Stooopid book reviews

[Sunsettommy]

Maybe these people are not true followers of scam artist Al Gore,but they sure have the "I am stupid" part imprinted deeply on their foreheads.

This is from Amazon books website.

Quote:The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists

The title of Dr. Roy Spenser's latest book.

The 4 "I am stupid" so called book reviewer's attacks against the book they obviously never read.

Here are examples of how stupidly they write:

Quote:hey, wait a minute!, April 27, 2010

by morphy mcdugall

The following, from desmogblog, is the lowdown/background on Mr. Spencer:

Spencer and the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance"

Spencer is listed as a "scientific advisor" for an organization called the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance" (ISA). According to their website, the ISA is "a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development."

In July 2006, Spencer co-authored an ISA report refuting the work of another religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The ISA report was titled A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor: an Evangelical Response to Global Warming. Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including 6 that have received a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years.

The other authors of the ISA's report were Calvin Beisner, Paul Driessen and Ross McKitrick .
Satellite Research Refuted

According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times article, Spencer, along with another well-known "skeptic," John Christy, admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth's lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer.

"These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models," said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.
Spencer and the Heartland Institute

Spencer is listed as an author for the Heartland Institute, a US think tank that has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

The Heartland Institute has also received funding from Big Tobacco over the years and continues to make the claim that "anti-smoking advocates" are exaggerating the health threats of smoking.
Spencer and the George C. Marshall Institute

Spencer is listed as an "Expert" with the George C. Marshall Institute, a US think tank that has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Spencer and Tech Central Station

Listed as an author for Tech Central Station daily (TCS), an organization that until recently was owned and operated by a Republican lobby firm called DCI Group.
Research and Background

Spencer is a research scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Spencer has published 25 research articles in peer-reviewed journals, mainly on the subject of satellite climate measurements.
Read it and weep!

Breathtaking!

I am shaking in awe at his wordy crap.



The comments are perceptive to put it mildly:

Quote:J Smith says:
Again nothing on the book of Spencers in question, just mundane mudslinging attacks on the Man with accusations that cannot be substanciated.
If you are really interested in money trails and conflicts of interest MM, why not post some real facts on people like Gore and Rajendra Pachauri.
Now there's some real fraudsters.

Or,

Quote:B Hutchins says:
My! MY! Morphy - haven't you been the busy bee!

First you read Spencer's book. No - wait - I guess you didn't actually read the book - but what the heck - neither did the other negative reviewers.

But you did at least do all this research on Spencer. No - wait - the [...] ellipsis in your "review" is an Amazon "snip" of a URL, so I guess you didn't actually do that research yourself.

It is so good to see that this effort did not cut too deeply into your personal time, as you have made a contribution that is truly stupendous. But, how does one follow stupendous? Well, the next word is for you.

Here is the reviewers awesome reply,

Quote:moron mcdugall says,

Not busy at all. In fact, it took less than one minute to track down Mr. Spencer's credentials. Desmogblog has a fairly thorough database of industry funded climate change deniers, their backers and employers. I don't see much of an excuse for ignorance on this subject, or for being duped by Mr. Spencer.

I am speechless at his deeply well thought out reply to the above comments.
=======================================================
The next reviewer is Gary Denton,who writes a far smaller book "review",but hey at least he gets to the point!

Quote:The writer does work for very conservative institutions that receive major funding from energy companies and families that made their fortunes from energy. He was also employed by Tech Central Station - a PR firm masquerading as a news site. Anyone with these credentials has been bought and paid for.

His major scientific work published for NASA was that satellite readings showed no warming. This had to be withdrawn because of mistakes. The data actually showed warming.

The buyer of this book will get what the Heartland Institute paid for.

I am in awe with these witty people who find many holes in the book written by a long standing scientist.



J. Smith obstinately complains about difficult review of the book:

Quote:Again nothing on the book of Spencers in question, just mundane mudslinging attacks on the Man with accusations that cannot be substanciated.
How much are you paid Gary, by environmental movements that live off an agenda of causing anxiety amongst the population, or by green energy start ups that have everything to gain by you discrediting Spencer ( not his book ), a book you have not read?
I'm sure you earn a living in some area that is dependant on the theory of anthropogenic warming?

