
95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong - Tycho
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
======
nerfhammer
More on the author of this post:

[https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm](https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Views](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_\(scientist\)#Views)

Another interpretation of this post:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1xuccb/95_of_climat...](http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1xuccb/95_of_climate_models_agree_the_observations_must/cfeqvjq)

(also see ovis's link in a reply below)

Regarding very similar claims:

[https://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-
ipcc-...](https://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-model-
accuracy.html)

[http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-model-gw-projections-
do...](http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-model-gw-projections-done-better-
than-you-think.html)

~~~
guelo
"Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite
power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-
regulating, and self-correcting" \- Roy Spencer

~~~
vixen99
And what do you deduce from your quote as related to the argument about
climate models set out by Roy Spencer? Does it destroy his case or are the
models a resounding success?

~~~
DanBC
Self correcting doesn't need to include self correcting and inhabitable by
humans.

------
nl
Let's just link to the debunking and move on.

[https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-
in-1...](https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm)

[https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Oceans-Warmed-up-
Sharpl...](https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Oceans-Warmed-up-Sharply-
in-2013-We-are-Going-to-Need-a-Bigger-Graph.html)

[https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-
models.htm](https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm)

[https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm](https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm)

~~~
glenra
Why do you consider any of those links to constitute "debunking" of the
original linked post? Most of the points therein seem _entirely compatible_
with the current claim

Most notably, the link on "climate models" says _" Models successfully
reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the
ocean."_ and goes on to discuss _hindcasting_. But the argument here is about
_forecasting_ \- how well the models did _after_ predictions based on them
were first published. How successfully do they turn out to reproduce
temperatures since _2000_? Not nearly as well as since _1900_. Bringing up
_1900_ in this context seems like a red herring.

Further note: There's a difference between _disagreeing_ and _debunking_. It
can be assumed that skepticalscience will _disagree_ with this sort of
sentiment, but that doesn't make them _correct_ to do so.

------
grantlmiller
I'm a natural skeptic, so when everyone believes something I think that is the
most important time to question it. I found Economist Bjorn Lomborg's take on
climate change to be very impactful...
[http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_prioritie...](http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html)

The basic idea is: that given our limited resources how can we do the most
good? The answer is that focusing that effort on climate change is frivolous
even by the most optimistic predictions. Now that doesn't mean we should
ignore it entirely. I'm generally of the mindset that problems aren't solved
by "steady progress" rather by radical innovation that changes the game. To
that point... it can be seen as a waste of time to enforce rules today that
really won't make a difference tomorrow. Instead today's effort should be
spent to enable the rapid innovation that when applied will actually make a
significant difference tomorrow.

~~~
danieltillett
The problem with doing net present value calculations on climate change is the
possibility of "infinite" cost events.

Sure it might make more sense from a NPV perspective to spend a given number
of dollars on say improving the water treatment in poor countries rather than
stopping GHG emissions, but only if we know the maximum cost of climate
change. The problem becomes how do you do a NPV calculation on the possibility
of a positive feedback warming event that causes the Earth to become
uninhabitable. This is effectively an infinite cost event. Even if such a risk
is small, no NPV calculation has any value.

~~~
jessaustin
_...the possibility of "infinite" cost events._

Never having taken place, thinking about such events would seem to challenge
to both frequentist and Bayesian schools of thought.

~~~
TheEzEzz
A charitable interpretation of daniel's comment would assume "infinite" meant
"very, very, very large", for example: the extinction of humanity. There have
been similar events to the extinction of humanity (past mass extinctions), so
there is every reason to assign non-zero probability to human extinction from
both frequentist and Bayesian perspectives. There are actually a multitude of
events that happen in this universe with non-zero probability (from both
probability philosophy perspectives) that could eradicate humanity.

Catastrophic climate change may very well be one of them. See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Evolution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Evolution)

~~~
danieltillett
Yes. I really don't know how to do NPV calculations on any event that involves
the extinction of humanity, but with any NPV calculation where the cost is
more than three orders of magnitude greater than benefit it doesn't really
matter how much greater the cost is.

------
beloch
Climate change models are based on data. Old data, but real data. The concept
wouldn't have even occurred to us had real, physical phenomena not suggested
it. The deviation of recent data from predictive models does not indicate that
nothing is going on an everything is tickety-boo. It merely indicates we don't
fully understand what's going on and our models still don't have much
predictive power.

