Given the dogmatic fervor of global warming proponents, and their intolerance of skeptics who dare to question the latest commandment (see: cap-and-trade) in the green scripture, it is perhaps no coincidence that the environmentalist movement sometimes seems to have more in common with theology than with science. If that is true, then the logical word to describe those scientists who have challenged environmental hysteria and extremism is “heretics.” In a series of profiles, Front Page’s Rich Trzupek will spotlight prominent scientists whose “heretical” research, publications, and opinions have helped add a much-needed dose of balance and fact to environmental debates that for too long have been driven by fear mongering and alarmism. In a field that demands political conformity, they defiantly remain the heretics. Previous profiles in the series include Steve Milloy and Dr. Craig Idso. – The Editors
Former NASA climatologist Roy Spencer, currently a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), was drawn into the global warming debate by accident, while he was working at the space agency over two decades ago. “John Christy and I started looking at data that is used for weather forecasting and we wondered if it could be used for climate forecasting,” Spencer said.
As Spencer and Christy (also a professor at UAH) studied that data, they became convinced that, contrary to climate-alarmists’ claims, the climate is not all that sensitive to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Some scientists, like NASA physicist James Hansen maintain that increasing concentrations of relatively weak man-made greenhouse gases will result in a disastrous increase in the atmosphere’s most powerful greenhouse gas: water vapor. Spencer and Christy, on the other hand, don’t completely discount the effect of carbon dioxide. They just don’t find it very significant. The climate, they say, has ways of correcting itself.
A great deal of the evidence that man-made global warming has indeed occurred is based on surface temperature records. Some scientists, most notably Anthony Watts, have questioned the validity of those records. Spencer focused on atmospheric temperature, as recorded by NASA satellites, which revealed a much different picture. “Over thirty years we didn’t get quite a much of a warming trend as the surface data gets,” he said. “It’s about thirty percent less.”
The satellite data compares closely to weather balloon data, Spencer said, but does not correlate with either surface station data or with the temperature increases predicted by International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models. The reason for the disconnect, he believes, is that the models don’t properly account for a ubiquitous feature of the earth’s atmosphere: clouds.
“The scientists who assume that global warming is man-made assume that cloud cover doesn’t change,” Spencer said. “All of their models assume that cloud cover remains the same.” The net effect of increased cloud cover is to cool the planet. When this effect is taken into account, Spencer asserts, the net effect of introducing more weak greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is minimal, compared to the natural phenomena that influence the climate.
Testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee in February 2009, Dr. John Christy commented on Spencer’s work:
“My colleague Dr. Roy Spencer has shown that in the real world – the world of observations from satellites – that during warming episodes, clouds respond by stepping up their cooling effect (the basic effect of clouds is the cool the climate already). When climate model output calculated in the same way is compared with observations, not one model mimics this cooling effect – in fact the models’ clouds lead to further warming, not cooling as it is in nature. We hypothesize that this poor representation of clouds in models is the reason we find the warming rates of model projections to have significantly overshot what has actually happened.”
It is difficult for climate change alarmists to criticize Spencer’s credentials. He is a degreed climatologist; he worked for NASA for fourteen years; he is still involved with NASA projects; and he has received the NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991) and the American Meteorological Society Special Award (1996). His colleague, Dr. Christy, was a lead author of the IPCC’s 2001 report on climate change, though Christy has long since distanced himself from the IPCC’s increasingly-alarmist views.
Accordingly, many critics resort to ad hominem attacks when it comes to Spencer’s work. For some, he has to be a paid minion of Exxon-Mobil. To others, he’s a Christian extremist. The supposed Exxon-Mobil connection most often attributed to Spencer relates to his involvement with the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank that, according to its web-site, has never received more than five percent of its funding from Exxon-Mobil. Since 2006, it has received no contributions at all from Exxon-Mobil.
Spencer’s critics frequently point to the fact that he was a co-author of a paper published by The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, “A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming,” in July 2006. Far from being a theological treatise, “A Call to Truth” lays out a scientific case for climate change skepticism. Citing scientific evidence, it urges Christians not to join in global-warming alarmism or to press for unneeded reductions in carbon emissions that would have disastrous effects for the world’s poor. It was written as a response to the Evangelical Climate Initiative’s (ECI) “Call to Action,” a document that advises Evangelicals to support massive reductions in greenhouse gases.
