Shots Fired into the Christy/Spencer Building at UAH

April 24th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

A total of seven shots were fired into our National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) building here at UAH over the weekend.

All bullets hit the 4th floor, which is where John Christy’s office is (my office is in another part of the building).

Given that this was Earth Day weekend, with a March for Science passing right past our building on Saturday afternoon, I think this is more than coincidence. When some people cannot argue facts, they resort to violence to get their way. It doesn’t matter that we don’t “deny global warming”; the fact we disagree with its seriousness and the level of human involvment in warming is enough to send some radicals into a tizzy.

Our street is fairly quiet, so I doubt the shots were fired during Saturday’s march here. It was probably late night Saturday or Sunday for the shooter to have a chance of being unnoticed.

Maybe the “March For Science” should have been called the “March To Silence”.

Campus and city police say they believe the shots were fired from a passing car, based upon the angle of entry into one of the offices. Shell casings were recovered outside. The closest distance a passing car would have been is 70 yards away.

This is a developing story. I have no other details.

UPDATE: Local news reports that UAH police have classified this as a “random shooting”. So, the seven Belgian 5.7 millimeter bullets which hit windows and bricks around John Christy’s office from 70 yards away were apparently deemed to be “random” occurrence. (Despite my personal defense training, I probably would have struggled to get that tight a “random” cluster with a semi-automatic pistol.) Nothing to see here, move along.

335 Responses to “Shots Fired into the Christy/Spencer Building at UAH”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Tom Anderson says:

    As “Bridge on the River Kwai” concludled, Madness, madness.

  2. AlecM says:

    This proves that the lefties are funding revolutionary violence now that climate alchemy is being rejected by the population of the USA. Take care.

  3. Rhee says:

    Just like the terrorist “ELF” organization, these people have crossed the red line in to bona fide terrorism. Be safe Drs. Spencer and Christy!

    • D Appell says:

      Amazing how you have all this information at your disposal — ELF or the like — but the officials don’t.

      Wanna explain that? Or are you just making it all up?

      • Laura says:


        Have there been real threats against the climate establishment?

        Please prove it with arrest records, etc.

  4. Brian S says:

    As a retired LEO, I can tell you this is clearly a case of domestic terrorism. Whether or not your campus police will see it that way I have no idea, but the feds should be involved. Unfortunately a very difficult case to solve without tips or video evidence. Glad no one was injured. Likely the suspect is associated with the campus in some way.

    • sam says:

      Hey LEO how did they determine the bullet? I watch a lot on NCIS but after the bullet passed through the window would it still be identifiable?

    • Dean H says:

      No! This was NOT terrorism! The bullets were fired by some idiot. If you look at the building where the shots impacted, the bullet holes are not clustered around either Spencer’s or Christy’s office. They were not “clustered” around any person’s office. They just shot at the building. This is a very lame attempt to create a story based on a random act of stupidity.

  5. Turbulent Eddie says:

    Sorry to hear that.

    Certainly the timing and location of the shots raise suspicion.

    As with climate obs, need more data on the case to nail down causation ( political agenda, mental illness, disgruntled employee, or still possibly random and unrelated ).

    But that’s exactly why it’s important that the perpetrator is apprehended and the facts are known with this case.

    Stay safe.

  6. Into the gas chamber they go!

  7. stavro mueller says:

    Come on Roy There is no evidence mentioned as to who fired the shots!

    It is just as likely to be people objecting to the march for science taking pot shots at a sciency building.

    Or since this is the USA just a couple of Cletus’s out for fun on a quiet Sunday.

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

    It’s probably significant that all the bullets hit the 4th floor, rather than some random distribution.

    • David Appell says:

      Here, this is America. Anymore bullets are flying everywhere.

      • Geochemist says:

        These happened to fly in a cluster near someone’s office. Hmmm?

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Davie’s brain is constipated, but his keyboard has diarrhea.

        • DavidA says:

          Geochemist: Did they?

          I haven’t seen the police report of where the bullets were directed and where they landed. Can you share that with us, please?


          • Geochemist says:

            Can you read? Dr. Spencer described the spread of the bullet holes and indicated that even with his training it would be difficult to be that accurate from 70 yards. Are you calling him a liar?

      • Ric Werme says:

        None have been flying around my house, nor the house I owned before this, nor the ones before that.

        There were some flying around our yurt, but those were from someone who won the moose hunt lottery several years ago and when he asked for permission to hunt on the property, I told him where he’d have the best chance of bagging one.

        Well, one or two bullets. It doesn’t take many when you know what you’re doing.

        • D Appell says:

          Are you really unaware of the great number of shootings in the US?

          If so, get woke.

          There are plenty of good old boys with a rifle in a state like Alabama.

          • Lewis says:

            Again, rationalizations.
            Around my neck of the woods guns are fired regularly.
            Gun control is hitting your target. Windows and buildings are seldom touched.
            In this case, the gun was controlled very well.
            It may have been technically random, but it was very intentional and directed.

          • Geochemist says:

            And they just happened to shoot at a specific floor at a specific building and no where else. And it wasn’t a rifle “journalist”.

          • TallDave says:

            The large majority of criminal shootings in the US happen in a small number of urban neighborhoods. The “good old boys” are generally shooting ducks and deer.

  9. Rob Honeycutt says:

    So, Roy. There were marches in some 100+ cities around the world to support science, all with no reported violence or killings. But somehow you’re connecting all those peaceful marches, by well over a million people, with shots fired into your building?

    That’s more than a bit of a stretch.

    That said, I do hope they catch whoever is responsible for the shooting. And I’m glad no one was hurt.

    • Nate says:

      Roy, That’s terrible. Sorry to hear that. Glad no-one was hurt.

    • Bart says:

      The “so” tell for cognitive dissonance.

    • 1) The march went right past our building.
      2) It was Earth Day weekend, an historically radicalized holiday.
      3) John and I have had threats before. Our enemies know where we work.
      4) Ours was the only building targeted
      5) ALL shots hit the 4th floor, only, right around John Christy’s office

      Yeah, maybe it’s “more than a stretch”. Right.

      • Bart says:

        They likely are just cowards and bullies trying to intimidate. But, do please maintain awareness of your surroundings and take care of yourself, Dr. Spencer.

      • Robert says:

        Leroy Jethro Gibbs Rule #39: There is no such thing as coincidence.
        Leroy Jethro Gibbs Rule #40: If it seems someone is out to get you, they are.

        Please be careful and aware of your surroundings. All religious fanatics including Climate EnviroNUTS are dangerous. They can justify to themselves and do inconceivable hateful acts trying to “stop hate.”

      • Bill says:

        The irony. Imagine (a scientist, no less) making declarative statements as to the guilt of an entire group (numbering in the thousands, if not millions worldwide) based on circumstantial evidence, while simultaneously dismissing the overwhelming research of the mass majority of his fellow global scientists speaking to the exponentially escalating human effect on climate change – which would have dire ramifications for the entire species, far and beyond the fate of a random 4th story window in Hunstville, Alabama. To add insult to this injury, the irony is completely missed by said scientist. Calling this person’s conclusions, scientific or otherwise, intellectually dishonest, is putting it lightly.

        • Geochemist says:

          “exponentially escalating” “dire ramifications” You really think these are generally accepted scientific truths? You need to actually read some science not posters in some protest march. As far as I can tell Dr. Spencer accepts all of the mainstream science regarding global warming that can be confirmed empirically. It is the politically driven doom and gloom based on unverified model projections that earns his sceptism. At least that’s how I see it from following this issue for many years.

          • Bill says:

            …and my point the Spencer’s insistence that science be confirmed empirically is apparently surrendered like a cheap shroud when asks to apply the same principle to a crime. Using an isolated incident of violence to portray all those protesting – without evidence, and citing that it ‘can’t be coincidence,’ seems brutally averse to the scientific method.

            And ‘politically driven’ gloom and doom – that’s rich. As opposed to the (actually verifiable) corporately funded “everything’s peachy, let’s burn some fossil fuel’ sunshine and rainbows.

        • Brad says:

          Yep… Nothing but an ideological hack.

          No surprise to see that conforming the data around his pet hypotheses rather conforming his hypotheses around the data is a personal hobby and not just a professional pursuit.

          “What conclusion would you like to arrive at? Cause I can for sure figure out a way to get us there!”

          Looks like it pays well, though.

    • Snape says:


      Your comment was rude. There may have been a million peaceful marchers, but it appears someone tried to kill, or at least intimidate, Roy and John. Not for sure, but most likely, because of their position on AGW.

      • David Appell says:

        You are selectively interpreting the known facts according to your own biases.

        Climate scientists have been getting death threats for years. Did Roy every speak out against them before?

        • Geochemist says:

          Do you know that he hasn’t? Did you ever ask him to comment Mr. “Journalist”? Is it up to Mann to comment on the UAH situation unsolicited? You are a real piece of work.

        • John Hultquist says:

          Most cities have laws against guns being fired. Outside of cities shots across roads is not allowed. Likewise aiming at buildings is against laws, as is toward places where people can be expected.

          However, I would interpret this to be either a jerk misbehaving, or someone wanting to make known their views of John Christy’s work.

          Regardless of the possible interpretations, a crime was committed.

          I suggest the University replace the windows (and a few others) with inch thick LEXAN.

          • D Appell says:

            Criminals don’t obey laws. THat’s what the NRA keeps telling us. Remember?

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Criminals dont obey laws”

            That is why the AGW clowns have got away with their LIES for so long.

