Update on Possible Ecoterror Attack at UAH

April 26th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Ecoterrorism. Eco-terrorism is defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as “the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against people or property by an environmentally oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.” -Wikipedia

It appears that at least some people are beginning to take the shots fired into the side of our building a little more seriously.

By way of clarification, the March for Science here on Saturday did not pass right by our building, but started farther down our street. (As I’ve said before, the shots would not have been fired during the march. The expensive “boutique” FN Five-seven [5.7 mm] gun used has a loud report — everyone would have noticed.)

Also, there seems to be some disagreement whether all shots hit John Christy’s floor (4th floor of the NSSTC). UAH Chief of Staff Ray Garner has been quoted in this AL.com story that a few shots hit the third floor. I did not see those when surveying the outside; each floor has about 5 ft of window at the top, and 3 ft of siding below the window. Some of the bullets hit the siding below the window. Below the 4th floor would then be 5 feet of window on the third floor, and no third floor windows were hit that I could tell.

But it doesn’t really matter. The bullets all hit near John Christy’s office.

University of Alabama in Huntsville climate scientist Dr. John Christy looks at a bullet hole in the window of the office next to his at the university. Seven shots were fired at the building over the weekend of April 22-23, and Christy believes his floor was targeted. (Lee Roop/[email protected])

In fact, these details miss the big picture of this event. Even if: (1) the bullets had hit the other end of the building, (2) on the first floor, (3) it didn’t happen on Earth Day weekend, and (4) there was no March for Science that weekend, I would still consider 7 shots fired into our building a probable act of ecoterrorism.

I am not surprised this happened at all.

For the last 25 years our science has been viewed as standing in the way of efforts to institute a carbon tax or otherwise reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The amount of money involved in such changes in energy policy easily run into the hundreds of billions of dollars… more likely trillions.

When I was at NASA, my boss was personally told by Al Gore that Gore blamed our satellite temperature dataset for the failure of carbon tax legislation to pass.

So why am I not surprised that our building was shot up?

Because people have been killed for much less reason than hundreds of billions of dollars.

This is why the FBI needs to get involved in this case, if they haven’t already. Ecoterrorism is a federal crime. There were federal employees in the building at the time the shots were fired into the building.

The original media reports that the event was a “random shooting” were, in my opinion, irresponsible. As far as I know, there were no questions asked of us, like “Do you know why someone might have intentionally shot into your building?

Well, hell, yes I know why. And I’m a little surprised it didn’t happen sooner.

John and I have testified in congress many times on our work. John has been particularly effective in his testimony over the years. While I believe the shots were a “message” to us, I don’t think John or I are that worried for our personal safety. Whoever did this is most likely not going to approach us and physically threaten us in person. Instead, we mostly just get hate mail. Nevertheless, just in case I took personal defense training with firearms years ago.

I doubt that the perps will ever be identified. But if UAH employees want to have a sense of safety, it is not helpful for such an event to be deemed a “random shooting” within only six hours of it being reported, and the public told it won’t be investigated any further. Last evening, the UAH police sent out emails to everyone on campus asking for any additional information related to the shooting, and correcting their previous statement that no one was in the building during the shooting (NWS employees are here 24/7). The FBI needs to also be involved in this, sending a message that if anyone tries to do this again, there might be consequences.

The parents of students considering attending UAH would expect no less.

CLARIFICATION: I didn’t mean to imply the motive for the shooting was necessarily financial, although the perps could have been paid to do what someone else was afraid to do on their own. It’s more likely they are religiously motivated, hoping to Save the Earth. Of course, the evidence that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is good for life on Earth is not part of their religion.


140 Responses to “Update on Possible Ecoterror Attack at UAH”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Vincent says:

    I understand your concern, Roy. But part of the problem is the easy availability of firearms in America. Unfortunately Donald Trump supports that right for all citizens to bear arms.

    • Jim T says:

      Actually, Vincent, it is the U.S. Constitution that supports the right of all citizens to “keep and bear arms”. This was recently affirmed in a very pointed decision by the Supreme Court. The problem is, as Dr. Spencer points out, eco-terrorism. Your concern is misplaced.

      • Vincent says:

        Of course it’s the U.S. constitution that supports the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms”. I’m not disputing that.

        I’m questioning the sense of that, in a modern context.

        I’m certainly glad we don’t support that right in Australia, and most European countries do not support that right.

        Whilst I sympathize with Roy’s concerns about those shots which were possibly not random, the issue of this constitutional right of all Americans to bear arms is perhaps as important as the issue of CO2.

        • Carbonicus says:

          You’re correct. Those are both critically important issues.

          Which is why many of us are committed to both strict adherence to the Constitution (and that includes all of it, with 1A/2A particularly relevant to this discussion) AND stopping bad energy/environmental policy driven by the abrogation of the scientific method.

          • Alison says:

            Yeah. Right to bear arms. And everybody bearing them must be out at the militia grounds every Saturday afternoon at 2:00 for exercises and training.

        • David in Ardmore says:

          Vincent,

          I was very young the only time I was compelled to brandish a firearm for self-defense. We can’t each carry a police officer on our backs and have them at our beckoned call 24-7; and where I live you’re much better off defending yourself anyway.