So, if we don't fully understand what's going on, what do we do? Nothing?
That's idiotic. It's utter paralysis. Would you invest in a tech company that
refuses to do anything unless it fully understands the outcome? Sadly, human
existence is lived in a perpetual state of trial and error. What we can do is
weigh the consequences our actions could have based on our current, best
understanding of the situation and then make the best choice we can.

Climate change might not fit our models, but our limited understanding of
what's going on indicates there could be dire consequences if we do nothing.
Action always has a cost, however. If indeed efforts against climate change
have caused poor people to starve (evidence please!), how do we weigh this
against massive famines that may occur in the future because of climate
change?

Dr. Spencer is jumping to conclusions far more spurious and unsupported than
any of the climate scientists he derides. We would do well do ignore him. As
such, I am flagging this article. If this is an abuse of the flag feature,
please let me know and I will unflag it.

~~~
waps
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that we have no idea what effect the
policies have. They could be good, BUT they can also have bad results. I mean
bad beyond just the economic implications. Since the climate system has been
working a certain way for ~10000 years, I'd say the default position should be
that nothing is going to change.

What's missing from your reply is an answer to the data he's showing. A long
time criticism of the IPCC is that, well, they're wrong. In the sense that if
you compare their numbers with reality, their predictions turn out to be a
pile of crap. In a truly absolute sense of the word. The IPCC's 95% certainty
bands it gave for 5 years out have been violated EVERY single time (5 times)
they made a prediction (for the 6th prediction, the jury is still out until
the end of next year. However, it's not looking good).

If they really were 95% sure, that means they had a once in 16 MILLION years
streak of bad luck (1/0.05^5 * 5 years) (and unless that 6th prediction works
out, and global temperature rises by at least 1.2 degrees in about a year and
a half, that will be a once in 320 million years streak of bad luck). That is
significantly less believable, in my humble opinion, than the theory that
they're just pulling numbers out of their ass (not necessarily intentionally),
no matter how unflattering that claim may be to the many smart people working
that field.

So in short : yes, I think doing nothing is the correct answer. You can't hope
to do a better job doing something versus not doing something in this case, so
the best course of action (least cost/maximum benefit) can only be to not do
anything. So yes, nothing.

Either that, or switch to climate engineering (ie. change the question : no
longer about how to restore "natural" climate, whatever that is. The question
becomes : how do we fully bend the climate to our will. That and related
questions, like what do we actually want the climate to be (I doubt the answer
will be as simple as people think)).

So I don't agree with your flagging this, no. Yes, the article's author is
probably not the right person to believe this claim from. But he's right
(well, the first few paragraphs). And science is all about what is right, not
who.

~~~
x0054
Climate engineering scares the shit out of me. I think this article is right,
we do not fully understand global warming. We know something is happening, we
do NOT know exactly what OR why. But we have the fucking hubris to assume that
we can make it better (through climate engineering)!? Without even fully
understanding the problem.

That said, we can still work on improving the world and cutting down CO2
emissions AND pollution. Global warming or not, no one can argue with the fact
that air quality in large cities in US, India, and China is atrocious. Global
warming may or may not kill us, but pollution is killing people, now, today.
And that pollution is 100% man made, no argument about that.

I personally think we should work on innovation of power production, not
conservation of said power. Better battery technology and better solar
photovoltaic technology is the future, in my personal opinion.

UPDATE: updated for clarity.

~~~
glenra
> _Global warming or not, no one can argue with the fact that air quality in
> large cities in US, India, and China is atrocious._

You can argue with that for the US. "atrocious" compared to what? It's
certainly a lot better than it used to be.

> _And that pollution is 100% man made, no argument about that._

Not 100%, no. Some of our pollution is nature-made. Los Angeles was smoggy
_before_ there were any cars there - the Chumash indian tribe called Los
Angeles basin "the valley of smoke". It has environmental conditions conducive
to collecting particulates in the air - even pollen and dust and wood smoke
from natural fires will collect and form a lingering haze there.

------
jbooth
I don't know enough about meteorology to comment on the article, but this
quote bugged me:

"And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our
published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and
prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats."

No, there's the exact same amount of reason. This isn't a morality play, who's
"fault" it is doesn't matter. If there were a meteor heading towards us on a
collision course, would we reason against sending Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck
to stop it because it wasn't caused by us?

