Home/BlogHere’s a Youtube video of the Stossel segment on which Gavin Schmidt and I appeared on March 28.
Here’s a Youtube video of the Stossel segment on which Gavin Schmidt and I appeared on March 28.
Copyright 2023 Roy Spencer, Ph. D. - All Rights Reserved
Thank you for continuing to speak out.
Yes, indeed, thank you. For your courage and your straight forward answers.
Thank you.
I think it obvious that Schmidt knew he would not be able to refute what you might have said. Otherwise, if his arguments were insurmountable, he would have gladly taken the opportunity to make you look foolish. Given an audience of skeptics and so much to gain in a debate with you, his position to not debate was not logical. One can only presume that his science falls into the same category.
hilarious! I could have easily refuted every one of his ridiculous points. He also seemed awkward and uncertain of his points.
Onyer, Roy! (Australian vernacular!)
It is amusing to me that of the 3 guests and the host, it was Gavin Schmidt who seemed to know the least, yet he is a NASA scientist. He was basically giving off talking points that would barely suffice for a high school book report. Why is that?
Schmidt: We’ve looked at the sun. Was that a passing glance at TSI in the 1990’s.
I was hoping you would deal with that one Roy: However thanks for speaking out and please don’t stop posting.
Yes, hilarious!
Funny. When asked why he wouldn’t debate Dr. Spencer, Gavin’s response is “I’m not a politician..”. Well, Al Gore isn’t a scientist.
I enjoy you because of all of the labor on this blog. My mother really loves getting into investigation and it’s obvious why. I hear all of the lively way you offer good solutions through this website and foster participation from others about this area of interest so my child is really discovering a great deal. Have fun with the remaining portion of the year. Your conducting a first class job.
Notice Schmidt’s reason for refusing to be on at the same time as you, Roy, and argue the case with you: “I don’t need to be on just to make good TV!” What a crock! Logicians will detect in that two fallacies: (1) Red herring–changing the subject from debate over CAGW to an accusation that what Stossel wants is only good entertainment. (2) Petitio principii, i.e., begging the question, which is precisely whether CAGW has good scientific basis. Those are the logical problems in Schmidt’s reply there. There’s a moral problem, too: arrogance.
Thanks Dr Spencer, please continue to hold on. We have to fight obscurantism, I’m with you on this mission.
We’ve looked at the sun, it’s not volcanoes ….etc it must be CO2.
I’ve paraphrased fairly heavily but.. in essence, this series of statements shows why the CO2 theory is so difficult to deal with.
It’s not these other things, so it must be CO2, thats the only thing left. Of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But there’s no definitive evidence that it causes the kind of rise in temperature that is postulated.
On the other hand, if you want to refute the theory you must come up with a ‘proof’ that it is not CO2. Since CO2 does cause warming, that is very difficult to do.
To me, it is an argument about what the null hypothesis should be and skeptics seem to be on the losing side of that one.
Roy, I’d like to see a graph showing the CO2 output from major emitters (ie China/India/USA)over the last 100 years against the GMT.
The increase of CO2 emissions clearly hasn’t co-related to higher temps. If so we would be burning up now wouldn’t we?
I’m sure there are graphs out there, but I haven’t found one yet.
Thanks for all your work.
Hey there, I just wanted to see if you ever have had any trouble with hackers?
My last joomla blog at http://www.drroyspencer.
com/2013/04/stossel-show-video-schmidt-vs-spencer/ was hacked and I wound up losing seven days of hard
work due to no back up. Do you have any solutions to stop
Hi, my name is Callie Couture and I am a student attending school Rutgers University, and I found this website
very educational. I am going to have to stop by again after my course load lets up.
Until then, I’ll be following your RSS feed so I’ll have
the ability to read your site offline.. Thanks a lot.
I have to ask though, but exactly where did
you find your blog style: did you find it anywhere
or did you make it by yourself? A theme such as your own with
some quick alterations would actually make my website shine.
Tell me where you got your template when you get the chance.
Increased CO2, as the new global atmospheric metric increases and effects climate change over the coming years, (caused by man and not by natural sources) is NOT entirely beneficial as “plant food”. Implied “fertilizer” or other is not being handling the whole of science findings correctly. Therefore, it is irresponsible to state such a lope sided case for it all being increased benefits.
My expectancy from certain MSM media outlet is a “spoonful” of sugar helps the medicine go down or should I say “oil” and “coal” slicks on your driveway. Lolly coated candy eye for the masses – why you clever wily “Fox”.
My how gullible are the already “converted”. Please do not be. It’s not that simple and science was NEVER that simplistic – was it?
“However, the beneficial direct impact of elevated [CO2] on crop yield can be offset by other effects of climate change, such as elevated temperatures and altered patterns of precipitation.
Changes in food quality in a warmer, high-CO2 world are to be expected, e.g., decreased protein and mineral nutrient concentrations, as well as altered lipid composition. We point out that studies related to changes in crop yield and food quality as a consequence of global climatic changes should be priority areas for further studies, particularly because they will be increasingly associated with food security”
From the paper:
Impacts of climate changes on crop physiology and food quality.
Fábio M. DaMattaa,*,
Adriana Grandis b,
Bruna C. Arenque b,
Marcos S. Buckeridge ba
Departamento de Biologia Vegetal, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, 36570-000 Viçosa, MG, Brazil b
Laboratório de Fisiologia Ecológica de Plantas (LAFIECO),
Departamento de Botânica, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo,
Caixa Postal 11461, 05422-970 São Paulo, SP, Brazil
Regards,
Ross J.
very few websites that happen to be comprehensive below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out.