Skip to comments.Is Roy Spencer the world's most important scientist?
Posted on 05/08/2013 8:23:11 AM PDT by neverdem
Roy Spencer is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama Huntsville who may be the world's most important scientist. He has discovered scientific insights and theories that cast great doubt on global warming doctrine...
The pressure that is building on climate doctrine is the failure of the Earth to warm, a trend that has now continued for 16 years. The longer warming is stalled, in the face of constantly increasing CO2, the harder it becomes for the believers to continue believing. Compounding the failure of the Earth to warm is the failure of the oceans to warm for the last 10 years. Normally, failure of the Earth to warm would be explained by saying that the ocean is sucking up the energy flux that would cause the atmosphere to warm. But...
Roy Spencer at some point had an epiphany that resulted in new insights. The central question about global warming, that climate science tries to answer, is what is climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is formally a number that describes the amount of warming or cooling the Earth experiences in response to a change in the energy flow. Various things can change the energy flow, including adding CO2 to the atmosphere...
Spencer discovered convincing evidence that the slope of these striations is a measure of climate sensitivity. In the graph above the diagonal lines follow the striations and indicate that the Earth's climate sensitivity is about 0.11, or about 7 times less than the 0.81 that the establishment claims...
Roy Spencer has developed a theory to compute climate sensitivity, using real data, data that does not invoke the monster climate models. His theories may or may not stand the test of time, but the climate establishment should stop acting like a science mafia protecting its turf...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I cannot stand it when an author writes an article that treats the eco-nuts as decent but wrongheaded people. What is the point in pretending that the “Climate Establishment” is anything other than a bunch of science hacks living off government money, politicians doling out that money to try and gain more power, and religious zealots who actually bought the line of crap. No matter how tight Spenser’s arguement is or how bulletproof his findings are, the “Climate Establishment” will never accept it and will continue to lie about the science and slander anyone who points out the fraud.
Just the excerpts provided indicate that Dr Spencer actually has received training in physics, statistical analysis, and sensitivity analysis.
None of which could even be spelled, much less utilized by the Gore-dork and the contingent of physics flunkeys at the University of East Anglia, and portions of NASA.
Their motto: “Can’t understand physics? Is math a mystery? Come here and become a member of our climate research staff?
‘believers’ was the most important noun in that piece.
In science, you prove it or you don’t.
Climate science has as much credibility as psychology does. Climate scientists essentially tried voting climate change in as a fact, same as the psychologist voted homosexuality as ‘normative’.
Only a politician could love science by populism.
Wait...I thought there was consensus. :)
That American Thinker piece is a remarkable article that not only highlights Dr. Spencer, but exposes the crazed extent that the ‘true believers’ will undertake to discredit the deniers. Recommended.
Well technically there is no concept of ‘proof’ in science. There is only evidence.
There's something to be said for preaching to a group larger than the choir.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
(but you knew that)
Benghazi Eight Months Later Senator Ted Cruz
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
It’s now morphing to “anthropogenic global climate change”.
It brings hot/cold, stormy/calm, and monsoon/drought conditions both in and out of season.
Essentially: man’s progress is dangerous to the earth and must be stopped, controlled and managed.
It sounds like good ol’ communism.
Thanks for the ping!
The party line shills at the so-called “Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists” have this fascinating series of nonsequiturs in their January agitprop:
[snip] In an unusual move, Board members directly addressed US President Barack Obama in an open letter published today by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. In that letter they applaud the presidents recent actions to gain ratification of New START and to strengthen the nuclear security regime. They also acknowledge the steps the president took to “nudge the country along a more rational energy path,” providing support for wind and other renewable energy sources and strengthening fuel-efficiency standards.
And yet, the letter continues, “2012 was the hottest year on record in the contiguous United States, marked by devastating drought and brutal storms. These extreme events are exactly what climate models predict for an atmosphere laden with greenhouse gases. 2012 was a year of unrealized opportunity to reduce nuclear stockpiles, to lower the immediacy of destruction from weapons on alert, and to control the spread of fissile materials and keep nuclear terrorism at bay. [/snip]
Thanks for posting this....
Thanks for the ping.
I'd rank it a bit lower than psychology - somewhere around phrenology and astrology.
Right up there with political science.
That is only true, if there were any such a thing as "true" or "not true," (a dichotomy that is only representative of a broad sheaf of possibilities) in the minds of those who do not understand that there is not any objective "real world"; but that "reality" only exists in the perceptions of the observer, and is totally subjective. This is why we can dismiss any and all of your so called "evidence" by consensus.
(SS) The faculty & staff, East Anglia Climatic Research Unit