting, Gary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien...rming_consensus

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind." (George C. Marshall Institute Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy, April 17, 2006

That's not a condemnation or refutation of Global Warming that you seem to aspire to Gary.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I have been performing NASA-sponsored research for the last twenty-two years.

Prior to my current position as a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, I was Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, and was an employee of NASA from 1987 to 2001."

He had to quit his job so he could speak his mind while the others in NASA that went along with this Global Warming nonsense were allowed to speak freely.

Where exactly did he state that?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I have been performing NASA-sponsored research for the last twenty-two years.

Prior to my current position as a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, I was Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, and was an employee of NASA from 1987 to 2001."

He had to quit his job so he could speak his mind while the others in NASA that went along with this Global Warming nonsense were allowed to speak freely.

Where exactly did he state that?

He doesn't. He said that said from certain approved Nasa forbid its employees from directly approaching the media, leaving that task to corporate officials and public affairrs. That's fairly standard for employees working for (any) large company.

[GaryC 7]

I have been performing NASA-sponsored research for the last twenty-two years.

Prior to my current position as a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, I was Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, and was an employee of NASA from 1987 to 2001."

He had to quit his job so he could speak his mind while the others in NASA that went along with this Global Warming nonsense were allowed to speak freely.

Where exactly did he state that?

Looks like that is what he is saying here. He was muzzled to protect the funding from the Global Warming nuts in the government.

During the period of my government employment, NASA had a rule that ANY interaction between its scientists and the press was to be coordinated through NASA management and public affairs. Understandably, NASA managers do not appreciate first learning of their scientists' findings and opinions in the morning newspapers.

It was no secret within NASA that I was skeptical of the size of the human influence on global climate. My views were diametrically opposed to those of Vice President Gore, and I believe that they were considered to be a possible hindrance to NASA getting full congressional funding for Mission to Planet Earth.

So, while Dr. Hansen was freely sounding the alarm over what HE believed to be dangerous levels of human influence on the climate, I tried to follow the rules. On many occasions I avoided answering questions from the media on the subject, and instead directed reporters to John Christy, my co-worker and a university employee.

Through the management chain, I was politely told what I was allowed to say in congressional testimony. In fact, my dodging of committee questions regarding my personal opinions on the subject of global warming was considered to be quite humorous by one committee, an exchange which is now part of the congressional record.

Secondly, the issue that a significant amount of greenhouses gases in earth's atmosphere come from human activity - this also is not refuted by Dr. Spencer or the scientific community, yet I know from many posts of yours Gary, that you also don't believe this is factual, right?

Only a tiny amount of greenhouse gasses come from human activity. The vast majority are natural. That is something that is always overlooked by the GW crowd.

From another source:

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils...house_data.html

I know that your never going to give it up. To you GW is a religion. But I will continue to point out how wrong you are never the less.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever