Fox News reports on 7 shots fired at skeptical climate scientists’ building – ‘Animosity in the climate wars’
Watch Fox News video here: https://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2017/05/03/53361/fnc-specialreport-20170503-johnchristyshots
Media Matters Reports (edited for accuracy): On the May 2 edition of Special Report with Bret Baier, host Bret Baier introduced a segment on the shooting as evidence that “animosity in the climate change wars is hitting new lows.” During the segment, correspondent Doug McKelway reported that Christy “got seven bullet holes in his office windows” and made reference to Christy’s skepticism of computer model climate predictions.
From the May 2 edition of Fox News’ Special Report with Bret Baier:
BRET BAIER (HOST): We are awaiting a decision from President [Donald] Trump on whether the U.S. will continue to participate in a worldwide global warming treaty that he criticized during the campaign. Correspondent Doug McKelway tells us tonight the animosity in the climate change wars is hitting new lows.
DOUG MCKELWAY: In 1991, climate skeptic John Christy got NASA’s medal for exceptional scientific achievement. Last week, he got seven bullet holes in his office windows during the March for Science weekend at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Police think it was random. Christy thinks he was targeted. Christy measures actual earth temperatures from satellite data. He is skeptical of computer model predictions of warming and government remedies to fix it.…
Shots were fired at the fourth floor of a science and technology center at the University of Alabama-Huntsville sometime over the weekend, hitting windows adjacent to climatologist John Christy’s office.
No one was hurt, and university police have characterized the event as a “random shooting,” UAH spokesman Ray Garner told WHNT News. Police found “seven spent Belgian 5.7 millimeter bullet casings along Sparkman Drive” near the National Space Science and Technology Center, WHNT reported.
“My office was not hit, but the one next door and then further north had bullet impacts on the windows,” Christy told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
“Appears to be a drive-by from the trajectories from the street parallel to the building,” Christy added.
Three bullets hit windows, while four hit the side of the National Space Science and Technology Center. An incident report was filed after building staff discovered shards of glass Monday morning.…
by JAMES DELINGPOLE24 Apr 2017889
A leading skeptical scientist has reported that seven shots were fired at his workplace during the weekend’s Earth Day and March for Science events — likely as a threat and warning.
Dr Roy Spencer, meteorologist and noted climate skeptic at the University of Huntsville, Alabama, reports at his website that the shots were aimed at the office of his colleague and fellow sceptic, Dr John Christy:
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 involvement 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.
Both Spencer and Christy have long incurred the wrath of climate alarmists for the work they do debunking the junk science behind the global warming scare. What they have shown is that the “global warming” recorded by accurate satellite measurements is considerably less dramatic than that shown on the heavily adjusted earth surface temperature datasets preferred by climate alarmists.
Christy has made himself especially unpopular by testifying in Congress last month that the climate establishment is corrupt and untrustworthy and that a Red Team needs to be created to correct false “Consensus Science.”…
Skeptical climatologist Dr. John Christy believes 7 gunshots ‘targeted’ his office floor during ‘March for Science’
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on April 25, 2017 at 3:47 PM, updated April 25, 2017 at 5:46 PM
Nationally prominent climate change skeptic Dr. John Christy believes his office floor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville was “targeted” by gunshots over the national March for Science weekend.
“To me, it looks like the fourth floor was targeted,” Christy said Tuesday. The pattern of the damage “does raise the possibility it was a little more than a coincidence,” he said.
However, UAH police think the shooting was a “random, isolated” act. They found cartridge casings beside Sparkman Drive in front of Cramer Hall, where Christy’s office is on the fourth floor. Bushes and trees between the hall and the street make it likely someone wanting to shoot from the street into the building would aim at the top two floors, they said.
“UAH police are investigating an incident where seven bullets struck Cramer Hall on the university’s campus while the building was unoccupied sometime between Friday night and Monday morning,” the university said in a statement today. “Investigators believe the incident to be a random, isolated event unlikely to be a premeditated act. Anyone with any information about this crime is encouraged to email the UAH Police at [email protected].”
The university police say they found no relevant images from campus security cameras or the cameras at a nearby defense contractor. They have marked the case “inactive” pending new information.
Cramer Hall is a complex of two large buildings connected by a glass connector. A total of seven bullet marks were visible in the sides of both buildings and the glass connector Tuesday. One went through a window in the office next to Christy’s.
Christy’s colleague and fellow climate change skeptic Dr.
By Andrew Follett
A Harvard physician thought the recent “March For Science” looked more like a religious event than one to promote the value of the scientific method.
“Being ‘pro-science’ has become a bizarre cultural phenomenon in which liberals (and other members of the cultural elite) engage in public displays of self-reckoned intelligence as a kind of performance art, while demonstrating zero evidence to justify it,” Dr. Jeremy Faust, a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School, wrote in Slate.
“There was an uncomfortable dronelike fealty to the concept — an oxymoronic faith that information presented and packaged to us as Science need not be further scrutinized before being smugly celebrated en masse,” Faust wrote. “That is not intellectually rigorous thought — instead, it’s another kind of religion, and it is perhaps as terrifying as the thing it is trying to fight.”
Faust said marchers are wrong about what’s really imperiling science — it’s not attacks from the public and political class, but attacks from within.
“The scientific method itself is already under constant attack from within the scientific community itself and is ceaselessly undermined by its so-called supporters, including during marches like those on Saturday,” Faust wrote.