That is not fair! Ad homonyms is a valid tactic when you have nothing factual to undermine the book with.

I will bypass the third and last ONE star review and go to a ... gasp! TWO star book review,because it is so revealing how useful bigotry and prejudice can be for idiots to use against a book they... never .... read.


This one is from a Terry Jackson,who was confident enough to reveal his real name,who is unafraid to show how stupid his book reviews are.

Quote:Intelligently designed weather?

Spencer is a well-known proponent of the Intelligent Design nonsense. Even though he may have worked for NASA, designing a meteorological sensor system, clearly 'his' scientific logic, i.e., his ability to interpret the information he has collected, must be questioned.

To be fair I'm going to admit that I haven't read this book. However, knowing that the Intelligent Design frauds have a political and religious agenda, as did their scientific creationist predecessors, I'm going to take a leap here and assume that this author applies similar illogic to weather and climate.

"I'm going to take a leap here and assume that this author applies similar illogic to weather and climate."

ROFLMAO!

The dumbass never read the book but decides personal prejudice is valid grounds to attack it anyway.

Breathtaking stupidity!

B. Hutchins wrote this unfair comment:

Quote:Wow! remember back in high school when we were required to write book reports, and the first task was to try to convince the teacher that we ACTUALLY HAD read the book. My previous hero in this endeavor was a pal, who had arguably never gotten through an issue of "Mickey Mouse's Comics and Stories" (at least not the "stories" part!) contending that he had read "Andersonville." Enter new hero: Terry Jackson.

Not only has Mr/Ms Jackson by his/her own admission not read the book, but he/she has assigned a rating to the book based on what he/she thinks of the author's opinions on an unrelated subject. Outstanding!

A previous commenter suggests Jackson remove his/her review. Please do leave it up - at least until all your friends/acquaintances have seen it. They will be so proud.

I am not sure about that because namecalling,ad homonyms,bigotry,prejudice and other true and tested tools are useful in book reviews.



Dr. Spenser's books are hated by alarmist losers everywhere,who write incredibly dumb reviews against them.They with their strong political overtones skirt all around the book itself and bravely attack him or his supposed connections to "big oil" or other groups deemed relevant by these cretins who thinks their reviews are above bird cage quality.

Is it any wonder why they get creamed in blog and forum discussions?

[Sunsettommy]

Contrast with this book review written by B. Hutchins (yup the same one who wrote comments in the stooopid One starbook reviews area)

He is a VERIFIED purchaser of the book he actually read and review.

Quote:Clouds, Feedbacks, Exposing Overstated Sensitivity, and Perhaps the PDO,

A truly excellent book. Spencer calls attention to three things we all SHOULD HAVE figured out for ourselves. And it is a book about the science, not at all about the leaked emails (which other books have handled very well).

First, Spencer makes a powerful case for the heretofore largely understated role of clouds. Second, his presentation of material on the feedbacks was outstanding. I had never seen the distinction between amplification of forcings, and true positive feedbacks (in the run-away sense), made. Thirdly, his notion that choosing the wrong (weaker) forcing element for a given warming can result in a large overestimation of sensitivity is clearly right. Every physicist or engineer KNOWS these things, but we may not THINK about them. Luckily we have Spencer to remind us that we do know them.

As for the PDO as a major driver, the evidence Spencer shows is very interesting and well-presented, and is clearly much much better that a CO2 explanation. (To just say it is a better explanation that CO2 would do it an injustice.) The book makes the point that there are indeed many strong sources of internal variability. The so-called "consensus" in concentrating on a flawed, politically popular view (man-made CO2), is certainly effectively impeding progress toward a more rational understanding of the scientific puzzle.

A second excellent book by Dr. Spencer - for the layman (or scientist!) who still thinks.

FIVE star review,how about that?

By the way 111 of 114 people thinks the review was helpful.

I am not going to spoil this post with dumbass comments written by James "the warmist creature" Safranek