          Criminals don’t give a damn about gun laws. So the Constitutional right for individuals to bear arms is certainly more important than the issue of CO2, because when the political animals and soothsayers attempt to wrest our other rights, our property, and our sovereignty for the sake of their contextual fraud, we can put them back in their bottle.

        • ossqss says:

          I suppose commenting on gun control from a country that took guns away from you is easy.

          We don’t live there. We live in the USA.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiEwF90iLqo&app=desktop

        • barry says:

          The different policies is the point. Gun death in Australia is 10 times less than the US (the overall homicide rate is 4 times less).

          “We” live all over the world. Comparisons are kind of inevitable, sometimes even useful.

          • ossqss says:

            Interesting points.

            Do you think those statistics you reference (without citation) are influenced by not having the right to actually possess a gun where you live?

            Think about that….

            “We” don’t live all over the world. I live in the USA, where I have the right to protect myself with any means I deem necessary. That is my right in this country! Period.

            So,do you use a rolling pin or broom stick for protecting your family and friends against an assault on them?

            Yep, think real hard about that.

          • barry says:

            The exact impact of stricter gun laws on homicide and gun death is impossible to nail down. Many contributing factors are different country to country, too.

            I’ve thought about it. Sometimes even talk about it.

            I do not want to take your gun way from you. You might shoot me.

          • Alan says:

            There is a problem comparing various crime rates in the USA and Australia. Different definitions are used to what is considered a gun crime… even what is a ‘crime’ is defined differently.

            One has to dig through the definitions and then adjust for the local governments’ spin. The Australian government does not want to look bad. So, they have been changing how they classify crime and gun violence to how much better things are now.

            There is also the problem of ‘gun’ violence decreasing while other all violent crime increases for a net overall increase. After 20 years guns are still used in 20% of the murders in Australia.

            While Australia was removing guns America was nearly doubling the number of guns in private hands. But, countries have the nearly the same drop in gun violence.

            It isn’t gun ownership that is the problem.

            How does one protect their child when a lunatic comes in your home with a machete?

        • bill says:

          Stay in Australia then. We’ll struggle along without you.

    • Ron Hayes says:

      People are not turned into idiots, a-holes, thugs or terrorists by the presents of guns no more than you have been made into a weak minded shallow thinker by the presents of your computer keyboard in regards to U.S. citizens having the right to have guns.

    • Obama says:

      Hey Vincent,

      Actually, the Bill of Rights supports our right to bear arms. Donald Trump supports our Bill of Rights.

      Got it?

      • Vincent says:

        Of course I’ve got it. Have you got the fact that nothing is permanent, and progress means change.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          “…nothing is permanent…”

          The stupidity of opinionated people seems fairly long lasting.

          “…and progress means change.”

          Only if the change is in the right direction.

        • Carbonicus says:

          Vincent, by “nothing is permanent and progress means change” do you mean that the U.S. Constitution should be changed, particularly in relation to 2nd amendment?

          Any others aspects of the Constitution you believe need change for “progress”? I’m guessing you’re part of the populace that believes the 1st amendment has to be changed with respect to certain speech that you oppose. Care to comment?

        • David in Ardmore says:

          Vincent,

          Ugly human nature does not change. To that effect, the right to protect oneself from the ugly human nature of others shall not be infringed.

        • Tom Waeghe says:

          Progress or change for the sake of change is useless. Progressives have been trying to ruin what our Founding Fathers put in place since at least 1900, and probably back to 1870 or 1880. Witness the piggish, racist, progressive POS POTUS Woodrow Wilson.

          Have a read of something like this text:

          https://www.amazon.com/Progressivism-Primer-Idea-Destroying-America/dp/0974925381

          Mark Levin, The Great One, will have his new book out in early July and will deal more explicitly with progressivism.

          http://amzn.to/2q6a0dl

          Just because the rest of the world does something does not mean in any fashion, that the United States should follow it or do it as well.

        • Obama says:

          Uhhh, sorry Vincent. Not true. Our inalienable rights are just that. Inalienable. God-given. That is what Makes America exceptional.

          The deconstruction and marginalization of our Bill of Rights is not progress.

          See College Campus anti-free speech movement. Not progress.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Vincent…”I understand your concern, Roy. But part of the problem is the easy availability of firearms in America. Unfortunately Donald Trump supports that right for all citizens to bear arms”.

      It’s not the easy availability of firearms it’s the easy availability of illegal firearms that cannot be traced that is the problem. As a result, US citizens need the right to protect themselves.

      Here in Canada, an armed criminal can kick in your door (home invasion) and you have no means of protecting yourself. If you get shot and killed, the perp will likely be out in 10 years, if he does that.

      Recently, a guy got in an argument while carry an illegal firearm. In the heat of the argument he shot the guy in the mouth and killed him. He got charged with manslaughter!!!!! He’ll be out in 5 years. Manslaughter???

      Come on, stop blaming the firearms, it’s the idiots using them that is the problem and the politicians running the country for not having zero tolerance toward crime and violence. It’s like blaming vehicular homicide on the car.