Faust points out that academics are under serious financial pressure to rapidly and continually publish research to sustain or further their careers, even if the research is essentially useless or misleading. Academics have an enormous financial incentive to engage in dubious laboratory research. This has even prompted major scientific journals like Nature to ask “Is Science Broken?”…
A prominent environmental justice activist claims he was “assaulted, roughed up, and detained” by a Washington, D.C., cop Saturday at the March For Science and his fellow marchers ignored it.
Reverend Lennox Yearwood claims he was detained while walking across the street to get to the science march. In a Huffington Post column recounting the incident, Yearwood claimed he was slammed against a food truck and accused of being “on drugs.”
Yearwood claims that because none of the nearby attendees of the March for Science stood up for him while he was being detained, the event shows the inherent racism of many participating in the march.
After being slammed into the food truck, five officers allegedly surrounded Yearwood then detained him. Once he was identified as a member of the clergy and a VIP at the march, the officers ran his identification for outstanding warrants and did not find anything. Yearwood was then allegedly released without being placed under arrest.…
Gutfeld criticized Nye for saying on a CNN panel that the network should not have allowed a global warming skeptic to join the debate.
“You can’t even have one scientist on to question a comedian who got his degree in mechanical engineering,” he said.
“He’s mocking skepticism which is the spine behind the scientific method.” Gutfeld added.
Gutfeld said the Earth Day marches held over the weekend would be better described as “march[es] for silence” rather than “march[es] for science.”…
Excerpt: But if there was one underlying theme to it all, this was a March for…
…and to the extent that the March for Science was at its heart a rally in support of The Truth, it failed, because there is no such thing as THE Truth…and it ignores, or denies, massive scientific evidence to suggest there is. The March for Science did for the social sciences about human reasoning and perception just what it railed against for so many other issues. It was overt denialism of scientific evidence that competes with the tribe’s views, and it was self-defeating as a result.
The idea that there is a Truth with which we all agree, about anything, is laudable, but laughable. That science can establish a universally accepted Truth, about anything, is a worthy aspiration, but entirely unachievable. Research — scientific research — has established beyond any question that while the scientific process is great at establishing the facts, in the end how we see those facts is subjective…affective…a blend of the facts and how we feel about them. Social science and neuroscience research on congition and how the mind works confirms, and helps explain the reasons why, we have always lived in world of alternative facts depending on who you ask. This may be frustrating, but it’s hardly new.…
by J. SCOTT ARMSTRONG AND KESTEN C. GREEN
What is the “Scientific method”?
Saturday’s March for Science calls for “robustly funded” science and “political leaders and policy makers to enact evidence based policies in the public interest.” But is this just an attempt to dress up the marchers’ political beliefs as science? And what do they mean by science?
Fortunately for those who care, there is a remarkable level of agreement in the writings of scientific pioneers such as Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and Benjamin Franklin on the nature of the scientific method. That agreement is also reflected in the definition provided by the Oxford English Dictionary.
We have expanded on the established definition and identified eight necessary criteria for a work to be considered useful science. The criteria include objectivity and full disclosure. We expect that most scientists would agree with these criteria as obviously true and important.
The pioneers of science charted the way by describing how to comply with the criteria. To be objective, according to Newton, the study should compare all reasonable hypotheses by using a fair and balanced experimental design.
We have summarized the eight criteria on a one-page checklist (available at guidelinesforscience.com). You can easily refer to it to assess whether something you are looking at is a work of science. By using the checklist, you do not have to depend on an authority to tell you “this is what the science says.” Knowing and agreeing with the criteria in the checklist does not help. To be useful, the checklist must be used.
The checklist is concerned only with the scientific method, so one does not need to be an expert in the field or topic to use it. In fact, experts may have difficulty rating the scientific compliance of works in their own field. They are likely to be biased against findings that challenge conventional wisdom.…
Bill Nye: The Perfect Talking Head for a March Against Science – ‘He promotes science as a close-minded ideology’
Bill Nye may not be a scientist. But he used to play one on TV. Now he is an honorary co-chair and speaker for the “March for Science” in Washington D.C. and elsewhere on April 22.
The choice of Nye as one of the faces of the March is revealing. March organizers have paid lip service to critical thinking and “diverse perspectives” in science. However, Nye is a good example of someone who promotes science as a close-minded ideology, not an open search for truth.
He attacks those who disagree with him on climate change or evolution as science “deniers.” He wouldn’t even rule out criminal prosecution as a tool. Asked last year whether he supported efforts to jail climate skeptics as war criminals, he replied: “Well, we’ll see what happens. Was it appropriate to jail the guys from ENRON?”
Scientists disagree on far more issues than the March organizers admit.
Real science encourages debate. It doesn’t insist that scientists march in lockstep. Or that they speak with one voice. In fact, scientists disagree on far more issues than the March organizers admit.
Models Vs. Evidence
Take global warming. Many marchers will wear their belief in climate change on their sleeves. On their signs, too. They, like Nye and others who claim to speak for science, equate belief in man-made climate disaster with science itself. If you disagree, you’re “anti-science.”
Yet there are strong reasons to doubt the so-called “consensus” on warming. But the popular media rarely cite them.
From 1890 to 1990, records show only a .45 degree C rise in global temperature as measured from near-surface thermometers around the Earth. Yet about 75 percent of the increase occurred before World War II, while most of the increase in human produced greenhouse gases occurred after World War II. So, human industrial activity doesn’t really correlate with the main effect of interest. Meanwhile, after a few warmer than usual years in the early 1990s, global temperatures have flat-lined. They show no net increase over the last two decades.