The tone of “Call to Truth” reflects the kind of reasoned approach that Spencer adopts when attempting to explain climate science to an audience:
It is important to speak directly to the issue of motive. We do not question the motive of those who produced or signed the ECI’s “Call to Action.” We assume that they acted out of genuine concern for the world’s poor and others and considered their action justified by scientific, economic, theological, and ethical facts. We trust that they will render us the same respect. It is not sufficient, however, to have good intentions. They must be linked to sound understanding of relevant principles, theories, and facts. As we shall argue below, that linkage is lacking for the ECI’s “Call to Action.”
Having worked with James Hansen, Spencer explained a core reason why the NASA physicist is so adamant that mankind is causing catastrophic climate change. “I think he has a pretty simplistic view of how the climate system works,” Spencer said. “He thinks he knows how the ice ages were started. He believes that tiny shifts in the earth’s orbit cause the ice ages and that leads him to conclude that the earth’s climate is very sensitive. Personally, I don’t think we know what caused the ice ages.”
Spencer, like many other skeptical scientists, doesn’t believe that earth’s climate is nearly as sensitive as Hansen and others in his camp assume. And, for Spencer, if the climate were in fact as “infinitely sensitive” as Hansen suggests, then nothing could be done except to adapt to the shifts in temperature to come. It’s the kind of cool-headed assessment that has turned the mild-mannered scientist into such a lightning rod for the more zealous champions of climate change.
Maybe FPM should focus on things that aren't as nebulous and difficult to predict as Global Climate when deciding whether or not pollution from energy producers has no effect on the environment. Maybe they could do an article on the huge island of garbage floating around in the ocean….or on the amount of melting in the Arctic over the last couple of decades…or any number of observable changes in climate, warnings by scientists in the field, etc.
Instead, there is article after article about how if there is ANY doubt in the theoretical projections of some scientists then there is absolutely no problem at all or worse that the pollution is good for us.
In response to bubba4, your suggestions for what FPM should do seem to suggest you're uncomfortable airing the inconsistencies of global warming theory. What better place to do it than in such an open forum with plenty of well-educated citizens who enjoy mixing it up a bit?
The issue is not whether energy producers effect the environment (air and water pollution from soot or other chemicals is well documented), but whether man-made greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, is causing the climate to warm…and if true, will this have a negative impact, and what the cost-benefit will be to contain or reverse this situation.
Its my understanding that man-made (anthropomorphic) CO2 is only a fraction (less than 5%) of total CO2. The climate models, as the article suggests, don't take into account the effect of cloud cover and its ability to adjust (e.g., warming temps cause more clouds which in turn cool the surface again). It seems these model rely on formulas that are no better than the ones that helped assess the risk of derivatives! Garbage in/garbage out.
Its also my understanding that more CO2 will increase the growth rate of plants, especially trees, which soak up CO2 as humans do O2. Thus clouds and trees act as natural buffers to moderate changes in temperature. Furthermore, far more people die from the effects of severely cold weather than severe heat so the alleged ill effects are themselves debatable.
The climate models also cannot account for the increasing ice in Antartica, nor can they account for the leveling of temperatures in the last 10 years, despite increasing CO2. Ice core samples also show that CO2 levels follow rather than preceed temperature increases. Its clearly not a causal relationship, much less as sensative a one as the alarmists suggest.
Finally, the cost of enacting the Kyoto protocols would be in the trillions, while the net decrease in temperature would be an astounding 1 degree. That's less than a rounding error! So please understand why the skeptics have a difficult time swallowing the alarmist dogma that the end of the world is at hand unless we give up more of our wealth and freedom to the very people who were apologists for Soviet socialism and mourned their fall. It would be funny if it were not so damned serious!
The AGW crowd can be broken down into two groups. The first group (the followers) includes the uninformed, the gullible, the well intentioned but naive, the sincere but mislead, many journalists and researchers, and yes, the just plain stupid. I would think it safe to say that these people all believe that most of the recent global warming must have been or was caused by human activity – primarily CO2 emissions. These people are not evil, they are just wrong.
The second group (the leaders) includes primary, government funded researchers, left leaning political leaders, activist and environmentalist leadership, and, of course, the Hansens, Gores, Manns, Briffas, etc extremists with which we are burdened. To the surprise of those in the first group, but not at all to the rest of us, these people do not necessarily believe or, for the most part, even care if global warming is anthropogenic. And, unlike the first group, these people are not only evil and wrong but also dangerous. They are not out to save the world but to gain political power and financial control over individuals, businesses and countries.
For obvious reasons, neither of these groups would ever consider that they just might be wrong.
To see the heart of Dr. Spencer's argument, see chapter two of “A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Examination of the Theology, Science, and Economics of Global Warming” (http://cornwallalliance.org/docs/a-renewed-call…). Dr. Spencer was lead author of that chapter. Those who embrace the perspective of the “Renewed Call to Truth” will want to add their endorsements to “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming” (http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/a…), recently released by The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation (http://www.CornwallAlliance.org).