~~~
TelmoMenezes
> No, there's the exact same amount of reason. This isn't a morality play,
> who's "fault" it is doensn't matter.

Of course it matters -- in terms of the amount of impact human activity has on
the climate. The less impact it has, the less beneficial you can expect energy
policies to be to the environment. Since these policies have a non-trivial
cost in terms of human suffering (less energy for heating, growing food,
etc.), it is crucial to estimate their effectiveness.

~~~
jbooth
It doesn't matter in a moral sense. If someone proves that CO2 emissions don't
cause global warming, then yeah, it makes it less effective to focus on CO2
emissions. But we still want to stop warming from happening, so we'd increase
our efforts on whatever they pinpoint as the alternative cause.

The linked article I was rebutting wasn't making that utilitarian case, they
were making a moral case about not being obligated to avert warming at all,
which I think is thoroughly bullshit, because I live here.

~~~
001sky
It matters precisely in a moral sense. Because of the (in)effectuality of the
action. Resources are scarce, and you are taking food from a baby...somewhere
in the world. Of course none of this matters if you are having "first-world"
pyschological problems about guilt...or you are trying to secure some money or
presige for your first-world cushy lifestyle.

~~~
1stop
Energy production is the main 'human contribution' (I think?).

Are you really saying, that the Energy industry is a starving baby?

They are the richest companies in the world, they can easily afford ALL of the
changes that have been suggested, but it isn't about 'affordability' it is
about profitablity.

Making things more efficient, and encouraging more self/clean power generation
runs contrary to Energy companies profit motive, so of course they will resist
it and even run marketing to say that the world will be worse off if it is
more efficient and "cleaner".

And as a collective we have and continue to be stupid enough to buy into their
narrative.

~~~
001sky
This is an argument from convenience. Its like blaming the drug dealers for
wall street's cocaine problems. Notwithstanding that issue, you have the
opportunity cost of focus and attention on something. Which means you likely
have remidiable inefficiency in other areas. It is that which kills...like
taking your eye off the road and having a car accident. Again, that has
nothing to do with the (oil,power,auto) companies or whether or not you dirve
a prius, a tesla, or an F-150.

~~~
1stop
Then please refute the "energy is the largest contributing industry" statement
with some fact rather than rhetoric.

In your metaphor, this is like blaming the drug dealers for the "drugs being
sold on the street" problem. The drug dealer has no interest in selling you a
'drug manufacturing kit' for your home, he/she wants to keep you coming back.

I was pointing out, that given it is a humanistic/moral issue. The corporate
'profit motive' has nothing to provide. We have the resources to do everything
we want to do, and it makes ethical sense. But a rational organisation (which
is, by definition driven by profit) would never invest in this, because it
would reduce its profit.

This isn't an argument of convenience, this is a "point out the fucking
obvious"

~~~
001sky
This is a political argument about taxes, and has nothing to do with either
climate or science. If you want to tax these people, go ahead...get together a
bunch of special interests and some money and go lobby the relevant folks.

"I was pointing out, that given it is a humanistic/moral issue."

It may very well be indeed. But in the context of the submitted article and
its discussion, it is proving the point about the use and abuse of data and
science. There is a difference between a "moral use of science" and dressing
up a "moral/political special interest position" as a <position of science>.

As I am sure you would appreciate.

~~~
1stop
I have no 'special interest'. I was responding to the idea that "we can't
respond because of starving babies" comment.

That is factually untrue, and my response was based on fact, there is money,
and it could be used, no babies would stave.

But I pointed out it was never considered because if the profit motive.

You seem to be railing against a position I am not holding.

To simplify:

"We could do everything we thought was needed to decrease global warming and
no baby would need to starve".

I'm not saying:

\- We need to do something

\- We are the cause of global warming

\- Doing the things we think will reduce global warming will actually reduce
global warming.

------
cjensen
Thou shalt not make a graph without error bars.

In that respect, the error here belongs entirely to whoever made that graph in
the first place. They plotted all those models together to try to convince the
reader that all models point to doom. But in doing so without error bars, they
implied a level of confidence for specific years that was entirely absent from
the models.