          • Dean H says:

            The crime is Firing Into an Unoccupied Building and this story is all about John Christy and Roy Spencer trying to get themselves into the news again. No one was targeted. This was just some dumbass with too many Bud Lite Beer cans thrown out the window shooting at a building. It just happened to be the NSSTC building. Recall back a few years when someone shot at the nearby Space and Rocket Center and there were people inside. They weren’t targeting someone…they were just shooting and I don’t think the Huntsville PD ever caught anyone doing that.

          • Geochemist says:

            And you know this how? The dumbass is the person who wrote this comment.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Climate scientists have been getting death threats for years. Did Roy every speak out against them before?”

          You certainly live in a dream world. You mean climate scientists who are skeptics, don’t you? Name me one pro-AGW climate scientist who has received death threats.

          In the Climategate email scandal, several pro-AGW scientists applauded the death of skeptic John Daly. That’s the kind of class you have on your side.

          • DavidA says:

            Gordon, if you don’t know about the many death threats directed against climate scientists, you haven’t been paying attention.

            Which is sad.

          • DavidA says:

            “In the Climategate email scandal, several pro-AGW scientists applauded the death of skeptic John Daly.”

            Which several emails were those, Gordon?

            “In an odd way this is cheering news!”
            — Phil Jones

            A perfectly understandable human comment about the death of someone who did not respect science.

          • Bart says:

            “A perfectly understandable human comment about the death of someone who did not respect science.”

            Bzzzt! Wrong. Rational and stable adults do not cheer the deaths of anyone for any reason whatsoever, much less for a simple difference of opinion. This is sociopathic.

          • Ric Werme says:

            When Climategate broke, I thought it might be a good opportunity to see if there were Emails from John Daly. I didn’t get involved in the climate skeptic movement until a few years after his death.

            There were four(?) Emails mentioning him, only one(?) that had his writing.

            There was one celebrating his death, that was from Phil Jones. It just felt like more than one.


          • Bart says:

            I can’t get over this. Just wow.

            A perfectly understandable human comment about the death of someone who did not respect science.

            Where have I heard such rhetoric before… Oh, yes. It was this:

            “He has insulted the Prophet, and he must die.”

            One of these quotes is from a religious nut-case whose religion teaches him to wish death upon blasphemers, and the other is a guy in a turban.

          • D Appell says:

            Bart, who sent the white powder to Michael Mann?

            Did you decry that?
            Did you even notice?
            Did you ever care?

          • Bart says:

            Yeah, here’s the thing DA. John Daly died, and your guys celebrated. Sorry, there is no amount of misdirection that can fix that.

        • Bart says:

          Almost every prominent person who has ever held a controversial public opinion has gotten death threats. It’s pretty much a commonplace.

          Actual bullets – that’s a whole different level. Be proud, warmist bedwetters. You have now incited the less stable among you (and that’s saying something) to new heights of mindless rage and violence. It was only a matter of time. Keep up the unhinged rhetoric, and who knows where it will end.

          • D Appell says:

            What’s worse, bullets at midnight or white powder sent in the mail, that closed down an entire department wing?

          • Bart says:

            Man, that’s a tough one. Let’s see… inert powder, or flying hot metal. Woo, that’s a poser alright, DA.

            I think I’m going to go with flying hot metal.

        • Snape says:


          As always, it’s good to see someone challenge the stupid, mean-spirited comments of people like AlecM and GR. OTOH, I think it’s a bad time to argue with Roy. I wouldn’t be very objective if someone had just shot up my office.

          • DavidAp says:

            Snape: You offered no evidence. Care to try again?

          • Snape says:


            I overstated my guess. Should have said, “not for sure, but possibly because of his position on AGW”.

          • D Appell says:

            And still not evidence, Snape.

          • Snape says:


            Circumstantial evidence the shots may not have been random:

            Spencer and Christy have received death threats prior to this incident

            UAH is in the center of a heated national debate

            Those with opposing views marched next to the building only a few hours earlier

            All 7 shots hit near John Christy’s office

            None of this proves the attack was intentional, but it certainly raises the possibility.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Snape…”As always, its good to see someone challenge the stupid, mean-spirited comments of people like AlecM and GR…”

            Mean-spirited…moi? At least your nym is appropriate, took out the ‘k’ and inserted a ‘p’. You forgot sarcastic.

        • TedM says:

          Selectively interpreting the known facts according to your own biases. Isn’t that your area of expertise David.

      • Brad says:

        “it appears someone tried to kill, or at least intimidate, Roy and John”

        No it doesn’t. Bullets hit a building some time prior to Monday morning.

        Even Spencer himself says:

        “Our street is fairly quiet, so I doubt the shots were fired during Saturdays march here. It was probably late night Saturday or Sunday for the shooter to have a chance of being unnoticed”

        And police believe it’s random.

        It could have just as likely been some right-wing yahoos shooting at a science building trying to give the finger to all the liberals and their “march for science.”

        They keep shooting up Sikh temples to express their ire for Muslims, so they aren’t terribly detail-oriented.

        And it could have just as easily been random knuckleheads screwing around.

        Or a ticked off UAH student angry about a bad grade.

        Or a jilted lover of someone who works in the building.

        There are a hundred possible explanations every bit as likely as the self-serving load being shoveled up here… You hacks are just grasping at the one that confirms your pre-existing biases and grinds your own personal ideological axe.

        • Snape says:


          Yep, I’m guilty of jumping to conclusions. I admit it.

          That being said, I would still bet on a connection between the shots fired and the controversial positions of UAH.

    • Threogmorton says:

      So, Hob Runnybutt. Intolerant leftist mobs marched in some 100+ cities to silence dissent against their intolerant Lysenkoism. It is no stretch at all that one of those fanatics decided to take intimidation tactics one step further.

      • Nate says:

        No, in my experience of the march in my city, and reports about other cities, the marchers were not mobs. The vast vast majority were good people with good intentions and legitimate concern that science is under threat, expressing this in a (mostly) respectful way.

        That said, there are nut-jobs on both sides of the issue, as with other issues.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Nate, your “side of the issue” claims that CO2 is heating the planet to “unprecedented” levels. Your side claims the issue is settled!

          So, could you please identify someone on your side that is NOT a nut-job?


        • Nate says:

          I dunno, maybe the 10s of thousands of scientists and their students who are out there, on antarctic ice, on ships, in labs, classrooms, etc working hard to understand what is actually happening to the earth.

          Most of them are not likely nut-jobs.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Nate…”The vast vast majority were good people with good intentions and legitimate concern that science is under threat…”

          Science would not be under threat if all scientists behaved as scientists should. It’s the opportunists, those willing to pervert science for a buck or an ego-trip that are causing all the problems.

          Neither of those describe Roy or John at UAH but the words are apt for many, if not most, climate alarm scientists. The marchers are protesting the wrong people.

          • Lewis says:

            Typically it is not scientists as scientists who are the problem. It is those seeking power and money by association either with the political position or the science or the adulterated science.

            If one were from Berkeley, that bastion of intolerance, one would describe the marches as violent, and thus violence is begun and encouraged. Use of guns is a small step. Blasphemers all. What to do?

          • Nate says:

            In the recent house committee hearing on climate science with 3 out 4 witnesses who were skeptics, they were asked whether climate science funding should be cut. ALL 4 said NO.

    • dannz says:

      The march was a dud, had nothing to do with science, it was political, left wing, marxist crap that we are all tired of witnessing.
      Honeycutt and Appell should stay with writing 1 star Amazon reviews for books they do not like.

      • DavidA says:

        What about the March, specifically, made it “Marxist?”

      • DavidA says:

        PS: I’ve never written an Amazon book review in my life. Sorry to burst your hate bubble.

      • Nate says:

        The science march had reality bias, not a political bias.

        Some of the signs I saw:

        ‘Over 40, your welcome-Science’

        ‘Never got polio-Thanks, Science’

        ‘The thing about science is that its true whether you believe in it or not’


        • Bart says:

          Reminds me of my favorite Dilbert cartoon, featuring the character of Dan the Illogical Scientist:

          Dan: That design will never work. I should know, because I’m a scientist, and scientists have done many wonderful things.
          Dilbert: Those were other scientists, not you.
          Dan: Apparently, you do not understand science.

          No doubt, Michael Mann is now taking credit for curing polio on his CV. The rest of us are not impressed.

        • Nate says:

          I marched along with people who work on cancer research, or curing other diseases, as well as many engineers. Point they were making was science has a positive impact on all of us, and is an engine of innovation.

          These people feel their work and that of others is also under threat. Judging by the Presidents budget, it clearly is.

          • Bart says:

            “Point they were making was science has a positive impact on all of us, and is an engine of innovation.”

            That is not a point that needs making.

            We all know what the March was about, and it wasn’t about science. It was about proclamations of apocalyptic doomsday due to a negligible level of a substance necessary for life on this planet. It was about political posturing, and securing public finances for a cult of rent seekers and poseurs.

      • FTOP says:

        Anyone carrying a sign reading,

        “Why should I make the data available to you?”

        Since they are fighting so hard to protect that important scientific tenet of reproducibility.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          FTOP…”Why should I make the data available to you?”

          That was the same guy who cheered the death of John Daly and threatened that he and Kevin would see to it that certain skeptic papers (one from UAH) would not make it to the IPCC peer review.

          Phil Jones is partnered with Kevin Trenberth as Coordinating Lead Authors on IPCC reviews.

          • Mardler says:

            The same Phil Jones whose deliberate mangling of data for The Cause was uncovered before Climategate.

    • Streetcred says:


  10. The National Space Science and Technology Center should take this with with utter seriousness. It might want to install security cameras on the street where they can pick up cars driving pastand record sound so shots can be spotted.

