Letter: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Editor’s note: The following letter is in response to the letter from Dr. Bill Louda (Yes… Check The Facts On ‘Global Warming’) published last week.

Dr. Louda begins his response to my letter about the superstition that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is the cause of the putative increasing rates of hurricanes by observing, “The letter regarding global warming (Check the Facts on ‘Global Warming,’ Sept. 22) strays from facts a lot.”

The doctor then identifies several floats in the persistent parade of progressive religion that is sempiternally seeking out non-believers, but that parade is comprised of gaudy gewgaw floats that are as gnostic as they are insistent that only those garnish floats represent science and, thus truth, and claims that the doctrines of the progressives and collectivists are facts is exercised before the doctor delivers his rhetorical dismount from his performance by gainsaying those he labels “naysayers.”

But the claims of the collectivists are not scientific facts that are settled, but the claim they are settled facts is a dead giveaway that what is being promoted is a progressive religious doctrine, not science.

Well, yes, science skeptics do exist and, many times, they are the ones who lead science in the right direction.

Now, I certainly am not a naysayer about the doctor’s devotion to the gnostic doctrines of AGW progressivism as they are currently cast in climate change claims. (Has he and his ilk ever considered a climate change catechism for the public schools, which promote progressivism?) But his religion is not mine, and there are an increasing number of legitimate scientists who are not only skeptical about the many confusing, and even contradictory, claims masquerading as facts in the climate change collective, but who offer reasonable alternative explanations for what we think we are observing.

One such scientist is Dr. Roy Spencer, who has posted a primer on anthropogenic global warming that can be viewed at https://tinyurl.com/kwm8l85. Just copy and paste that into your browser and make up your own mind about this controversy and understand, my AGW friends, that my scientist can beat up your scientist. (OK, I suppose I will have to make sure readers know that line was written in jest, because AGW is far too serious not to be taken lightly).

Larry Spencer, Wellington


  1. Despite his run-on sentences and poor writing I will try and respond to Mr. Spencer’s latest letter to this paper. First, he does at least bring in a well-credentialed climate scientist to back up his views. I will just say that there are always a few people who glean different conclusions when sifting through the data. However, one of the problems with Dr. Spencer’s research is that he has preconceived notions of outcomes going into his work. Concerning the worlds ecosystems he is a signatory to an epistle that believes the Earth and its ecosystems were “created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence.” He is also a staunch Creationist (Creation Science/Intelligent Design). His work is tainted by his religious beliefs. (Dr. Spencer’s works has been highly criticized by the vast, vast majority of scientists working in the field, of all political views. His work has been ‘debunked’.) There are also scientists who feel smoking does not contribute to cancer, but this doesn’t make it so. As Massimo Pigliucci states “It is always possible to find academics with sound credentials who will espouse all sorts of bizarre ideas, often with genuine conviction” (Nonsense On Stilts, p.281, University of Chicago Press, 2010).

    Mr. Spencer also holds these beliefs and on top of that he lacks a fundamental understanding of science, scientific methods and processes and how science works. I suggest he (and everyone) reads Making Sense Of Science, Separating Substance From Spin by Cornelia Dean. Of course, Mr. Spencer will find fault with this as Ms. Dean works/edits for the science section of the New York Times (Fake News?).

    Mr. Spencer uses the term Progressive as a pejorative, but isn’t Progress what human beings are always striving for? Anytime you bring in religion to back up science it is regressive, a throwback to a time before science. Science believes in data, it is not a religion, Mr. Spencer, despite you trying to make it into one. And just because you find some scientists who back up what you are saying does not make it true. One needs to read all points of views, have an open mind and understand science, unfortunately Mr. Spencer seems to only read the works of people who confirm his ideas (confirmation bias?). Robert Merton, Professor of Sociology at Columbia University states that the goal of science is the “disinterested pursuit of truth unmotivated by anything other than the desire for knowledge, and reliance on nature – not culture, religion, economics or politics – as the final arbiter” (Making Sense Of Science, Cornelia Dean, p.95, Belknap/Harvard Press, 2017). The sources Mr. Spencer has cited in this and his last letter to the paper rely on religion, economics and politics as a basis for their ‘search for the truth’.

    Mr. Spencer’s ideas are throwbacks and basically agree with a quote from Epicurus (341BC – 270 BC) – “Better to follow the myths about gods (God) than to become a slave to the destiny of natural philosophers (scientists)” (The Grand Design, Stephan Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. p.22, Random Books, 2010).

    Mr. Spencer, the world is passing you and your ilk by, however, in the interim you are causing damage with your superstitious views. Use science, not, to use your own word ‘geegaw’, the supernatural and magic have no place in science. By the way, Mr. Spencer, the world is round, it revolves around the sun, it is older than 6,000 years and dinosaurs never lived with people (that documentary you so believe in, with Dinosaurs being used as cranes to build the pyramids, was The Flintstones and was not real).

    There is so much more to say to people like Mr. Spencer, but honestly, there is no point. He/they will never get science, religion rules everything for them, but religion is not science.

Comments are closed.