~~~
spindritf
In principle, ok, but you wouldn't be able to see anything if that graph also
included error bars for 100 climate models.

~~~
swombat
The "article" relies entirely on this faulty graph, and then draws spurious
conclusions... The graph by itself may be forgivable, but surrounded by this
pattern of faulty thinking it is just one more piece of nonsense.

------
eagsalazar2
This is where the guy loses me: "then there is even less reason to force
expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats" and
"increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for
the greater good"

As if he gives a crap about poor people. People freeze not because of energy
policies but because we have poor social welfare and exploitive foreign policy
that itself is motivated by self serving right wingers who are exactly the
people denying global warming. Pretending to care about the poor to make this
point is frankly disgusting.

~~~
baddox
You lost me. Where does the author make the claims that you appear to be
disputing?

~~~
siriam
Does your ctrl+f not work? Both of those quotes were in the sixth paragraph.

~~~
baddox
The quotes don't make the claims that were being disputed.

------
chockablock
Numerically illiterate horsepuckey.

For example: If 100% of climate models predicted a rise of 10-14C (mean 12C),
and we observed a rise of 11C, this doesn't mean that the models are 'wrong',
and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean that "the observations must be wrong."

It does mean that there's some potentially interesting correlation in the
models' errors, I guess.

[Or, as cjensen said: 'Thou shalt not make a graph without error bars']

------
scythe
So, in general, the failure of a specific prediction from x theory does not in
general invalidate the theory, in this case because all of the failed models
depend on _other assumptions_ than anthropogenic global warming. This is not
because of any limitation of AGW but because _climate forecasting is hard_ and
_any_ attempt to predict the goddamn future is going to require a lot of
assumptions about a lot of things that can't be predicted (chaps theory).
That's okay, because AGW is _not based on climate models_ in the first place,
but on a first-principles understanding of radiative forcing and a _very_
well-established "fossil record" of old temperatures. Repeat after me: AGW is
not a climate model.

Simply put, there is no precedent in the entire history of the planet Earth
for overall heating as pronounced and rapid as the past 100 years of AGW.
There are really only two possibilities: either humans are responsible for
basically all of the heating, or there is a giant demon who is trying to stir-
fry the human race.

So if you think that the recent warming is not anthropogenic... find Bill
Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis, fast.

~~~
cgriswald
No love for Ernie Hudson?

------
coherentpony
95% of the climate models could also be wrong. Prior information could be
wrong. Almost no atmosphere models resolve cloud cover properly.

Making sweeping statements like this is not encouraged in the scientific
community. Now, that's not say we can't learn something from this graph. But
to learn more, detail is needed in how the graph was generated. There's more
to this than meets the eye.

I'm willing to be wrong, but I'd like to see all the facts first.

------
spikels
The global warming issue is complex. If you are a skeptic about CO2 increases
due to humans, warming since 1880 or the basic science of greenhouse gasses
you are simply uninformed. However if you are not modestly skeptical of mult-
decade forecasts of temperature, rainfall or cyclones you are simply naive.
These are incredibly complex systems that are only partial understood.

------
pridkett
Just apply a simple rule of thumb to this situation - if someone has a
doctorate and insists in being referred to by "Dr." then they're probably not
confident in what they're doing. Nearly every place that Roy Spencer is
mentioned he is referred to as Dr. Roy Spencer.

The one exception to this is "humorous" situations. For example, when writing
trite complaint letters or on a frequent flier memberships.

------
j1z0
To anybody reading this article, While Dr. Spencer does have real credentials,
he is a know denier. I'm not saying that makes him necessarily wrong, but he
is extremely biased in his views, and often publish research to back up those
biased views. So I think he's comments should be taken with a grain of salt.

~~~
corresation
Most people, once they've established a position, become incredibly "biased"
in their views. Skeptical Science, which I mention because it is referenced
some dozen times in here, is the sort of site that proselytizes to the
converted. It has driven a stake in the ground demarcating its position, and
everything has to be relative to that stake.

~~~
freshhawk
True in the broadest sense I suppose. I'm personally fine with driving a stake
into the ground at "the consensus opinion of scientific experts".

That's a different type of bias than driving the stake into a specific
conclusion because the other stake moves. Frequently.

To be fair, I think this only because it agrees with my pro-reason bias.