      Here in Canada we ‘should’ have the right to protect ourselves in our homes. It’s a no brainer. I feel envious that most US citizens have that right while our politicians argue over our right to be safe in our homes.

      • Nate says:

        country Gun deaths per 100,000 Gun Homicides per 100,000

        US 10.5 3.4

        Canada 1.97 0.38

        Alaska 19.6 8.0

        from wikipedia

        • Nate says:

          yes I know Alaska not a country, but climate and pop density more like Canada

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Nate, wikipedia is not the best source for such data.

          But, you probably already knew that….

        • Bart says:

          You missed:

          country Gun deaths per 100,000 Gun Homicides per 100,000

          Brazil: 21.2 20.0

          Brazil has strict gun control.

          Hey, ya’ think maybe, just maybe, different countries have different social conditions, and comparing them on the basis of a single parameter might be simplistic and inappropriate?

          • Nate says:

            Brazil not a first world country-much more different from us than Canada in terms of laws etc

          • Nate says:

            alright then A few states that border Canada

            Gun deaths per 100,000 Gun Homicides per 100,000
            Alaska 19.6 8
            Vermont 10.4 1.6
            NH 7 1.1
            NY 4.4 3
            MN 7.9 2.4
            MI 12 5.8
            WA 9.1 2.9

            Canada 1.97 0.38

          • Snape says:

            Nate

            I don’t see much point in arguing for stricter gun laws. Here in America, it’s an issue that just adds to political division.

            Better to do more to promote healthier eating habits. 192 per 100,000 die every year from heart disease. Almost as many from cancer. Gun violence, in comparison, is a very small problem.

            Is this off topic? Yes, but It’s important to add a some perspective to any debate about terrorism/gun violence. In my opinion, Dr. Spencer faces a much greater threat from cancer/heart disease than from some nutjob who fired into an unoccupied building.

          • fonzarelli says:

            Nate, there is a saying down here on the bayou, “new orleans: third world and proud of it.” If you’re going to dismiss brazillion culture by saying it’s not first world, then doesn’t it make sense to dismiss inner city culture here in america as well? What would those stats look like were it not for inner cities?

          • Snape says:

            This is definitely OT, but notice the large discrepancy between gun deaths and gun homicides? This is because a gun owner is more likely to shoot himself (suicide) than somebody else.

          • Snape says:

            OTOH, looks like Brazilians shoot each other a lot more often than themselves.

          • fonzarelli says:

            (michican might be a prime example of what i’m getting at)…

          • Bart says:

            “Brazil not a first world country-much more different from us than Canada in terms of laws etc”

            Depends on where you live. Canada does not have the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow that prevented a large part of its citizenry from accumulating the trappings of wealth and prosperity and passing them on to their children. We have made huge strides, but redressing the imbalance is a slow, generational process. It requires a commitment to education and expansion of opportunities, begetting a growing middle class that feels invested in shared prosperity.

            Confiscating guns in the US was always a racist program, to keep them out of the hands of “those people”. The NRA has a proud history of supporting the rights of minorities to defend themselves. Personally, I feel it is much more tragic to place people in those circumstances at the mercy of the gang-bangers in their midst than it is for the gang-bangers to shoot each other.

            Outside of specific urban pockets, which can legitimately be compared to Third World nations like Brazil, US gun related deaths are on a par with other First World nations.

          • Nate says:

            ‘on par’ Not really.

            Yes it varies with location. Thats why I showed some states that are less urban more northern-you see the rates are still well above Canada.

          • Snape says:

            Bart – your argument is backwards

            It’s true it doesn’t make sense to compare gun statistics between the U.S. and Brazil. Very different cultures. It does however, make sense to compare the U.S. with Canada, which is what Nate did.

          • Scott says:

            No, it does not make sense to say some countries are “developed” and some are not, so let’s compare gun homicide rates among a few carefully selected cherry picked countries we’ve decided are “developed”.

            The only reason to do that is to get an outcome you want – to show that gun homicide rates in America are higher than your carefully selected cherry picked data.

            The reality is that the countries you like to compare America to are often very unlike America in many ways. They were settled long ago by a dominant ethnic group. The countries are typically small (Norway has 5 million people compared to 325 million Americans). America has been far more tolerant of individual liberty than Europeans, which is one reason why we have the strongest gun culture in the world. European countries have a history of being ruled by monarchies/theocracies, communists, socialists, Nazis, military dictators and whatever this newest blob is they’ve created. America never has.

            America has little in common demographically or culturally with Europe or Japan. In terms of size, history, ethnic diversity, and geography, one can argue Mexico has more in common with America than Lichtenstein or Luxembourg do. But the cherry pickers don’t want to include Mexico or Central American countries in their carefully selected comparison group.

            The idea seems to be that we, the self labeled “developed” folks, are superior to the “undeveloped” folks who are more brutish, nasty, and so on. It’s almost like they view the people they’ve labeled “undeveloped” are subhuman and not worthy of comparison to the far superior “developed” people. It’s quite a bigoted worldview common among the highly educated intellectual elite class.