  11. ossqss says:

    Hopefully your local law enforcment has the forensic capabilities to assess the casings and lead as they can often be as unique as fingerprints. If you are in a federal building I would think the feds would be involved?

    Stay safe Doc!

    • Dean H says:

      I’m sure the bullet casings were collected precisely for comparison purposes, but you have to have a gun to compare it to. They have no suspects!! Everyone stop thinking about television and understand this was a random act of stupidity and destructive behavior. No one person was targeted….an entire building was shot at seven times. Go look at the building. the bullet holes hit in various places between the third and fourth floor. Only three windows got hit and none were windows for Spencer or Christy’s office right? That’s because this was not about them. They want it to be about them and that’s the problem. One other thing, this is not a Federal facility. The building belongs to the university. NASA and the Weather Service rent space inside.

  12. Turbulent Eddie says:

    Don’t know who or why, of course.

    But if it was one of the marchers, there appears to be drone video.

    See anyone suspicious?

    • DavidA says:

      Ha ha.

      That video was shot in daylight. Roy says, “It was probably late night Saturday or Sunday.”

      • Bart says:

        Immaterial. It’s at the Space and Rocket center, too, not UAH. I’ve stayed in that Marriott.

        But, the perps were probably in the march, and these are the marchers. Didn’t see any who looked like this, though.

  13. Turbulent Eddie says:

    Roy, it appears the march went from the NASA museum more or less to your building.

    That’s kinda strange on its own – why not a loop so people return to their cars after marching? Was that by design? If so, the march itself might have had you all in mind.

    Curious to see this resolved.

    • Brad says:

      “If so, the march itself might have had you all in mind.”


      Lol… You people are a riot. Oh my God… Freaking clown shoes.

      • Mardler says:

        Why snort at a very reasonable possibility?

        Unless of course there are no possibilities outside your own blinkered opinion.

        As someone whose rants against Christy, Spencer et al denigrate real science and scientists I’ll assume that you are incapable of critical thinking.

  14. Kevin White says:

    Leftists are not only deranged and irrational they are above all hypocrites, always saying the right is violent and intolerant but it is they who lose their hollow minds in a fit of rage whenever some sane person has the nerve to burst their ideological bubble with a point of truth. How sad, juvenile and pathetic they are.

    • Nate says:


      ‘deranged and irrational’

      People on both sides of issues would like to demonize those on the other side (as you are here).

      My suggestion, go have a beer with a climate scientist, any scientist, or a liberal.

      You will find that they are regular, nice people.

    • DavidA says:

      Kevin, blindly categorizing your ideological opponents as you do just shows you don’t have an intellectual argument.

      Anyone can do that. It simply paints you as unthinking and dismissable.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Davie, you just painted yourself as unthinking and dismissible.

        For once, I agree with you….

      • Bart says:

        If it were dismissible, you would have dismissed it. I suspect your unconscious mind could not dismiss the fact that we have been treated to a veritable parade of lawlessness and violence from the Left particularly since the current CinC got elected.

        • Nate says:


          So the recent increase in marches like the womens march and the science march, you consider this ‘lawless’?

          • Bart says:

            The “so” tell, again.

          • Nate says:

            Not an answer. Guess you none.

          • Nate says:

            Admit it, angry people on the right are just expressing their opinion, while those on the left are ‘lawless’.

            Youre acting no differently than Berkeley kids who need to be ‘safe’ from ideas they dont like.

          • Bart says:

            Not interested in arguing straw men. Anybody who missed the Left Wing riots over the last several months would have to have been living under a rock.

          • Nate says:

            . I recall only one noteworthy dustup at Berkeley. Guess i havent been watching enough Fox News.

            How many hundreds were killed in said riots?

          • Bart says:

            You think it is OK to hurt people, as long as they don’t actually die?

          • Nate says:

            Trying to be objective about it:


            summarizes both protest and riot events since the election. Most events were large and peaceful marches. A few could be called riots. violence happened in clashes between pro- and anti- Trump and anarchist groups. with the result 43 injuries and no deaths.

            But I think right-leaning media, such as Fox etc paint a very alarmist narrative of these events, in order to fear monger.

            And it seems to be working. You are suggesting that even people who peacefully express ideas different from yours are dangerous.

          • Bart says:

            “You are suggesting that even people who peacefully express ideas different from yours are dangerous.”

            I am suggesting that apocalyptic rhetoric activates crazy people. More than suggesting it. I am stating it as a fact.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Apocalyptic rhetoric’

            Unfortunately for you, we have a thing called free speech. We have a tradition of reasoned dissent and protest. People have legitimate concerns that are supported by science.

            You clearly don’t agree. But calling it apocalyptic is just a tactic.

          • Bart says:

            The crazies are motivated by your telling them it is the end of the world. It is not the end of the world. There is no legitimate scientific backing for that pronouncement.

          • Nate says:

            Ive never said the world is ending , or anything close to it. AFAIK neither has IPCC. Instead we are saying what we believe is happening. You think that is dangerous?

          • Bart says:

            Then, you have a moral responsibility to call down those on your side who are.

          • Nate says:

            Yeah, I’ll work on that..

          • Nate says:

            And you’re in charge of the nuts on your side. Thnx

  15. David Appell says:

    Roy wrote:
    “Maybe the March For Science should have been called the March To Silence.”

    Nice Roy. Based on no evidence whatsoever, you assume this happened because of your views on climate, from someone associated with the March for Science.

    That’s not funny.

    • Wasn’t meant to be funny. Read my comment below, using the analogy of this was a Skeptic’s march at Penn State past Michael Mann’s window, and the same thing happened.

      Start acting like a journalist for once, David. You already pretend to be one.

      • David Appell says:

        I’m being a journalist, Roy — and you have no evidence at all to back up your suspicions. As I quoted below, your PIO Garner says UAH Police have identified this as a random shooting.

        If you have any real evidence, I am more than happy to know about it.

        Did you ever care when Michael Mann received his death threats, Roy? Or white powder in a mailed envelope? Any mention of them?

        • Geochemist says:

          Journalist? What a joke. You never heard of circumstantial evidence? If you were a real journalist you would be asking how the police reached their conclusion and closed the case so quickly. But the you would rather use the childish logic regarding what has happened to others. You are a piece of work Appell. If this were my blog you would be so gone after today.

        • Any physical threats against Mann are unwarranted and should be condemned. And if such a thing happened to Mann with bullets shot at his office, I WOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO DISCOUNT IT AS YOU HAVE DONE, DAVID. Goodbye, go play in your own sandbox.

          • DavidA says:

            Roy, why did you never until now condemn the death threats received by Mann and others?

          • Bart says:

            You think Dr. Spencer hasn’t received death threats? Death threats are a dime a dozen for a public figure.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Im being a journalist, Roy and you have no evidence at all to back up your suspicions”.

          The more I see of your logic the more I am convinced that your objectivity has been seriously clouded by your emotions.

          A while back you asked mpainter if he was still beating his wife. mpainter replied, “My wife passed away last year of lymphoma”.

          Rather than apologize, as a decent human being might, you carried it on, replying, “If you ask disrespectful questions, you dont get to complain when you get them in return”.

          Get to complain??? The guy’s wife died of lymphoma and you ask him if he is still beating her. Your ego could not let it go, however, you offered no compassion for mpainter.

          You are a serious jerk, Appell, and that is further cemented by your insensitive reply to Roy, who has obviously been targeted by bullets from eco-loonies.

          • Bart says:

            Not to mention his pornographic “Aunt Judy” references to Dr. Judith Curry. The guy has got some serious screws loose.

          • D Appell says:

            Poor lady.

            Here’s what I received last “Sun, 4 Sep 2016 15:43:15 -0400:” from “Bill Libby [email protected]

            “David you are one step beyond an idiot and do not deserve the liberties that I and so many others have fought for”

          • Bart says:

            Poor baby. He can dish it out (unprovoked), but can’t take it (from totally unrelated people).

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Bart…”Not to mention…”

            I’m glad Steyn is going after Mann. I can’t even stand looking at Mann let alone listening to him.

          • Lewis says:

            Is that it David.
            No death threat, no bullets. Just someone decrying your opinion. That’s all you got.

            I’ve had better, by telephone, snail mail and email.

            But never shots.

          • Mardler says:

            I was reading down and thinking there really are some leftie, anti science, fruitcakes here with DA as leader. Then I read your comment, GR.

            Anyone who lashes out like DA did against a guy whose wife had died, lashed out at Dr. Curry (as per Bart) and makes light of potentially lethal shots at an office deserves no support or credence for anything he says on any subject.

            Sadly, this behaviour is typical of leftist, ill educated, intolerant and ignorant fools who, unable to debate, resort to ad hominem attacks and worse.

            Btw, back in the day, a DA was a hair style, it was short for Duck’s Arse (UK English sp.).

  16. Geochemist says:

    Go to hell Appell there was enough circumstantial evidence to speculate about the motive behind this.

  17. David Appell says:

    “HUNTSVILLE, Ala. Seven shots were fired into the National Space Science and Technology building, over the weekend, according to UAH spokesman Ray Garner.

    “No one was hurt or in the building at the time.

    “Garner says UAH Police have identified this as a random shooting.”

    • Hey, David! Imagine that Skeptics had a march one weekend at Penn State, past Michael Mann’s office. Then, sometime during that weekend, seven bullets were fired and hit windows and bricks around Mann’s office.

      How would you have felt about that? The same? And how do the police conclude a “random shooting” after only 6 hours since they were called to the scene?