~~~
xenophanes
How is "the consensus opinion of scientific experts" determined? Does that
mean majority view, unanimous, or what? Is group voting really a good way to
decide such things? But if you aren't talking about a type of vote, what do
you mean?

And who decides who qualifies as a "scientific expert"? Isn't that
problematic?

~~~
freshhawk
To oversimplify a fair bit, when the vast majority of people who have spend
years studying a subject and have the respect of the other people doing the
same agree that's "consensus". There are plenty of subjects that do not have a
consensus opinion, plenty of times a consensus fractures into multiple camps,
etc.

Who's an expert? Anyone who can convince other experts they are also an expert
in a culture that glorifies reason and evidence and where the most status can
be gained by disagreeing with everyone and then convincing them you were right
all along.

You definitely seem to want an algorithm for this kind of thing, but there
isn't one. It's an exercise in applied philosophy involving building an
artificial culture made up of irrational human beings. It's incredibly
problematic from your perspective I suppose. People are inherently problematic
from that perspective, as is dealing with the unknown. From my perspective
I'll take it until there is something better, because right now this is the
way to get the best chance of being right about any subject.

If some cell biologist came in here and told HN that GOTO's were the only
control structure you needed for programming, although he had never programmed
anything but that doesn't matter because he's smart and he reads about
programming a lot, people would tell him he's wrong and that this is pretty
well established and universally agreed upon. If he responded with "What did
you guys do? Vote on it? Who gets to vote?" you would see that there is a
pretty big disconnect between reality and how this biologist thought the
culture worked.

~~~
xenophanes
I do not want an algorithm. My point was closer to: there is no algorithm, and
so this approach doesn't work.

What I actually want is a different approach that rejects authority.

~~~
freshhawk
"this approach doesn't work" ... the fact you sent me this message over the
internet in our modern society begs to differ. Science does actually work.

As to a different approach that rejects authority ... What would that look
like? Would we not value expertise anymore? Would there be no expertise
anymore? I like being allowed to get good at something by putting in effort
... and once I do I'm going to be right about the subject more often than
those who haven't put in effort. And people will notice that and listen to me,
they will value my opinion more than others.

I'm pretty lost as to how this dynamic could be broken in a non-nightmarish
way.

~~~
xenophanes
I said authority doesn't work, not science doesn't work. I think science works
in a way other than authority.

Being right more often does not mean you're right in any particular dispute,
so how exactly does it matter? Every dispute has to be resolved based on the
actual ideas in question, not the authority of the person who said a
particular idea.

------
danieltillett
I don't know why the uncertainties of climate modelling is valid reason for
inaction. When one of the possible outcomes of dumping trillions of tons of
GHG into the atmosphere is global disaster, then the poorer our models the
more we should be worried.

~~~
markmassie
Exactly. There are two major questions: either the models are right or they
are wrong, and either we successfully curb emissions on a very large scale
(action) or we do not (inaction). This gives us four outcomes:

1\. Models are Right + Action = huge spending on energy but we save the planet

2\. Models are wrong + Action = huge spending on energy that otherwise would
be spent on defense, etc. but we are left with a renewable energy
infrastructure.

3\. Models are wrong + inaction = little money spent on new power sources,
left with fossil fuel-based infrastructure. When fossil fuels run out in
100-200 years, have to build renewable infrastructure to replace it.

4\. Models are right + inaction = little money spent on new power sources,
left with fossil fuel-based infrastructure. When fossil fuels run out in
100-200 years, have to build renewable infrastructure to replace it. Also,
dramatic weather changes, widespread famine, etc.

Does inaction make sense even if the models are wrong?

~~~
xrange
It is nice to see such innocence in this day and age. Regardless of whether or
not we can manage to do anything about the problem, the fear people have is
the vast amounts of power and wealth we are transferring to select groups of
people based on political considerations, rather than market forces. Maybe we
can select the perfect "leaders" to do this job justly. Prudence would dictate
that you should imagine your political opposites coming into this position. So
the worst case scenario is that we enrich a small minority, who are likely to
stir up untold strife and suffering in wielding their unearned power. And we
still don't solve the problems.

~~~
beatpanda
"the fear people have is the vast amounts of power and wealth we are
transferring to select groups of people based on political considerations"

Ah, yes, like we do now, with the oil companies.

------
marze
Expected CO2 increases would modify the Earth's albedo by 0.4%. Clouds modify
it by > 25%.

We can't predict clouds more than five days in advance, under our well-studied
present climate conditions.

It is difficult to see why climate modelers are confident they can predict
average cloud cover in the future when different climate conditions are in
effect.

------
code_duck
The problem is that the same things which are thought to cause global warming
also cause significant pollution, the harm of which is not in question. Most
people do not question whether smog and mercury in the air are problems, and
the sourcing and processing of fossil fuels creates significant harmful
pollution, too.

------
donpdonp
[http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence](http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence)

------
mariano54
This is very interesting.. I'd like to hear more from experts in the field. I
was never fully convinced that global warming was that bad. But then again I
have always taken it for granted that we caused it, and that it has great
effects on humans and animals.