          • Nate says:

            Scott,

            All good studies of humans try to control for external factors like socioeconomics. So it is reasonable to compare US to other countries of similar wealth. This article discusses this pretty well I think.

            http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2016/06/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-u-s-rest-world/

            It would be nice to control for other factors as well, but still it is clear that the US is an extreme outlier among the 23 countries of similar development and socieconomic status for gun homicides and deaths.

          • Bart says:

            “Its quite a bigoted worldview common among the highly educated intellectual elite class.”

            It’s more or less a requirement for admittance.

          • fonzarelli says:

            Bart, the only thing preventing poor black people from sharing in prosperity is the federal reserves demand inflation policy. As long as the fed continues to play its game of musical chairs poor blacks will be without a seat (of prosperity). i don’t think i’d mind so much what the fed is doing were it not done with such incompetance, especially at the government level. Trump has just presented his tax cuts to stimulate the economy, while the fed is raising interest rates to stifle growth. This type of idiocy, the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, is embarassingly insane. At the very least, our leaders should be knowledgeable and up front about what they are doing to the poverty class. It ain’t that hard. If you and i can figure it out, so also can the political class. (and it’s high time that they get up off their lame asses and do it)…

    • Lawrence MacIntyre says:

      I rarely agree with anything Al Gore says, but I do believe Al may have been on to something when he said your satellite temperature data was the one thing that stood in the way of Congress passing a carbon tax. Certainly the surface temperature data has been so perverted that an unknowing person could easily believe the planet is heating up at an alarming pace. That is why I have long admired the work that you and John Christy have been doing in creating an accurate — and unchallenged — temperature record of the lower atmosphere. I would hope that some law enforcement agency would be sufficiently concerned about the shots fired at your building to make a serious effort at finding the culprits. But, I fear that is not going to happen. If the culprits get away with it, they and their fellow travelers will try something equally stupid again. I would urge you and John Christy to take some extra precautions for your personal safety. You guys are doing work that is vitally important to the future of the human race.

    • Ricky says:

      Others have already replied to Vincent appropriately, but I don’t think I’ve seen yet the real reason we have the right to bear arms in the U.S. The reason is so we can replace tyrannical government when the time comes. Read the Declaration of Independence. Every group of people has to the natural right to replace oppressive government, and that right cannot be preserved without an armed citizenry.

    • Jon Gebarowski says:

      They could have just as easily blown his office up like they do in other countries without expansive firearm prevalence.

    • George Batton says:

      It’s kind of ironic that the new religion of environmentalism has it’s own version of terrorists just like Islam.

  2. g*e*r*a*n says:

    Dr. Roy, I support your assessment of this event, 100 percent! Someone was trying to intimidate you and Dr. Christy, and the situation needs full and competent investigation.

    The fact that the Leftists/Warmists/Whiners try to deflect the obvious only adds more validity to your analysis.

    • actually says:

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Leftist’s attempt at deflection is not actually a reasonable metric for assessing the validity of Dr. Roy’s argument. It is unfortunate that you accept such weak and unrelated sentiment as evidence, though. It can only be used to assess that the Leftists disagree with a perspective that is yet to be supported by actual evidence. And interestingly enough, that is the reasonable perspective given the lack of evidence.

  3. dam1953 says:

    Ahh yes, but let some one throw one rock through a window at Greenpeace’s HQ and watch the media kick into high gear reporting on right-wing wackos.

  4. Bob B says:

    Almost a good attempt at a red herring, Vincent.

    • Vincent says:

      Not a red herring but a practical and sensible suggestion. America’s gun laws will continue to be a problem which results in unfortunate loss of lives. It’s your problem. Fix it if you can.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        No, it’s a red herring.

      • That ship sailed long ago. There are enough guns and ammo floating around out there that the bad guys will always have access to them, even while you try to take law abiding citizens’ right to protect themselves away. Just look at Chicago, with its tough gun laws. The police are mostly there to do the reports after a crime is committed, they usually won’t arrive in time to help you or your family.

        • Vincent says:

          Yes. You’ve got a problem in America, Roy, which we thankfully do not have in Australia.

          I’m very concerned about America in general because it’s a great world power that seems to be in a current state of disarray.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Vincent…”Youve got a problem in America, Roy, which we thankfully do not have in Australia”.

            America is a continent, Vincent, Canada and Mexico share the content of ‘North’ America with the US. You can’t have a separate country called America in North America. Heck, Hawaii is in the US and not in America.

            And please don’t tell me you don’t have similar issues in Australia. I read not long ago about young gangs killing people in places like Melbourne.

            http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=17847

            Rape has gone up in Oz. I’ll tell you one thing, those heroes would think twice about attacking innocent women if the women were packing.

        • Rhee says:

          Police forces are not built to be sentinels or sentries to guard against crime, they respond to crimes committed. They do take actions other than file reports after the fact, but are not allowed to simply station themselves outside as guards around any building or person. Hoping they arrive to defend you in the midst of a criminal event is excruciating.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Rhee…”Police forces are not built to be sentinels or sentries to guard against crime, they respond to crimes committed”.