      • DavidA says:

        Roy: I would ask for the evidence that the shots were directed at Michael Mann.

        Random shots in a gun-heavy state like Alabama are a bit different than an envelope containing white powder specifically mailed to Mann at his university address, I’m sure you will agree.

        • Bart says:

          Sure you would. ROFLMAO.

          Huntsville AL is one of the foremost research and technology centers in the country. It’s where they built the rockets to the Moon. Your bigotry only displays your ignorance.

          • D Appell says:

            Still no evidence these shooting were directed towards Spencer/Christy, let alone because of their climate views.

            But everyone likes to feel prosecuted — I get that.

          • Bart says:

            I bet you do.

          • Lewis says:

            Persecuted David, not prosecuted.

            Yes, a pretend journalist. Get a dictionary. Then use it.

        • Geochemist says:

          Yes quite different. No chance of anyone dying from inert powder. Both incidents meant to intimidate but only one could have actually killed someone.

          • Mardler says:


            Let’s say both incidents were potentially lethal.

            DA would wring his hands over an attempt on Mann but celebrate someone trying to kill Spencer.

            We’re dealing with a seriously warped and dysfunctional mind, folks.

    • Greg Goodman says:

      How do you “identify” something as a random shooting? What ‘spokesperson’ Garner meant was the campus police DISMISSED it as a random shooting.

      what are campus police good for any way apart for pulling up students for riding a push-bike on the pathway and hassling them 2g of shit in their back pocket?

      How many “random shootings” normally happen UAH of an average weekend? This is dereliction of duty.

      If this is the official police response, I would ask for it in writing and then take it further.

      • DavidA says:

        If you, or anyone, has evidence, please report it.

        Until then, speculations are unwarranted.

        • Emeritus says:

          David A

          Your arguments are BS. The right answer in this and similar cases are;

          – bullets directed at a specific floor or office IS EVIDENCE
          – the time and other circumstances around the shooting IS EVEDENCE

          It is possible that the shooting is random, it is also possible that the shooting was directed, at this point nobody can say for sure, probably never. You seem to think that EVIDENCE only is facts that with 100% certainty supports one possible interpretation.

          If my name was Roy Spencer or John Christy, and this happened the same day as a totally legetime political action that can be interpreted as going against their scientific view, there is a good reason to suspect that this shooting was done by some nut job to send a message. I would for sure have that alternative in mind if I was in Spencers shoes.

          Such actions should be condemned without regard of the scientists name or position in the climate debate.

          That’s the only right answer.

          • Mardler says:

            Spot on.

            But for DA physical attacks on real scientists are good and to be celebrated.

            DA protests so much I wonder if……….

  18. Geochemist says:

    And without the perpetrator just how was this conclusion reached? I call BS.

  19. Geochemist says:

    And they don’t intend to investigate further? WTF? This happens all the time at UAB? Just your average Saturday night fun?

  20. Don B says:

    A few days ago the Boulder, Colorado newspaper published a letter in which the author said fracking of oil and gas wells was equivalent to murder, and so blowing up wells and “eliminating” workers was justified. The paper edited the letter the next day distancing themselves from advocating violence, but left the letter online.

    When violence does occur in Colorado’s oil industry, the Boulder newspaper must share the blame.

    The irrational promoters of climate Armageddon share the blame for this violence directed at Curry and Spencer.

    • Nate says:

      ‘fracking of oil and gas wells was equivalent to murder’ obviously this person is nut-job.

      But I am surprised that you think belief in science and environmentalism must lead to violence. That people expressing these ideas are to blame for other people doing violence.

      Do you think people who express anti-abortion views should be blamed for abortion-clinic bombings?

      Do you think Christians should be blamed for anti-semitic attacks?

  21. Joe Bastardi says:

    At the very least, since this is the National Space Science and Technology Center and government employees work there, federal authorities should be brought in to examine the evidence. It seems very hard to believe that clustered shots at someones office was just a random occurrence

    • Greg Goodman says:

      I think the FBI should be informed of this directly. There is at least prima facea evidence of this being an act of terrorism. An act of terrorism against a state official was well.

      If local law enforcement aren’t prepared to take this seriously, I doubt the Feds will be so dismissive.

    • NASA offices are there, too, but the building belongs to UAH. Nevertheless, NASA has a lot of influence regarding the facility and infrastructure required for their needs and to meet whatever federal regs there are.

      • John Hultquist says:

        I responded to David A., above.

        Will again add this:
        I suggest the University replace the windows (and a few others) with inch thick LEXAN.

      • Greg Goodman says:

        If I were working in that building I would be taking a very active personal interest in ensuring that this went higher than “campus police”.

  22. weatherhappens says:

    The jackboot of ecofascism cannot last long in the arena of rational debate, so they have to resort to ad hominem attacks and finally violence to intimidate their opponents into silence.

    • D Appell says:

      What do you make of the death threats towards the scientists warming about the consequences of manmade climate change?

      • Lewis says:

        David, really?
        Really? Do you believe, actually believe as you pretend, that concern for Dr. Spencer, Christy and others in the UAH building indicates lack or concern of others? Are you really that obtuse? Or is your religious belief dictating your response?
        Anyway, I suggest no one here is dismissive of violence towards anyone, except, as you have proved, you.

      • Mardler says:

        “…scientists warming about the consequences of manmade climate change?”

        A telling typo.

        As there is no such thing as man made climate change there can only be one conclusion about those who are “warming”: liars, charlatans and troughers.

        Unlike you, DA, if us adherents of real science heard of anyone threatened with death or maiming we would denounce it – unlike you and your ilk.

  23. Gordon Robertson says:

    Roy…sorry you were the target of eco-loonies.

    I don’t think you are reading enough into this incident. You are not being targeted because you are a skeptic you are being targeted because you have damning evidence…real temperature data.

    NOAA has ignored their own satellite data which UAH uses to make data sets. I might add that you and John have been awarded medals for excellence for those data sets by NASA and the American Meteorological Society.

    Your data sets have destroyed the credibility of eco-alarmists and they are corroborated over the 15 years period from 1998 – 2012 by the IPCC.

    The message from UAH data sets is brutally and scientifically clear: anthropogenic CO2 cannot possibly be causing catastrophic global warming/climate change. That fact is a stake through the heart of eco-loonies, who have a far different agenda than the veracity of global warming.

    UAH has destroyed their stupid pseudo-science and they are retaliating as only loonies can.

    • D Appell says:

      Gordon Robertson says:
      “NOAA has ignored their own satellite data which UAH uses to make data sets.”

      NOAA’s calculations — surface temperatures and ocean temperatures — don’t require satellite measurements.

  24. Gordon Robertson says:

    Roy…I would not waste my time with local cops. Take this to the FBI or CIA.

    • DavidA says:

      THe local cops have no evidence, and have deemed it a “random shooting.”

      Because these happen ALL THE TIME in today’s America. And probably even more often in Alabama.

      • John Smith says:

        Right, Alabama.
        That awful South.
        Never happens in Chicago.

        No evidence deemed evidence of something.
        I see a correlation to what some portray as climate science.

        • D Appell says:

          What does Chicago have to do with any of this????

          • Bart says:

            Nothing. Nor does Alabama have anything to do with it, and particularly not Rocket City.

            Do you really write articles on scientific subjects? How can anyone with any background in science whatsoever not know about the position Huntsville, Alabama holds within the hallowed halls of science?

  25. Gordon Robertson says:

    May I suggest that someone who lives in the US contact the office of Congressman Lamar Smith. I can’t reach the office because I live in Canada and they require a US Zip Code.

    Lamar Smith is the Congressman heading the investigation into NOAA. I’m sure he would be interested in this kind of extremely violent assault by eco-loonies on a skeptical scientific organization.

  26. DavidA says:

    Roy is now blocking my comments. Because of what I wrote above.

    Isn’t that what always happens?

    • Randy Cornwell says:

      No doubt in my mind that what your wrote above was to get blocked so you could complain. You’re too easy to read.

      • DavidA says:

        I’m having to use a proxy to fake my IP address.

        • Randy Cornwell says:

          no one cares.

        • Bart says:

          “Im having to use a proxy to fake my IP address.”

          It’s that important to you? Dude, you need help.

        • Crakar24 says:

          DA, this is the inevitable result of not following the rules, of not being able to behave like a rational adult.

          This is also a dominant trait of the socialist left, look at the way you lit have responded to the democratic election of Trump.

          You broke the rules by behaving poorly, got permaband and now break even more rules to keep posting.

          I suggest you grow up, then politely ask Dr Spencer to be allowed to post again.

          Your problem is self reflection, perception of reality and admission of guilt are not strong character traits of the socialist left.

          Good bye and good luck

          • D Appell says:

            Behaving poorly? How so?

          • wert says:

            Appell is a bit unreal in that he can’t shut up, he thinks he can’t err, and thinks he’s interesting.

            He gets a lot of attention here and he’s addicted to that. We’d do him a favour by simply not commenting him. He uses a lot of time here and that’s a waste for us all. And he’s often not even wrong.

            I’m sorry for commenting this. Will be the last Apple comment in my life.

  27. Jim2 says:

    There’s a 5.7×28 rifle, don’t know if you can get an extended mag for it, but off the shelf holds 4 rounds.

    • Jim2 says:

      From what I’ve read, the ammo for this gun is expensive. Also, there probably aren’t, relatively speaking, that many 5.7×28 rifles in Alabama. It seems this would be a great lead for the police to follow. I’m sure they already know this.

    • Marcus Landry says:

      The original rifle chambered for the 5.7mm round is the FN P90 (introduced in 1990) fully automatic, or the civilian version, the PS90 with a longer barrel to make it legal. Both have a 50 round capacity.

