Is Roy Spencer the world's most important scientist?

American Thinker ^ | May 8, 2013 | Norman Rogers

[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...

--snip--

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...

--snip--

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...

--snip--

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...

--snip--

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...

[Lurkina.n.Learnin]

Right up there with political science.

[ApplegateRanch]

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.

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