            They could do a lot better than they do. I had someone break into the basement while I was upstairs watching TV. I caught the guy out front but he had his hand in his jacket pocket as if he might have a gun. I was not inclined to be a hero.

            I called the cops immediately reporting the guy may be armed and it took the cops 4 hours to respond. When they did, they were joking about how long it took them. They just couldn’t be bothered.

            There is a standing joke up here. If you want to find a cop, look in the nearest donut shop.

        • Snape says:

          Roy

          Gun control is effective in Australia because it’s tough to get a gun there. In Chicago, not so much….you just have to drive to Illinois!

      • David Gray says:

        Gun laws do not prevent criminals from obtaining guns, and “gun-free” zones do not prevent criminals from carrying and using guns therein. Gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens. Why is that so hard for liberals to understand?

        • Nate says:

          I agree in some respects. Gun laws in one locality are ineffective if guns are easily obtained not far away. Prime example Chicago, with the border of Indiana, and loose gun laws a few miles away.

          Also noteworthy is that most guns found on arrested criminals in Chicago were purchased legally elsewhere, , often in bulk from gun shows etc. That ok with you?

  5. Obama says:

    See college campus censorship and their attempt to restrict free speech.

    This is how the Left rolls.

  6. Paul1922 says:

    Dr Roy- Thank you for your courage and of course my thanks go out to Dr Curry and Christy as well. It takes real guts to defy the “consensus”

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Paul1922…”Dr Roy- Thank you for your courage and of course my thanks go out to Dr Curry and Christy as well. It takes real guts to defy the consensus”

      I’ll second that.

  7. David in Ardmore says:

    Doc, thanks for keeping this incident in front of people.

  8. Carbonicus says:

    To test the theory that this was just a random drive-by shooting, yesterday afternoon I measured the distance from Sparkman to the building, and looked at a street view from Sparkman looking west toward the building.

    Depending on where a perp was on Sparkman (north or south bound lanes), it’s in the range of 55 to 75 yards to the building. The view of the building from the road is partially obstructed by trees.

    The type of rounds fired make it clear this was from a handgun.

    To anyone with any experience with firearms and any critical thinking skills, the chance that an average person shooting a handgun could put 7 shots in a grouping as close as these shots appear to be to each other from a moving car at 55 to 75 yards – through trees – from that street is slim and none (and Slim left town on the 10 a.m. to Chattanooga).

    A Navy seal or national handgun champion might be able to do that 5 times out of 10 from that distance in a moving car. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that:

    a) these shots were not fired from the street from a moving car

    b) the shots were fired from far closer than the street

    c) the shooter was not firing randomly but shooting at a specific target

    with respect to c), this is not to suggest that the shooter couldn’t have been aiming at the area of John’s office intentionally with no knowledge or interest of John and Roy’s work, i.e. just happened to pick that area of the building to shoot at. But given the timing of the “Science March” and previous threats John and Roy have receieved in relation to their work and positions on this issue, that requires a leap of faith some of us are not prepared to make.

  9. pvm says:

    Mr. Spencer, so why are not you now skeptical about making critical judgments and asking for evidence? This is indicative of scientific skepticism and critical thinking: not to produce strong conclusions without strong evidence …
    “Ecoterrorists” had to be well informed about the location of John Christie’s office, so it is legitimate to work with the possibility that this incident was prepared by “anti-ecoterrorists” to accuse eco-terrorists. It would not be the first time in history when such a procedure was used to accuse its enemies of hostile deeds.
    And really, the way you use this event to publicly present your judgment against your “enemy” raises the question of who really benefited what happened, cui bono, cui prodest …

    • Oh I am very skeptical. I’m skeptical of the claim that not just one, but seven, shots aimed very close to Dr. Christy’s office were just a random act, even though no buildings on our street have ever been hit by “random” gunfire.

      I’m skeptical of the claim that it had nothing to do with Earth Day.

      Yes, I am skeptical. I’m asking for evidence, rather than letting the whole thing be swept under the rug. I would expect the same if Michael Mann had seven bullets hitting the building he is housed in.

    • My experience in college campuses indicates that the location of the office of a specific dean, department head, or professor is not some well-guarded secret. I think the shots were intentionally fired either towards Christy’s office, or to barely miss Christy’s office. (Reliably pulling off the latter with even a military or military-like handgun, and 5.7mm is largely a military caliber, sounds like it would have to be done with that part of the building in view, and a little bit of a tall order at 45 yards even not from a moving vehicle. NOTE – the Wikipedia article on 5.7x28mm mentions rifling for it and two carbines that fire it, even though it is generally a handgun cartridge.)

  10. Rob Mitchell says:

    It is an obvious act of eco-terror! Anybody who doesn’t think that has their head shoved up where the sun don’t shine!

    To blame this on our “gun-culture” is a cop-out. Liberals do not like the light of truth shined on the base elements that exist in their culture. This is liberal fascism on display in broad daylight. Now that they are out of power, they are resorting to violence to silence those they disagree with.

    A random shooting? My ass!

  11. Rob Mitchell says:

    I hope the National News Media picks up on this. But, I suppose the chance of that happening is about the same as making a bear to crap in a toilet!