      If you are a fan of the Stargate TV shows, the FN P90 and FN Five-seveN (5.7mm handgun with 20 round capacity) were the weapons the Stargate teams carried.

  28. There may have been a million peaceful marchers around the world but their anger shows through in their retorhic and that is enough to encourage some to violence.

    • Bart says:

      Exactly. Those who incite the nutters to violence are no less culpable.

      • Snape says:

        Peaceful protest doesn’t mean the participants aren’t angry. It means they don’t support violence.

      • Nate says:


        So because a bunch of nerds and their families and friends marched, promoting radical ideas like science is useful and should be supported, we incited violence?


        • Bart says:

          The apocalyptic hysteria is what incites violence. Get a grip on yourself. The world is in no danger.

        • Nate says:

          ‘Get a grip’ not sure why I need to do that?

          You certainly did seem to imply that the rhetoric of the marchers made them culpable for violence.

          You think they should sit sit down, shut up, and take their lumps?

          This tactic of fearmongering about street violence to enable suppression of dissent is a well-worn tactic, from Hitler to Nixon.

          • Bart says:

            “You think they should sit sit down, shut up, and take their lumps?”

            I think they should not be engaging in hysteria. There is no existential threat from CO2.

            “This tactic of fearmongering…”

            Pointing out that bullets are flying through a window is not fearmongering. It is presenting evidence of tangible and objective physical violence.

          • Nate says:

            Bullets are dangerous. Riots, even minor ones, are not good. But in the scheme of things these are background noise. Lets not freak out.

          • Bart says:

            Bullets are something to freak out over. They go really fast, and they sting like hell.

          • Nate says:

            Then go ahead and freak out. Dont expect others, not involved, to do so.

  29. Crakar24 says:

    Perhaps it was a random shooting in the sense it was not directly targeting Dr Christy. In this context it was an attack on everyone in the building and indeed science itself.

    This could be deemed as a warning, a prelude of what is to come perhaps.

    On the other hand……..agent provocateur?

  30. DavidAp says:

    Gotta change proxies again, because, hey, what’s more important than censoring alternative opinions, right Roy?

    Bart, there was no cheering. Why don’t you actually read the data for a change, just once, maybe just once this time?

  31. “Maybe the March For Science should have been called the March To Silence

    Classical guilt by association fallacy that you bring here.

    “When some people cannot argue facts, they resort to violence to get their way.”

    Well, according to this logic, one rather should speculate that the shots were fired by some AGW deniers.

    • Bart says:

      And, back again to the “denier” label, trivializing the Holocaust in service of AGW stormtroopers since the early 2000’s. Haters gotta’ hate.

      • There is no reference to the Holocaust there. Thus, it must be your own anti-Semitic projection.

        • Crakar24 says:


          Whilst I accept your comments were not intended to invoke Godwin’s law some high profile AGW advocates did compare AGW denial to Holocaust denial. Its a sensitive issue for some.

        • Bart says:

          Gimme a break. We all know why the denier label was chosen – it borrows against the well deserved opprobrium meted out to Holocaust deniers. Much as the pseudo-scientific endeavor known as AGW borrows against the account of genuine science. It’s all facade and poses, from the ground up.

          • Logical fallacies of argumentum ad populum and argument by assertion.

          • Bart says:

            Like “97% of climate scientists agree” and “the science is settled”?

            I think your side is better at using them than identifying them.

          • Logical fallacy of tu-quoque argument.

          • Bart says:

            Literally “you also”. First, you have to establish that I, also, did this. But, I did not.

            Knowledgeable people to whom I refer are in no way gulled by the sly protestations of innocence with regard to the “denier” ploy. And, it is easily established that AGW relies heavily on the prestige of science in general to back its insubstantial claims.

            That is why I stated, I think your side is better at using them than identifying them.

          • Bart says:

            Allow me to give you a tip, Jan. When a lady or gentleman has been shot at, to all appearances by some thug who was whipped into a frenzy by your side’s hysteria, it avails you not a scintilla of good will or credibility to jump in to obfuscate and diminish the very grave nature of what has happened.

            The proper response, if you give any at all, is to express your absolute abhorrence of the deed, and just… shut up after that.

            If you instead give aid and comfort to the wayward and haphazard beast, he may well turn his gaze upon you, once your blind has been exposed, and you may find you must face him alone when your side has devolved into an every-man-for-himself rush for cover.

          • Nate says:

            Bart, well reasoned opinions expressed, that happen to disagree with you are, alarmist, hysterical, inciteful of violence.

            What is a doubled standard in latin?

          • Bart,

            Your assertions about the shooting and the motives behind it are mere conjecture, without any evidence. The shots are just convenient for you for the pose of victimhood and for your smear propaganda against scientists that produce findings in their work, which you don’t want to hear. And you are not in the position to tell me what I am allowed to say and what I am not.

            “when your side has devolved into an every-man-for-himself rush for cover.”

            Any day now, huh? I always find such announcement funny, which are made by members of the AGW denial cult and directed at my “side”. Which is the side of empirical evidence and scientific research, the side of science.

          • Bart says:

            Your delusions of grandeur do not excuse your insensitivity. Well, I tried to help. Que sera, sera.

      • D Appell says:

        “Denier” is a perfectly good word that existed long before the Holocaust.

        So stop whining about it.

  32. Harry Cummings says:

    The shooting was a deliberate act to intimidate Dr Spencer, John Christy and their staff and is particularly nasty. No one was hurt and in all probability the danger has past. But for the person who carried it out him/her trouble is only beginning how much legs this gets no one knows. They have to now worry about the next knock on their door and if caught they know they will probable spend the next 5 or 6 years in prison. Did they mention anything to their friends, family or workmates over the last few months that may put 2 and 2 together only time will tell, where did the gun come from questions questions. They probably already been on this site to see whats happening so all I can say to them good luck with the wait mate it might take days weeks or months but remember this Dr Spencer and John Christy have millions of friends who have eyes and ears all watching and will pass anything they think suspicious to the police

  33. Crakar24 says:

    Jan p,

    99.9% of the people marching would not know what science is if it bit them on the ass. When science needs the help of the LBGTIQ brigade to swell the numbers then science is in trouble.

    Its in trouble because its no longer science its taken the form of a religion, no facts required. People like you have destroyed science, its not really your fault you have been indoctrinated into thinking the way you do.

    Debate us a waste of time because the language of science has been destroyed, I say co2, you say pollution and so on. You believe in a false science just like Allah believes Christians believe in a false God.

    • All this projection.

      • Crakar24 says:

        Let’s put it to the test, is co2 essential for life on earth or a pollutant?

        • CO2 is essential for life on Earth. Like the potassium in your body is essential for your life. What is your point? What has been put to rest now?

          • Crakar24 says:

            As your comments are vague (perhaps witty in your mind) I am trying to establish what in your mind is association fallacy and projection

          • Not that you have been specific about what you wanted to say. Something about CO2, I think.

          • Crakar24 says:

            I have met your kind before, you talk in circles like a first year psych student suggest you strike up a conversation with appell he will entertain you for hours.

          • And here is the projection of your own behavior onto me again. Come back when you have to offer an actual arguments, instead of drivel and ad hominem.

        • Snape says:


          Too much of a good thing can sometimes be a bad thing, right? Your argument overlooks this very basic concept.

          • Bart says:

            Perhaps, if it were more than an order of magnitude greater than it is. Getting wrapped around the axle over such a meager amount of atmospheric CO2 is insanity. The world needs more, much more, of this life giving substance, not less.

          • Snape says:


            Co2 is odorless and invisible. If not for scientists, you wouldn’t even know it existed, let alone how much a plant needs.

          • Crakar24 says:

            But Snape no one can define what exactly is too much except perhaps in the bowels of a computer program

          • Snape says:


            I don’t know how much Co2 is too much. That’s a question for scientists. Of course most say the current level is already too much. Here’s some evidence they’re right:

            – most of earth’s glaciers are in rapid retreat

            – global sea ice is the lowest on record

            – sea levels are rising

            – global temps are trending upwards

            What evidence do you have that they are wrong?

          • Crakar24 says:

            That’s not evidence that’s a list of straw men.

          • Snape says:


            Not evidence? This is why your called deniers.

          • “But Snape no one can define what exactly is too much except perhaps in the bowels of a computer program”

            Society will have to decide how much greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are too much, depending on what consequences for human civilization and the environment in which it exists it is willing to tolerate, which result from a continuously increasing amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

            Science only can give approximate answers what consequences such an increase in greenhouse gases will have, so that society can make informed decisions about how to deal with this. Former is the realm of science, latter is the realm of economics and politics.

          • Nate says:


            i think you are using ‘strawmen’ improperly here. A strawman is a false, easily knocked down, idea that you ascribe to your opponent. Many folks on this blog are experts at it.

          • Bart says:

            Snape –

            ” If not for scientists, you wouldnt even know it existed, let alone how much a plant needs.”

            Those were other scientists, not the current sorry lot. Michael Mann did not cure polio. Jan Perlwitz did not invent beer. These were some of the things attributed to “science” on the Earth Day posters. None of them were accomplished by modern soi-disant climate scientists. This is a genetic fallacy, completely irrelevant to the debate at hand.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Jan…”Science only can give approximate answers what consequences such an increase in greenhouse gases will have, so that society can make informed decisions about how to deal with this”.

            I’m still waiting for the approximate answers. Thus far all I have seen is innuendo based on unvalidated climate models.

