A look at a vocal climate change skeptic Roy Spencer
NASA scientist, and outspoken skeptic of human caused climate change, Roy Spencer, published an article for the conservative libertarian Heartland Institute recently where he put forth more of his beliefs that humans are not causing global warming. Spencer, who Wikipedia describes as an evolution doubter, argues that:
“Satellite evidence… strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
According to Spencer, the problem with the IPCC and other climate scientists’ analysis is in their models, where “the failure to account for natural, chaotic cloud variability generated internal to the climate system will always lead to the illusion of a climate system which appears more sensitive than it really is.”
Adding, his new evidence means global warming will be “below 1 deg. C by the year 2100.”
While we make no claim to understanding the science or method behind Spencer’s work, we do know that it is in contradiction to the vast majority of global scientists and panels that have researched climate change. Unfortunately any vindication for the rest of the scientific community would have to come in the form of rising oceans, displaced populations, extreme weather conditions, and geopolitical instability.
And as Tom Friedman often notes, what do we really have to lose anyway? If the vast majority of scientists are right about global warming, then by acting now we can stave off catastrophe. But if they are wrong, if climate change is a hoax, it will still be the best hoax that could happen to America– since it would force us to develop newer and more efficient technologies and become cleaner and more competitive in the global economy. Additionally, it would cause us to decrease our dependence on foreign countries for our transportation fuel. All good things, of course.
[To learn a little more about this government scientist/climate change skeptic, you can watch his Congressional testimony on climate change here.]
- Similar Posts:
- Current CO2 levels not far from past scenario of green Arctic and 80ft higher sea levels
- CNN Meteorologist: Global Warming Theory is ‘Arrogant’
- Vast Majority of Earth Scientists Attribute Climate Change to Human Activities
Comments
3 Comments on A look at a vocal climate change skeptic Roy Spencer
-
steve on
Sat, 8th Nov 2008 4:30 pm
-
J. Clifford on
Sat, 21st Feb 2009 7:35 am
-
Ben Anthony on
Sat, 17th Oct 2009 8:29 am
Hi There,
You say “While we make no claim to understanding the science or method behind Spencer’s work, we do know that it is in contradiction to the vast majority of global scientists and panels that have researched climate change”.
Actually this is NEW research based around the fact that computer models only assume positive feedback when atmospheric CO2 increases. i.e. they only assume positive feedback from increased water vapour (another greenhouse gas) but neglect to include possible changes in cloud cover. There was no evidence for the only positive feedback assumption but there is satellite (i.e. physical) evidence of the negative feedback. Therefore it is likely the models are not accurate in their temperature projections. Again this is new research so any consensus (what ever that is supposed to mean) is likely out of date and will need to reassess it’s position in light of this new information. i.e. the models should be adjusted with this new information.
“And as Tom Friedman often notes, what do we really have to lose anyway? If the vast majority of scientists are right about global warming, then by acting now we can stave off catastrophe. ”
The main word in your statement there is IF. If they’re wrong then we could waste Billions (already US 50 Billion has been spent on the IPCC) of dollars which could have been used more productively. Imagine a 50 Billion dollar program used to save the mountain gorillas or in helping the poor of Africa. Further if we are wrong we are restricting access to people in developing countries to sources of cheap energy. Millions of people in Africa live without access to food, electricity, good quality health care and a decent quality of life and you want to stop them from developing, no fear I want no part of that based on faulty science. And all because of colourless, odourless, tasteless gas which is crucial for photosynthesis (a natural greener of our planet) and likely to have been a scapegoat because of an assumption that natural variation can’t explain what has happened since the 1970s.
Thanks for offering this perspective on Roy Spencer, who has worked for two organizations funded by Exxon-Mobil. Too many people take Spencer’s agenda at face value.
I found the remarks on consensus unhelpful. If no such thing exists then you cannot do science in the first place, unless you become or imagine yourself to be a universal expert. As for waste, look at the billions spent on wars, cosmetics etc.. If the writer is concerned with wastes there are many things he could be critical of, before citing the relatively tiny amount of money being spent on climate change science and responses to anticipated climate change. A powerful reason to start developing and improving our energy technologies is that our supply of cheap fossil fuels will likely start to run out in this century, and it takes a long time to produce replacements, i.e.decades not years.
Please contribute to the discussion by leaving a comment below. No need to agree with the post or other commenters, but please be constructive and respectful.