  12. Ric Werme says:

    I’m amazed that UAH said they wouldn’t investigate further, I thought that campus security would be charged with protecting the school’s people and property.

    Perhaps they could be a bit more proactive and post a list of buildings that are usually empty during the weekend. When I was at CMU, I think the only one was the administrative building.

  13. john sawruk says:

    God Bless you and John Christey for the courage to speak the truth as you see it.When people resort to violence or threats and intimidation, they are violating the Constitutional right to free speech. As Voltaire said:”I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend with my life your right to say it.”

  14. GW says:

    Dr. Spencer : can’t you or Dr. Christy or the top officials at UAH appeal directly to the US Attorney General’s office ? Why wait for the foot-dragging FBI to get involved ? They’re too busy looking for Russians under the beds anyway.

    Get yourselves on the national news shows and make a public appeal to Jeff Sessions ! Maybe then the Trump people will get busy publicly exposing this whole propaganda-driven fraud !

  15. John Smith says:

    #Skeptical Scientists’ Lives Matter

  16. stavro mueller says:

    University of Alabama in Huntsville climate scientist Dr. John Christy looks at a bullet hole in the window of the office next to his at the university. Seven shots were fired at the building over the weekend of April 22-23, and Christy believes his floor was targeted. (Lee Roop/[email protected])
    ——-
    Wait a moment the bullet hit the next office and you claim it was Christy (next door) or yourself (across the corridor) being targeted?

    This is getting silly! I really hope that the police/fbi investigate so blame cane be apportioned.

    Do you really see a tree-hugger going out to buy a $2000+ hand gun? That’s a fair number of veggie-burgers.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      stavro, in your convoluted logic, do you believe the shooter was after the cleaning lady?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      stavro mueller…”Wait a moment the bullet hit the next office and you claim it was Christy (next door) or yourself (across the corridor) being targeted?”

      Have you tried to hit a standard target with a 22 calibre pistol at 25 yards, never mind 70 yards in a moving car? The average person likely could not even hit a standard target at 70 yards.

    • Roy Spencer says:

      I’ve worked in the building 15 years and I would have difficulty identifying Christys office from outside. The windows are continuous.

      • Lewis says:

        This being true, I would expect the shots were fired at a particular floor. The tight grouping would / could have been a shooter showing off his skill.

        A random shooter would have fired a few times, perhaps looking to group well, but it is difficult to believe this is actually random.

        As stated in the previous blogs, those guys usually shoot up street signs in the less populated areas.

        None the less, if the perps are found, it will likely be some time. But there is a saying, the police agencies grind slow, but they grind fine.

        Patience and watchfulness are your friends.

    • "buy a $2000+ hand gunJohn Hultquist says:

      … buy a $2000+ hand gun …

      So, stavro: You know the gun was purchased by the shooter.
      Very interesting. I’m sure the police will want to ask you a few questions.

  17. Hello Dr. Spencer,

    I was hoping you would allow me to run your recent post

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/update-on-possible-ecoterror-attack-at-uah/

    on our website – Constitution.com

    I would of course give you credit and provide a link back to your site.

    Thanks for the consideration,

  18. Entropic man says:

    Dr Spencer

    Have you eliminated the hypothesis that the building was attacked by a rightwing anti-science advocate?

    It is quite possible that the building was attacked because it contained many scientists,rather than because it contained one sceptic.

    It also seems more likely that a Republican would own a gun, and be able to afford a fancy one.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Have you verified where Al Gore was on Saturday night? Can his whereabouts be confirmed?

      He’s not known as a Republican, but he has the wealth to purchase most weapons.

    • Roy Spencer says:

      Yeah, given all the hate filled emails John and I have received over the years, we are really interested in obscure theories like the one you anonymously suggest, Tim.

      • I have an impression that 5.7mm firearm was probably a military or military-like one. And that whoever would use one to shoot up a campus building is probably a militia member wannabe, stereotypically rightwing. And that someone of such sort would shoot up the area of the building around Christy’s office to make it look like an eco-terrorist did it, but fail to consider leaving evidence supporting a bumbling rightwing lone-wolf or somewhat-lone-wolf militia-member-wannabe did it.

        Also, whoever would do that sort of thing may be serious at this, or only a little serious at little more than a beer-fueled Saturday night prank (with a likely $$$$ gun?), that is now worth some hard prison time in the post-9/11 era.

        For that matter, a well-funded eco-terrorist group (or semi-lone wolf) could be imitating a bumbling rightwinger militia-member-wannabe bumbling at trying to commit a crime by an eco-terrorist.

        The scientist in me says to look for clues to these various motives, although identifying the motive may not be much easier than identifying the specific firearm model used or a specific person to arrest.

    • Carbonicus says:

      Entropy of your brain cells more likely than your suggestion

  19. RS Moore says:

    This has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. The people posting here about that are deliberately trying to change the narrative. This is about scientism kooks that are dangerous socialists that need to be stopped.

    • Snape says:

      RS

      More than 2.5 million Americans die each year. How many of those are killed by “dangerous socialists”?

      Read the facts, not Infowars.