            In the 2001 review, the IPCC admitted that future climate states cannot be ‘predicted’. So they went ahead and did it anyway, using probabilities of probabilities generated by climate models. Then they were forced to amend ‘predict’ to ‘project’ after expert reviewer Vincent Gray pointed out that unvalidated models cannot predict.

            Then there’s the politicians. The IPCC was started by a politician, Margaret Thatcher, then the PM of the UK. Her motives were purely political, she was deeply troubled by striking coal miners and she needed a way to bring them in line.

            An advisor suggested she take it to the UN and use her degree in chemistry to pull the wool over the eyes of the gullible. That’s what she did and the UN did the rest. They formed the IPCC in 1988 to investigate the role of humans in global warming.

            One of the first co-chairs of the IPCC was John Houghton, a climate modeler who was a protege of Thatcher. He has steadfastly rejected any science that tries to negate the models. He has ignored satellite data in particular. I say ‘he’ because he had the power through the lead authors to determine how the IPCC reviews would come out.

            Since the inception of the IPCC and it’s subsequent reviews politicians have seen the promise of revenues from carbon taxes. The IPCC reviews mean nothing, the results are ignored by the IPCC who has the Summary for Policymakers written by 50 politically-appointed lead authors then uses it to re-write the main report issued by 2500 reviewers.

            IPCC reviews are big games. As John Christy pointed out from his experience as a lead author and reviewer, many reviewers show up with preconceived notions and go along to get along.

            We know nothing about what is causing warming.

          • Bart says:

            “An advisor suggested she take it to the UN and use her degree in chemistry to pull the wool over the eyes of the gullible.”

            Much as I adore Lady Thatcher, everybody makes mistakes. This just highlights that it is always perilous to make deals with the Devil for short term gain. The Devil always wins in the end.

            “As John Christy pointed out from his experience as a lead author and reviewer, many reviewers show up with preconceived notions and go along to get along.”

            Everything is subject to Sturgeon’s Law: 90% of everything is crap. In whatever milieu you may be, look around, and note how many people around you are truly competent at what they do. That same proportion holds in roughly every arena, including science.

            Science has scored so many spectacular successes that we lose sight of how few people have actually been behind the spectacular successes, and scientists with no particular acumen have been elevated to the status of high priests. Maybe we need a spectacular fiasco like the one now unfolding in climate science, just to arrest the slide into full-blown mindless religion.

          • Mardler says:

            “Snape says:
            April 25, 2017 at 12:59 AM

            I dont know how much Co2 is too much. Thats a question for scientists. Of course most say the current level is already too much. Heres some evidence theyre right:

            most of earths glaciers are in rapid retreat

            global sea ice is the lowest on record

            sea levels are rising

            global temps are trending upwards

            What evidence do you have that they are wrong?”

            Most glaciers aren’t retreating rapidly, global sea ice is static or slightly increasing, sea level rise is minimal or zero and temps are rising very slightly as we are still emerging from the LIA.

            What is “too much”? Evidence shows that CO2 levels have been far higher with no detrimental impact on life.

            Cherry picking is not science.

            Oh and check out the amount of atmospheric CO2 that is caused by fossil fuel burning.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Margaret Thatcher..blah blah blah’

            Gordon your track record on telling us history (HIV, Reagan, etc) is so sketchy that Im not going to bother to fact check this one.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Most glaciers arent retreating rapidly, global sea ice is static or slightly increasing, sea level rise is minimal or zero and temps are rising very slightly as we are still emerging from the LIA.’

            None of this is factual. What are your sources for this?

  34. David A says:

    …by leftists in Chicago, by statist bigots in Berkley, by BLM members at white police…

  35. KevinK says:

    Dr. Spencer, be careful and keep a sharp eye on your situational awareness.

    Unfortunately once a bunch of loons have convinced people that “the end is near” a few people with improperly torqued screws get ideas.

    Sad that things have come to this, but very predictable, we’ve heard for decades now that the world is going to end….

    But, it’s not going to end, and probably won’t even warm up much more if any. It’s just weather and nobody can predict that very well.

    Thanks for your efforts, be safe, KevinK

  36. Diamondave says:

    The FN fiveSeven is not a cheap Saturday night special. It is a $1100 pistol.

    It is the same weapon the Ft Hood shooter used.

  37. D Appell says:

    “Im a scientist who has gotten death threats. I fear what may happen under Trump,” Michael Mann, Washington Post, 12/16/16.

    • Geochemist says:

      So you take Mann at his word but oh so skeptical of Dr. Spencer. Wow reported in the WAPO so it has to be true.

    • Carbonicus says:

      Oh Mann “fears what may happen under Trump” alright. But it’s not violence. That’s just a beard, and Mann knows it.

      Sunlight, the best disinfectant for people like Mann and his colleagues, is what Mann and his ilk fear the most.

  38. D Appell says:

    “Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University, who does outreach with evangelical Christians, says she can receive up to 200 emails and letters a day following a media appearance, telling her she’s a fraud and a liar, threatening her family and challenging her religious views. People have also shown up unannounced and agitated at her office to confront her about her scientific views.

    “”One email I got said something like, ‘I hope your child sees your head in a basket after you’ve been guillotined for all the fraud you climate scientists have been committing,'” Hayhoe said.”

    • TallDave says:

      On the other side, it’s not just random people being ugly.

      Why Blowing Up Kids Seemed Like a Good Idea

      My guess is that most readers have seen the recent 10:10 climate video, in which government teachers and other global warming zealots push red buttons that explode school children and adults who don’t toe the global warming line (if you missed the video, you can watch it here, though beware, there is a lot of, uh, gore.)

      Context is important. Had the video been part of a absurdist Monty Python sketch, I probably would have thought it funny. Had the video been produced by skeptics to mock the stridency of the global warming community, it would have been thought to be over-the-top. But this was a video funded by establishment groups, showing those who opposed them being killed in a horrible manner.

      After an initial non-apology that basically read, “we’re sorry you have no sense of humor,” folks who are alarmed about global warming have been spinning the video as a fleeting and isolated error in judgment roughly equivalent to a politician’s misstatement in a debate. This doesn’t entirely wash, however — hundreds of people had to be involved in the making of the video over a period of months, from original concept design through post-production. The group involved well-known directors and actors and prominent activists in the 10:10 organization and its partners. The whole effort was underwritten by a number of major corporations as well as the UK government.

    • Carbonicus says:

      David, do you see any difference between obnoxious people sending nasty emails and threats to a researcher (something none of us here condone) and people shooting at researcher’s places of work to intimidate them?

      Is there a difference between words and bullets to you?

      Better yet, given what you people are doing with “free speech” on college campuses, is this the next evolution in the Left’s justification for violence? Ergo, declare something hate speech (in this case, scientific work/conclusions which differ from the prevailing wisdom/orthodoxy) and having done so, violence against that which you’ve declared as “hate speech” is thus justified?

      I’m just asking so I understand where you people are headed with this reasoning and behavior.

      • Nate says:

        I think hate mail, hate calls, threats, white powder, even bullets fired at empty offices, are similar. They are meant to scare and intimidate. That tactic, unfortunately, can work.

  39. D Appell says:

    “Here are some of the death threats sent to a climate scientist,” Grist 6/13/12

    • Obama says:

      David, you say you are on the side of truth. Let’s get back to global warming/climate change.

      According to David (truth):

      1) Can you please specifically describe the truth re: global warming/climate change?
      2) Please specifically contrast & compare your truth vs. Dr. Roy Spencer’s understanding?
      3) And, most importantly, please describe specifically how you (D Appell) have been personally injured, personally harmed, suffered personal loss due to the last 30 years of global warming/climate change?

      Please be as clear as possible in such a way that your TRUTH is verifiable and accountable.

      Thank you. I am looking for clarity not debate.


  40. D Appell says:

    “Australian climate scientists receive death threats,” The Guardian, 6/6/11

    • Carbonicus says:

      David – first, a stipulation. While we acknowledge some/many scientists with your view on the topic have received death threats and that Mann got a package of white powder, none of us here condone any threats or physical violence against any scientists. (even the “scientists” who’ve dropped any appearance of objectivity and believe as you do, like Mann, Hansen, Jones, etc.).

      Now, let’s play your game.

      Do you have any evidence that the white powder sent to Mann’s office was not sent by Mann to himself as a publicity stunt, or maybe was sent by you or Chris Mooney or someone who pretends to be a “journalist” for same purposes? Can you prove it? Can you provide the police report that says this is not the case?

      Was the white powder sent to Mann’s office actually anthrax or some other compound known to be dangerous (toxic, explosive, hazardous, etc.)? Or was it innocuous?

      Are bullets flying at ~2,500 feet per second innocuous like enriched wheat flour or whatever was sent to Mann, or are they deadly?

      Finally a comment. As someone who lives in a border state to AL and is an avid hunter and 5th generation Southerner, let me correct your incorrect assumption/perception/suggestion:

      When we go out with our guns for a good time on a Saturday night and get liquored up (which for the overwhelming majority of us is never…), we shoot at stop signs, billboards, and other things not designed for human habitation. We do not – ever – shoot at buildings, even those we know to be unoccupied. So, the idea that this was a bunch of Alabama Bubbas just out shooting bullets at buildings like we are prone to doing on a Saturday night passes the red face test just as much as the idea that Mann, Jones, Hansen and their ilk are engaged in objective, dispassionate science and that you are a journalist not a water-carrying EcoLeftist Greenshirt.

      • Nate says:

        I tend to agree that the building seems to have been targeted, by some sort of extremest nutjob.

        Can we also agree that the action of this person, whoever it was, says nothing about the beliefs or motivations of the science marchers?

