Absolutely.
The position of the majority of climate scientists who aren't trying to preserve their skeptical bona fides is that the human contribution (atmospheric greenhouse gases) is the dominant factor currently affecting climate.
Does the fact that Dr. Spencer has altered his viewpoint mean his bona fides are questionable? I wouldn't think so; only that his methodology may have been erroneous but now is being corrected. And does this mean that all those who are skeptical of GW use faulty models to promote their beliefs?
There is also much skepticism of the methodology used by those who promote man-made Global Warming. And Dr. Spencer addressed that issue in his discussion with Rush Limbaugh. In effect, the models used by virtually anyone, when collecting data on global temperature fluctuation, by nature, is likely inexact. So, I guess, the question is: "Do we really have the ability to correctly gauge what is causing this current warming"? And if the answer is 'no', then how do we know how to react?
Color me skeptical until I can feel confident all the facts are in.
If he "went over" to the side of the Consensus, then he probably wouldn't have a very long interview with Rush Limbaugh, I hazard. There are currently three basic levels of global warming skepticism:
High: complete denial of significant human influence, importance of atmospheric greenhouse gases, even denial of an actual observed warming and attribution of CO2 increase to human activity. Prefer business-as-usual scenarios but will occasionally admit reasonability of conservation and technology investment.
Medium: admission of observed warming, attribution to natural variability with minimal human influence, questioning of model accuracy and predictions, adherence to low-impact predictions, do not perceive necessity for alteration of activities now until more data is available.
Low: admission of observed warming, human involvement, and potential problems; remain uncertain about model predictions, preference for low-impact scenarios to high-impact or catastrophic scenarios, prefer market force solutions to mandated regulations*
So, I guess, the question is: "Do we really have the ability to correctly gauge what is causing this current warming"? And if the answer is 'no', then how do we know how to react?
Answer to first question: Incontrovertibly. Which is a "yes".