  20. bernie1815 says:

    Dr. Spencer could you provide a link to UAH’s official report and response to this incident.
    I visited Huntsville last year and it is a beautiful city and you have a marvelous campus. It is a real shame that such dangerous actions should displace reasoned debate and scientific discourse.
    Please continue with your science.

    • Roy Spencer says:

      There is no official report. There are statements quoted by a couple news outlets. WHNT, AL.com.

  21. RW says:

    Stay safe out there, Roy.

  22. Scott Drysdale says:

    The FBI definition of ecoterrorism specifies “subnational” but does not reference “supranational” which seems to leave the door wide open for ecoterrorism by higher level NGOs that may include Greenpeace, Sierra Club etc. that not accountable to any individual sovereign government nor to any world government organization for that matter……. Seems the FBI has accepted as fact that such agencies are above the law in every instance……..

    IMHO – this is extremely dangerous, undemocratic and usurps control from all national states.

    • Snape says:

      Scott

      Despite what we see in the headlines, terrorism in the U.S. is rather uncommon. Ecoterroism – super uncommon. (I realize this doesn’t make Roy feal any better)

      • Next time I’m thinking of committing a crime, I’ll try to choose one that is really rare. That way no one will bother to investigate it.

        • Snape says:

          Roy

          I didn’t mean to make light of this incident and definitely think it deserves more investigation. It’s terrible that you and John are the targets of threats and intimidation.

          My problem is with the inordinate amount of media coverage given to acts of violence.

          People end up fearing tiny threats (like terrorism) and ignoring huge threats (like heart disease and cancer).

          • I understand. But what people should be concerned about isn’t my life or John’s life per se as much as the way a policy debate is carried out when trillions of dollars are involved, including the livelihoods, health, and well-being of millions of people, especially the poor.

            The climate change issue IS on par with heart disease and cancer, because if we are forced to accept energy that is twice as expensive, then everyone’s quality of life is reduced, especially that of the poor. Stupid energy policies are a direct threat to the health and welfare of millions of people around the world.

            John and I are only asking that this event not be ignored by the authorities just because it might make the campus look dangerous to prospective students or parents. There are MUCH bigger issues here, and if this is a message being sent to John (and me), then simply accepting it without considering *why* it might have occurred will only embolden others to do something similar.

          • Snape says:

            In theory, sounds like a reasonable argument. The reality is much less clear. The push for renewables has not increased the cost of energy, just the opposite. Crude oil is currently under $50 a barrel…very cheap. In fact, most oil producing countries and corporations are struggling, and want energy to be MORE expensive.

          • Snape says:

            Do you think the Trump administration wants to see oil prices remain this low?

          • Snape says:

            A carbon tax could be imposed on the wealthiest 50% and offset by tax cuts to the other half. No need for the poor to suffer.
            A policy like this in developed nations would not necessarily raise the cost of energy in third world countries. In fact, an oil surplus would tend to lower their costs.

  23. Observing says:

    For all kinds of reasons, I’m sorry that this happened.

    If I worked there, I’d move my office to a different location in the building. But I’m skeptical that it had anything to do with ecoterrorism.

    I appreciate Dr. Spencer’s defense of the 2d amendment. It so happens that I own a FN Five Seven. It’s not a $2,000 gun, as someone claimed, but a $1,200 gun. Still, though, it’s an expensive gun. My gut feel is that your average “green” isn’t a gunner to begin with, but if he was a gunner he would use something else.

    I’m not going to say what would be a better choice, because I don’t want to give anyone any ideas. But if you’re trying to kill someone by shooting through a window in fourth-floor office while standing outside, that firearm is simply not a logical choice, to put it mildly.

    No one will track down the shooter by checking sale and registration records. I could go on about that, but I also don’t want to give anyone any ideas.

  24. Carbonicus says:

    Entropy of working brain cells.

  25. barry says:

    I wonder how the shooter would know where John Christy’s office is? If that was the intended target (or John himself), then I’d expect uni staff or students would be in the list of suspects.

    • Bart says:

      It’s on the UAH website. I just checked. But, I’d prefer not to direct you to it, and perhaps Dr. Spencer should consider asking the university to withhold that info for specific faculty.

    • barry says:

      John Christy’s actual office is mapped on the UAH website? I looked at the campus map and couldn’t see it. If it’s mapped specifically elsewhere on their website I can understand you not wanting to link it.

      In any case Roy said upthread:

      “Ive worked in the building 15 years and I would have difficulty identifying Christys office from outside. The windows are continuous.”

      That led me to think, if the target was Christy’s office, that someone has to have pretty intimate familiarity with the office layout from outside the building to get so close. Hence, uni regulars would be in the list of suspects.

      • Including graduates from the university. Also building maintainance people and janitorial folks, and those in any companies that UAH might contract that work out to. And don’t forget delivery people – for packages and for food.

  26. CO2isLife says:

    How could they reach the conclusion that it was “random” without interviewing the suspect of the people most likely to have been the target?

  27. Simon says:

    So …. if the bullets didn’t hit Christy’s office. Whose did they hit? And if they (the peoples whose offices they hit) are supporters of the current consensus, maybe they are denier nutters who fired these bullets? Just saying.