        Just as the actions of the KKK, or Timothy McVeigh says nothing about Christianity.

        • Carbonicus says:

          No, sorry, Nate, we can’t do that, any more than present-day Leftists can disassociate the actions of KKK members 75 years ago or Tim McVeigh 22 years ago with present day conservatives.

          This is not to say that I believe that every person participating in the “Science Marches” is a violent EcoLeftist terrorist. I have clients (environmental engineers/consultants) that participated and they are not crazed EcoLeftist terrorists, we just differ on the matter of CAGW. Just to say that you folks don’t get to have it both ways.

        • Nate says:

          ‘We just differ’ why not leave it at that?

          • Carbonicus says:

            Well, I could leave it at that, but I have one more comment, in relation to your words “whoever it was, says nothing about the beliefs or motivations of the science marchers”.

            Having worked in the environmental industry as a professional for almost 30 years and watched “environmentalism” jump the shark from the days of Love Canal, Times Beach and the Cuyahoga river on fire, it is my strong opinion that a significant percentage of modern “environmentalists” use “the planet” as a teflon cover to advance Leftism and throttle industrialization, capitalism, free markets and our Constitutional republic. They are using “the environment” as a cover to advance a political ideology that they cannot achieve at the ballot box or through legislation. Some of these people (and NGOs) believe they’ve figured out that if they can control energy, they can control capitalism, industrialization, free markets and our Constitutional Republic and then have no need for any sort of “revolution”, no need for a Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, etc.

            And as soon as i finish my career in the environmental industry, I plan to expose these people for what they are, and to hope to get the “environmental” movement back to focusing on the most serious, immediate problems facing human health and the environment.

            The people who fired these shots at Roy’s/John’s building are part of that constituency. No, I do not believe every attendee at the “Science Marches” is an EcoLeftist like these, but to pretend they don’t represent a substantial element of the modern “environmental” activism movement is kidding yourself (but not the rest of us).

          • Nate says:

            A couple of things you’ve said are strange. ‘any more than present-day Leftists can disassociate the actions of KKK members 75 years ago or Tim McVeigh 22 years ago with present day conservatives.’

            You seem to be saying that guilt by association is not ok, certainly doesnt earn your respect.

            But then you go ahead and do guilt by association.

            You also say that people you know ‘that participated and they are not crazed EcoLeftist terrorists’ So the only data points you have for people that marched, are counter-factual to your general view of such people.

            I marched, and dont consider myself a ‘crazed EcoLeftist terrorist’ either. In fact most of the people that I saw march were similar to me and your people, nerds and their families and friends, people who are in STEM fields and care about science and its support.

          • Lewis says:


            That’s almost funny. Of course you don’t consider yourself a nut job, no one does. It is in comparison to the average or normal that nut jobs are defined. They are outliers, just as criminals are. Both are put into institutions in order to keep them out of society, which they have proved they cant operate in normally.

            But what carbon says about the left/environmental radicals is very true. Perhaps he will attempt to expose them. He will find the left wing media is not much help.
            Anyway, what he says is what I have been saying for years. It is obvious in their actions and language and, as has been stated here, is conducive to the violence directed towards Dr. Christy and Spencer and their work. Otherwise, as has also been stated here, the good ol boys, enjoying their beer, would have been on a country road shooting road signs

          • Nate says:

            Among climate scientists, and scientists more generally, Spencer and Christy are outliers. You can do a quick survey of literature to see that this is very obvious, others have done it.

            What you call the ‘left and radical’ are things that the majority of americans believe, as judged by polls.

            My views are mainstream science views. I have never chained myself to anything.

            A surprising number of marchers were first -time protesters. Among them were many medical professionals and engineers. Regular people.

            Painting these people as radical leftists is as much a mistake as thinking all Trump supporters are white supremacists.

  41. stavro mueller says:

    From Watts site:

    Daniel L. Taylor says: May 5, 2009 at 6:51 am
    Maybe Im just a cold hearted SoB, but in my opinion they need to freeze to death on that ice. The world needs to see the headline Global Warming scientists
    Im sorry, but if the deaths of everyone on that ice survey team helps raise awareness of and opposition to the global warming political train wreck then so be it. It needs to happen.

    Very “nasty” but, ok, I suppose not a threat.

  42. Adrian Roman says:

    “police have classified this as a random shooting”

    If one would get something similar at White House, would it be classified the same? I bet it would be classified as ‘terrorism’.

  43. TallDave says:

    Roy — did you speak to Garner? It’s possible he is simply not aware the bullets may have been aimed at your office.

    Remember, first reports are often wrong.

    • Roy Spencer says:

      Ray Garner is 100% aware of what we do, and how it affects the university…both positively and negatively.

      After Amy Bishop shot 6 professors in 2010, killing 3, the last thing UAH wants is more bad press.

  44. KITsune says:

    Let’s Occam’s razor this one. Is the perpetrator:

    A. Someone in town for a large protest, based largely around Roy’s field, showing displeasure about his views.

    B. Some “good ol’ boys” taking their $1300+ Belgian handgun to a University to pop off a few rounds (felony) at a single office then get 1/3 of the way through the magazine and say okay we got our fix.

  45. This is America for fuck sake! People have their own fucking opinions!

  46. Just cause someone has a different opinion then you doesn’t mean it’s okay to start firing led at them for no apparent reason! People need to calm the fuck down!

  47. Tim S says:

    I am going to use one of Dr. Dean Edell’s favorite sayings: When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras. There are too many connections not think that someone was targeting Dr. Christy. That is by far the most likely explanation until some other evidence is presented.

  48. Kirley Mafia says:


  49. Buck Turgidson says:

    Roy, Truly sorry to hear about the incident. Random my arse. I can only imagine what kind of target your pro-science work makes you for these violent climate change lunatics. It’s the entire left, they are unhinged, violent, crazy people. Look at that sap bill nye, did you see his latest video and song about some stupid wymyn’s vagina? bill nye the vagina guy. I think I forgot to mention that these people also are crude and vile. Keep yer’ head down Dr. Spencer.

    • Nate says:

      I noticed a certain ‘news’ outlet has an article on this ‘Shots Fired at Climate Skeptics Office During March for Science’

      As Roy noted ‘I doubt the shots were fired during Saturdays march here.’

      • Denny says:

        Do you really think anyone with half a brain would fire a gun in broad daylight? Only leftist geniuses would deduce this was a random act that just by coincidence hit a building housing the enemies of the CAGW crew and on the same weekend that had marches focused on Climate Change. The perps only needed to know what building the enemy had offices and just hitting the building delivered exactly the message that was intended. How dense can you people be?

        Those denying the obvious are woefully lacking in critical thinking, which is the main qualification for being a warmist.

        • Carbonicus says:

          “..and on the same weekend that had marches focused on climate change.”

          You left off, “, that went right by this building”

          And these people are “warmunists”, not “warmists”. EcoLeftists also works..

      • Nate says:

        My points is people without critical thinking skills will be mislead by the headline, which is inaccurate about the ‘During March for Science’

  50. Snape says:

    This thread reminds me of the inordinate amount of attention our culture gives to terrorism, gun violence, etc. For most of us, the perceived threat from these things is way out of touch with reality.

    Really want to stay safe? Keep your weight down, eat lots of fruits and vegetables, exercise.

    • Snape says:

      And don’t smoke, of course.

    • Jim2 says:

      Wow. You managed to hit trite AND shallow in one fell swoop. You probably wouldn’t feel that way if you were looking out your own window with bullet holes. That would probably be a life’s lesson well applied for your lack of perception.

      • Snape says:

        I am as appalled as anyone when I read about terrorist attacks. But the amount of attention they draw creates a level of fear that doesn’t at all match the level of threat. Here’s an example, for every American killed by a terrorist, roughly 100,000 die from heart disease. That’s 100,000 to 1!

        So if somebody is worried about the well-being of themselves or loved ones, it makes sense that heart disease would be a thousands-of-times bigger concern.

  51. barry says:

    Glad no one was hurt, Dr Spencer.

    Given the circumstances I’d be inclined to think the shots were more likely than not a message from some deranged activist. Frightening, whatever the case.

    • Bart says:

      Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I don’t think those who have tried to minimize the event, or engage in lawyerly evasions, realize just how much harm they are doing to their own cause. They are their own worst enemies.

  52. Darwin Wyatt says:

    You hoaxers need to stop lying about insignificant warming across any time period. So ridiculous. Do it now. Cooling at this point in the Holocene is a far greater threat than warming. Basic earth science! Idiots!

  53. Dr No says:

    How do we know that it wasn’t somebody at UAH associated with Christy and Spencer?
    Think about it.
    They would know where the office is located.
    They would know if it was vacant at the time.
    They would know about the March.
    Why not create a disturbance to discredit their “opponents”
    Obviously without Christy’s and Spenser’s knowledge.
    Seems plausible.

  54. Robin Whitlock says:

    What absolute rubbish. There is absolutely nothing in what Spencer says to suggest that it was anyone attending the March for Science that fired those shots. It’s pure propaganda and basically lie. This is the kind of rubbish climate change deniers come out with when their attempts to debate the subject academically are totally trashed. You can’t debate any longer, so you start lying. Pathetic.

  55. Rob Mitchell says:

    No doubt about it. It was leftists eco-terrorist thugs who fired the shots. I hope the Feds get involved with an investigation. Dr. Spencer, you and Dr. Christy need to protect yourselves. The so-called progressives have become violent since Trump’s election.

    • Lewis says:

      Actually they were violent long before then. But now, the authorities in some areas, usually colleges, have encouraged them by doing nothing in response to their anti social behavior.