~~~
huxley
Here you go:

[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13)

------
jellicle
I wish that climate-deniers and flat earthers were flagged off the front page
of HN as fast as any discussion of sexism in the tech community is.

~~~
theraccoundude
And I wish religious zealots would be banned in the comments section as well.

------
llamataboot
[http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-
mi...](http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-
heat-1.14525)

------
al2o3cr
Roy Spencer's ancestor, Easter Island 1720: "The graphs that show the number
of sizable trees on the island going to zero in just a few years are OBVIOUSLY
bullshit!"

------
singingfish
Roy Spencer is a delusional f*c$wit.

I don't say that lightly. I tried having long conversations with climate fake
sceptics, and they are totally refractory to reality and its measurement.

~~~
programmarchy
Very convincing ad homs.

------
simonw
Background reading:
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_\(scientist\))

------
adam-f
IANAS but it never made sense to me that global warming would be linear with
amount of CO_2, at some point, I figured 95% of the available IR would be
absorbed by the atmosphere and doubling the CO_2 would only get us to, like,
97.5%. Then again, we are experiencing some crazy weather patterns recently.

Other effects of CO_2, like ocean acidification can be seen through both
direct chemical measurement and by the observed environmental effects on coral
reefs.

------
gamerdonkey
The problem with this article is how the author frames the entire debate
around this one measure of climate change, as though this is the only possible
observation of climate change.

The issue of human contribution to climate change is much more complicated
than that. This is an interesting contribution to the discussion, but it
shouldn't be the only piece of information we go from.

------
dredmorbius
SourceWatch profile on Roy C. Spencer:

[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer)

 _" One of the few AGW deniers with real credentials", Roy Spencer is a
principal research scientist for the University of Alabama at Huntsville (also
home to AGW denier John Christy) and is the U.S. Science Team Leader for the
Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite._

 _Spencer is on the nine-member board of the antiregulation, Scaife- and
Bradley-funded Marshall Institute, though he appears not to disclose this
affiliation on his website._

------
bowlofpetunias
I would be much more open to taking climate change skeptics seriously if they
didn't consistently descend into full on tinfoil-hat-speak.

"starve more poor people to death for the greater good"

Thank you for playing. No amount of "I'm a Ph.D., I'm a former NASA scientist"
is going to help take you seriously after that.

------
bnolsen
Quick! someone get the wierdos at /. to post this article! As noted in the
past, sciebtists can barely predict hurricane tracks. Global climate stuff?
Yeah right.

------
alayne
Well he sure sounds like a crackpot.

------
retrogradeorbit
I'll just leave this here without comment for the open minded:

[http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_compone...](http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf)

~~~
dredmorbius
Might be more persuasive if Huntsville hadn't been relocated to Alaska.
Climate change is enough of a challenge to civilization without adding violent
tectonic drift.

------
guelo
For a blink I thought I had read "posterity-destroying" and I nodded.

------
patrickg_zill
I admit to being amused, in that he is implicitly buying into the assumption
that there is a mathematical model (which can then be run through a computer)
that can describe "how climate works" on Earth.

As if there is some huge Excel spreadsheet in a supercomputer and the jerks
just keep on putting in wrong numbers to scare us.

There isn't, and there won't be for (my estimate) at least another century -
we don't even understand the Gulf Stream well enough to accurately model and
then predict its behavior, much less everything else, including atmospheric
dust.

------
vacri
_Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the
conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should
have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more
than emotions and political aspirations._

Because there's been such a powerful political reaction in favour of all the
scientists talking about warming? To the casual observer, it really looks more
like Business As Usual.