  28. "buy a $2000+ hand gunJohn Hultquist says:

    Best to Roy and John and all others (either side of the issue) that know there are haters. All the comments indicate no one knows exactly what happened. An investigation likely won’t solve this, but some clarity might be gained.

    Meanwhile, a thick sheet of Lexan or something similar could be in many people’s future.

    http://www.eplastics.com/bullet-resistant-sheet
    http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/item.aspx?itemid=22929

  29. Massimo PORZIO says:

    Hi Dr.Spencer,

    I’m everything but a sniper, however, having a business partner that has a large factory of firearms, sometimes I used to talk with him about pistols, rifles and similars.
    A thought about performance:
    I really wonder how the one who shot those shots used a pistol such the FN Five-seveN to shoot from 70 yards. In fact the FN Five-seveN has an effective firing range of just 50 m (55 yd). Could have he used instead a FN P90 (or probably the semi-automatic civilian version PS90) which has an effective firing range of 200 m (218 yd)?

    In that case I really be worried of being a target of a guy who own such kind of gun.

    I really hope the police take in consideration that that’s not just a threatening letter or a silly fake anthrax powder filled letter.
    If that was the distance, then that guy aimed the window and repeatedly shooted probably using what I would define not a conventional firearm.

    Hoping that this situation will be solved quickly, I really wish you and Dr. Christy a great day.

    Massimo

  30. Marty says:

    As you know, there are much fewer dead by firearms in Europe. But now and then there is a shooting or a suicide. What is common to all: There are always people who have easy access to weapons. Policemen, sportsmen, hunters. And their relatives. There was an amok run in Berlin a few years ago. The man used a knife and injured 28 people. No dead! I bet you have not read this incident in the US in the newspaper. BTW. The biggest thread to get shot is by your own gun.

  31. Donald Prumt says:

    Well, when guns are not prohibited, that’s what happens :
    some stupid guys use it and sometimes they hurt or kill somebody.
    But americans and their president don’t care about that. They even want more guns.

  32. Cloudbase says:

    Australia is not like USA. We are a large country with huge mineral and agricultural wealth shared by quite a small population. Cities are far smaller population wise. It is not quite so ‘dog eat dog’ to survive down here. Average wages and conditions probably far better.
    From that point trying to compare gunless Australia with gun-owning USA is ridiculous.
    I feel no need for one down here but would probably own one if I live in the US.

    • WizGeek says:

      @Cloudbase: “gunless Australia”? Are you serious? Australia is 26th out of 175 countries with nearly 22 guns per 100 citizens. Granted, Australia’s intentional homicide rate is quite low, but that’s not because of its rate of gun ownership–it’s Australia’s strong cultural and spiritual unity and respect for life, independence, personal responsibility, and ownership.

  33. Well done Roy and John, you’re clearly winning.

  34. jimc says:

    “The current record low is in sharp contrast to September 2012, when drought reached a record high 65.5% in the U.S.”

    Did somebody give Algore some money?

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/04/27/us-drought-record-low/100971018/

    • barry says:

      It was hoped that last year’s el Nino would break the 5-yr drought in California. Good that that happened, whatever the cause.

  35. Steve Case says:

    Id like to thank everyone who made the effort to spread the word about this event, which I consider a probable ecoterrorism attack. Rush Limbaugh also covered it, which Im sure helped as well.

    I belong to an informal coffee shop group and yesterday morning I asked if anyone heard about this incident in the news?

    Ordinary people, OK retired people, but they pay attention to the news, and “Nope didn’t hear or read about that one, what happened?” was the response.

    If pot shots were taken at Michael Mann’s office would we hear about it? I’m guessing we would.

  36. Brian Wilson says:

    In Australia, when an ecoterrorist breaks into your home in the middle of the night with a firearm intent on killing you, and the police are ten minutes away from an effective response what will you do?

    I presume you have a drug problem in Australia involving crack, heroin, fentanyl, and meth. If you outlawed those drugs, you wouldnt have a drug problem anymore – according to your theory

  37. John says:

    Australian population is 15X smaller than USA, so 10X lower incidents with guns doesn’t impress me as anything to crow about, Barry.

  38. Keith Noren says:

    Pardon me if no one else has brought up this possibility, but here goes.

    Could it be that right wing fake news sources (e.g. BreitBart or numerous others), could have made these bullet holes near Christys office (which is published in the UAH website facility – wont given the office number here) in order to cast “climate protesters in a bad light? After all, RWers are much more prone to use guns and LW people (even protesters).

    Not saying this happened, but it is a real possibility.

    This possibility would be enhanced if Roy had not cued WUWT or BreitBart to this incident. So, Roy, did you in fact notify WUWT or BreitBart or any other such climate skeptic or alt-right on that Monday?

    BTW, I live in Huntsville and worked at one time in that building for TBE, before it added onto to its north or the cute SWIRLL building that was built behind it.

  39. Walt Allensworth says:

    Pretty clearly eco-terrorism meant to chill any dialog and research that is not the CAGW party line.

    It’s how the left plays the game.

    One needs only look at the hooded thugs, I mean professors, suppressing free speech at Berkeley.