drroyspencer.comは安全ですか？

Aside from denying basic science like evolution and promoting "intelligent design" Dr. Spencer continuously demonstrates the lack of expertise in his own field of meteorology/climatology and constantly fudges figures for his own agenda. Examples: ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** Complete deception of figures: ***** *****

You shouldn't mark a site as "bad" because you disagree with it's contents. If the contents are lies, fabrications,intentionally misleading... sure, it's "bad". This site has more references and citations than almost any other I have found on the topic.

There is approximately a 97% correlation between climate scientists on the subject of global climate change. Dr. Roy Spencer is in the other 3%. His publications are all popular press, never peer-reviewed, and beside publicly decrying commonly accepted climate science, he has also gotten involved on the pro-"intelligent design" "debate" (again a science where all but a very vocal, obstreperous minority agree). I disagree that the site is a matter of "opinions, religion, and politics," as properly studied and presented, science is neither of those. For more information, see the RationalWiki link on him. *****

The site provides good information, the other side of the climate debate. To rate this site as unethical simply because you disagree with the viewpoint shows the smallness of the person rating the site not the quality of the site. I also do not undrstand how this site could recieve a negative (orange) when as stated in the details there are not enough reviews and there is only one negative review. Seems that to be fair, the rating should be neutral at worst.

Although Dr Spencer is a practicing climate scientist, it has become clear that when it comes to his opinions about anthropogenic global warming, his political bias usually trumps the actual science. This site is full of articles pandering to the views that AGW is not happening in any significant way. Although some articles aim to present him as a level-headed scientist arguing for rational debate between both 'sides', this just gives the false impression about where the real debates in climate science lie; hint: there's no doubt about the massive human influence.