Sorry, but enough CO2 in the atmosphere will eventually make the planet hotter, go visit Venus sometime. However, long before that happens the increased CO2 will turn the Earth green and allow vast quantities of new foodstuffs to be grown for the teeming billions, so instead of arguing about statistical anomalies in today's pathetically low CO2 levels, let's launch a global effort to pump the CO2 levels up 10x-100x by reactivating volcanoes in Antarctica and other places and letting them do their thing. Who cares if the Earth gets warmer as long as it's got plenty of shirt-sleeve weather? So what if the poles melt? That'll give us more farmland, and we can move coastal cities, a bother but not insurmountable compared to the horrors of billions starving in decades to come in their faux fur coats.
http://tlwinslow.weebly.com
Nah I'll go visit Mars which has 30 times more CO2 then earth and is way colder. Maybe you should try looking up the Beer-Lambert law of physics and find out why Increasing CO2 doesn't work in a linear line it is logrithmic and there is this thing called saturation. Then go look up a book on Thermodynamics and learn how Pressure increases Temperature, then take a look at the make up of Venus and Mars atmospheres, land mass and total lack of oceans and realize why The amount of CO2 on both those planets mean squat to the climate on Earth. Then even go read the IPCC reports and learn that with a doubling of CO2 you only get roughly 1 deg C rise in temp and how their doomsday scenerio is based on a net Watervapor positive feedbacks, which has never been observed in nature. Matter of fact the best empirical evidence seen so far is a net negative feedback due to increase clound production from the increased water vapor, but then again you probably need to find a 3rd grade text book so you can learn about the evaporation process first. Here's a hint sweating cools the human body. Once you get that basic research out of the way come back and well get into the real mind blowing concept that rain cools the atmosphere, There is cyclical ocean oscillations that run roughly every 30 years and switch between hot and cold. Hint the PDO just recently switched to its cold phase after being in its 30 warm phase between 1975 and 2005. Nother hint even some of the IPCC modelers are expecting another 20 to 30 years of COOLING due to this shift.
I know all about everything. You can start by learning how to read your own words. “With only a doubling of CO2 you only get roughly 1 deg C rise in temp”. I said let's raise CO2 10x-100x, so that's around 2^3 to 2^7 or 3-7 deg C rise in temp. Now read my words again. I said enough CO2 in the atmosphere will eventually make the planet get hotter. So, taking your comments as a guide, you must have an IQ about at the 5th grader level, if that, sorry.
Now read what I wrote about how it doesn't matter if the avg. temp goes up as long as the deserts go green and the new plants retain moisture to feed a rain cycle, and get with the program. The real question is if volcanoes can be reactivated without triggering a Krakatoa or causing a winter effect, just a lot of CO2 to enrich the atmosphere. If so, the current levels and their statistical effect don't mean diddly, nor twits like you who try to insult me when you're the pea brain here. Now that I'm asking you to answer any questions, you're not capable, it would be too much reading for you. Maybe somebody else is listening
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Nick Diamond Jr and Netty Wisbaum, Karen Ball. Karen Ball said: The Heretics: Dr. Roy Spencer ( Climatologists) http://tinyurl.com/ykhl3dr [...]
I'm a few days late in writing this so it may not be seen but I wish to point out a few things. Sometimes we do not see the forest for the trees. Of course global warming is false but that is just the pretense to get what they really want, which is:
1. A world where there are 90% fewer people. 2. The U.S. economy will be "de-constructed" to make it equal to the rest of the world and our wealth will be 're-distributed" to third world countries. 3. Forget fossil fuels . We'll rely on wind power and solar panels. 4. Animals will rank higher in value than humans and water will be rationed. They will outlaw fertilizers and pesticides so we'll lose half the crops we now have.
By now if you think "This guy is a nut!" check it out yourself on the internet. The operative search words are "Agenda 21" and 'Sustained Development" . There's more, much more. Remember we are not dealing with ordinary people. They are Neo-pagan earth worshippers.
gpcase wrote, "What better place to do it than in such an open forum with plenty of well-educated citizens who enjoy mixing it up a bit? … Its my understanding that man-made (anthropomorphic) CO2 is only a fraction (less than 5%) of total CO2."
It's currently over 25%. And the word you want is "anthropogenic," not "anthropomorphic."
I’m totally with you. These movies are cheesiest, and most ridiculous ever. I’m so glad you wrote this post. I totally back you up. Thanks!