      • Rob Mitchell says:

        I consider some of these “college authorities” to be part of the same mindset that fired the shots at Dr. Christy’s office.

  56. GC says:

    Where did Roy state that it was anyone that attended the march?

    Perhaps I should quote your good self directly – “..there is absolutely nothing in what Spencer says to suggest that it was anyone who attending the March…” so that you can explain exactly what is it that Roy has said that suggests that he believes it was somebody who attended the march.

    Debate the subject academically? Would you like to try me?

    Tell me how “man’s global warming goes into the ocean”. I really want to know. You see, because where I come from and live, physical laws and geophysic structures rule the world – not meaningless little narratives minus the first order thermodynamic geophysics principles.

  57. Max Power says:

    Law Enforcement will also investigate whether or not the targeted offices are occupied by academia involved in homosexual love triangles.

  58. GC says:


    Neat graphics. However, it must be noted that your conclusions by direct implication of reply and the data that you present (in graphic form) do not permit on their own, any conclusion relevant to the question that has been asked of Robin.

    By virtue of your reply, you seem to be presenting the data to substantiate a conclusion that the solar radiation budget mean average at TOA and an April 2017 temperature profile for NA land surface, and SST is therefore conclusive evidence that Solar radiation is not the cause of increased ocean heat content and further must therefore be evidence of a geophysic thermodynamic mechanism that navigates man’s global warming from the atmosphere directly into the ocean, from above the ocean.

    1) This does not state a geophysic thermodynamic mechanism that navigates ‘man’s global warming’ directly into the ocean from above the ocean.

    2) If you do in fact present the data as supporting the view that man’s global warming goes into the ocean, the data that you present does not in fact support that view at all. The short wave radiation budget at TOA w/m^2 relative to SST degC nighttime on 24/04/017 relative to NA air tempF at snapshot on 26/04/17 is unrelatable to draw any such conclusions of the kind (if in fact that is what you’re saying, which isn’t clear from your post reply in the first instance).

  59. GC says:


    You’re not answering the question. In fact, I still can’t deduce what your position is, as you have not said anything that makes your position clearly discernable. You have only stated uncontroversial facts (albiet incompletely).

    It would help matters if you actually stated what your position is and then actually state the thermodynamic geophysic mechanism that navigates ‘man’s global warming into the ocean from above the ocean to heat the ocean and/or the thermodynamic geophysic mechanism caused by CO2 that slows release of energy from the ocean, thereby indirectly heating the ocean and not just state uncontroversial facts that do not infer your position.

    I will say this – if your position is that man’s global warming goes into the ocean from above the ocean and/or that theorised backradiated long wave radiation wave lengths specific to CO2 penetrate into the ocean from above the ocean and/or that theorised backradiated long wave radiation wave lengths specific to CO2 alter the SST and alter the temperature gradient of the ocean surface tension skin and the subskin, then you need to show the following :

    1) If CO2 resident in the lower Troposphere causes specific wavelengths of terrestial outgoing longwave radiation to be backradiated to the surface and those specific wavelengths cannot be radiated out to space via the lower Troposphere, and as CO2 has been empirically observed to increase in ppm, why has there been zero warming in the lower Troposphere for 35 & 1/2 years since 1979 with the only warming in the lower Troposphere being a short burst 1 & 1/2 year step change warming from 0 degC anomaly to 0.25 degC anomaly wholly coincident upon, wholly restricted to and wholly subsequent to the 1997/98 Super El Nino.

    2) For man’s global warming to heat the ocean’s – that is, go into the ocean – it first is REQUIRED to have originated where CO2 is resident, that being the lower Troposphere. If you contend that :

    a) Thermalised energy in the atmosphere and at the land surface that has increased secondary to increase in ppm CO2 but is NOT in the atmosphere, where thermodynamics and the CO2 global warming greenhouse effect theory REQUIRES it to be, and has NOT been detected in the atmosphere, which would otherwise be the anthropogenic warming signal demonstrating CO2 causation of warming at the surface, how does thermalised energy penetrate into and through both the ocean’s knudsen layer that consumes thermalised energy in the air immediately above the ocean surface tension skin (varying in height above the ocean skin dependent upon the rate of evaporation largely determined by incident angle of solar short wave radiation during the day, low level cumulus cloud cover, humidity in the air immediately above the ocean, wave action at the surface etc) when the kinteic energy in water molecules at the molecular top of the ocean surface tension skin in contact with the atmosphere are induced by Earth’s sea level atmospheric pressure to be in a constant higher kinetic energy state than any thermalised energy in the lower Troposphere – not even taking into consideration that thermalised energy in the air immediately above the ocean that comes into contact with the boundary area of the ocean’s knudsen layer is phase changed into latent heat BEFORE it can come into contact with the water molecules at the higher kinetic energy state than the thermalised energy and any residual thermalised energy after navigating the knudsen layer can not penetrate into and through a higher kinetic energy state than its own – further not even taking into consideration that in the absence of constant resistance, thermalised energy in the air rises from its point of thermalisation NOT falls from its point of thermalisation.

    2) How do the specific wavelegths of the theorised backradiated longwave radiation either a) penetrate into the ocean from above the ocean to heat the ocean when molecules at the molecular top of the ocean tension skin in contact with Earth’s sea level atmospheric pressure are in a constant kinetic energy state first induced by Earth’s sea level atmospheric pressure that breaks covalent hydrogen bonds while the relevent specific wavelengths of longwave radiation can not penetrate into water from above water any further than depth than microns – which is the molecular top of the ocean surface tension skin AND/OR b) how does the specific wavelengths of backradiated longwave radiation alter the tempwrature gradient of the ocean surface tension skin and the subskin (and further how does this alter heat release from the ocean) when molecules at the molecular top of the ocean in contact with Earth’s sea level atmospheric pressure are in constant kinetic energy states that break covalent hydrogen bonds in warer molecules.

    3) You will also need to address the laws of thermodynamics that state that between two open thermodynamic system’s NOT in equilibrium with each other, NET energy transfer can only move in one direction, that being from the system of higher kinetic energy capacity to the system of lower kinetic energy capacity. On planet Earth, that is NET ensrgy transfer can only move FROM ocean to atmosphere.

    For thermalized energy in the atmosphere to heat the ocean, the atmosphere would need to be the open system of higher kinetic energy, which it is not.

    • ren says:

      You forget that winds are blowing over the ocean and there are surface sea currents.
      Winds blowing across the ocean surface push water away. Water then rises up from beneath the surface to replace the water that was pushed away. This process is known as upwelling.
      CO2 is not distinguished from other gases in the atmosphere, just like water vapor. First, water vapor is lighter than air and rises, and water vapor changes state of concentration when clouds form. Other gases in the atmosphere do not change their properties and will quickly give off energy.

      • GC says:

        Upwelling water to the surface comes into contact with Earth’s sea level atmospheric pressure. Upwelling is irrelevant to the constant kinetic energy state of water molecules in contact with Earth’s sea level atmospheric pressure regardless of winds above the ocean and regardless of where the water molecules were previous to the point in which contact with sea level atmospheric pressure occurs as the kinetic energy state is induced by atmospheric pressure on molecular timescales. That being virtually instantaneously.

        I think your second point (again a lack of clarity in what it is that you are responding to leaves me in a position to assume what it is your responding to specifically) is attempting to argue that an anthropogenic signal is not required to evidence CO2 caused warming at the surface. I’m afraid it is, unless you were taught by a mad professor that radiation does not come into contact with molecules in the atmosphere.

  60. GC says:


    Thermodynamic geophysic mechanism please as first request of Robin and subsequently yourself to which up to this point you have completely failed to provide.

  61. GC says:

    Thread spacer.

  62. Massimo PORZIO says:

    I just realized that my last post I wrote disappeared.

    I inadvertently wrote something not allowed?

  63. GC says:


    Playing games in the thread by posting your comment to create the false appearance that you have had a comment removed? It looks that way to me. What could the ‘something’ possibly be????!!!!

    • Massimo PORZIO says:

      Hi GC,
      I’m not sure what you are arguing about.

      I just wrote a post yesterday that I initially had in the thread, but today I can’t read it nomore, it’s disappeared.
      I don’t know if you are aware of some filters that the moderators use to remove posts from spammers or bots or sometimes from unwanted users.

      Since I know that there are some words that in case were written in the post trashed the post itself, I was just asking to the moderators if they have read my post and in case I did that, which word(s) I eventually wrote that was(were) forbidden.

      Have a great day.


  64. David Appell says:

    I sent the following to Dr Spencer on Tuesday, April 25.

    Dr. Spencer,

    Id like to apologize for my comments on your blog Monday evening.

    More than a few of them were thoughtless and insensitive. I went overboard in trying to be skeptical, and appeared, and was, callous and rude. I didnt think how it must be and feel to have bullets riddle the building where one works, especially in the charged situation the climate debate has become. I should have listened more, and commented much, much less.

    I deplore the shooting episode; it is, of course, entirely unacceptable. That it was aimed at a university, academics and researchers is frightening, and the possibility it was for your scientific ideas is shocking, ghastly and worrisome. I am thankful no one there was injured or worse, and I hope they find whoever is responsible and prosecute them fully.

    Again, Im sorry.

    David Appell

  65. Mike Mann says:

    I did, thats who sent it…

  66. Good read! I must talk about the way youve organized your ideas and thoughts on the Shots Fire. I think you can help us even more by adding some more relevant insights into the topic. However, the post still gives us a head start to the next update to our website Thank you, Roy W. Spencer!

Leave a Reply