Is Roy Spencer the World’s Most Important Scientist?

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. That doctrine has always been dubious and is often defended by attacking the integrity of anyone who dares to raise questions. Spencer is a rare combination of a brilliant scientist and a brave soul willing to risk his livelihood and reputation by speaking plainly.

The global warming promoters say we must scrap the world’s energy infrastructure in favor of green energy. They say that burning coal, oil and natural gas adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and that will cause a global warming disaster. The global warming believers demand a massive investment in uneconomic windmills and solar energy. Their demands are not exactly sincere, because their program is a utopian fantasy that will never be implemented on the scale needed to achieve the ostensible objectives.

The coalition of environmentalists, scientists and politicians who are the promoters of global warming inadvertently reveal their insincerity by the specifics of their programs. The much idolized Kyoto Protocol and associated Clean Development Mechanism, lets the giant emitters of carbon dioxide, China and India, off scot free for the simple reason that they would never agree to destroy the future of their countries by giving up fossil fuels. No CO2 emissions credit is allowed for CO2-free nuclear power because it would embarrass the environmental groups that spent decades denouncing nuclear power.

The scientific backing for the global warming scare comes from climate science. Climate science is a weak science. The atmosphere is chaotic and difficult to define with scientific theories. Attempts to predict the future of the climate and to quantify the effects of carbon dioxide are speculative....

I actually went over to the blog and read the whole thing (which I rarely do for blog articles).

As often happens when a lay person tries to describe science, many details were left out. For example, he describes “climate sensitivity”, which is supposed to be a measure of how responsive the climate is to various climate drivers. That’s fine, as far as it goes. But then he says, “If the climate is very sensitive, then adding CO2 to the atmosphere could be a problem.” Well... that would only be true if it could be shown that adding CO2 actually has a significant effect on atmospheric energy content—which is a supposition that I have yet to see experimentally verified. The climate sensitivity in question is a measure of how much of the energy emitted by the sun is converted to energy in the atmosphere. And this is affected by factors such as the libido (reflectivity) of the ground, the cloud cover, and humidity.

Well, I’m not going to do a complete review of the technical oversimplifications of the blog. (Disclaimer: I am not a climatologist, but a biochemist. My analyses are all based on general scientific and mathematical concepts that any well-grounded scientist would know.) However, I *will* comment on the political side of it.

A great number of scientists (myself included) receive government funding to advance their work. There is nothing wrong with that—politicians want certain topics studied, and scientists are only too happy to take money for studying those topics. For the most part, as long as we remain busy, publish our findings, and assure the politicians that our findings advance human knowledge, the politicians are happy. On occasion, though, the politicians are not happy with certain findings, and that’s where the trouble starts. “Global warming” presented a perfect opportunity to certain politicians of an authoritarian bent. They’ve been trying to control our lives for years, and we’ve resisted—but if they can use the threat of “global warming” to convince us that we must submit or face the end of life on earth—then the idea of “global warming” is perfect for their agenda. Then the politicians put pressure on the funding agencies—only research that supports the idea of “global warming” gets funded. Soon, the only scientists making the decisions as to which work deserves funding and which doesn’t are those who tow the politician’s line. And that is bad. It undermines public confidence in science. It skews how scientific results are analyzed and published. It has a ripple effect on other scientific disciplines. I can’t even begin to count how many times I’ve seen the throwaway phrase “because of global warming” in discussions where it doesn’t belong. Bats aren’t dying in the northeastern US because of global warming; they’re dying because of a fungus that we still know very little about, and may be unintentionally spreading among the bats ourselves. It’s easy to blame “global warming”; finding the real answers is hard.

Anyway, enough of the soapbox.

An excessive and misplaced "libedo" is certain to effect "global warming."

2 Peter 3
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? Before the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Again: every time I see posts about Global Warming/Climate Change/Insert Scary-Sounding Term Here, no matter whether pro or con, I have to mention the most ABUNDANT most POWERFUL greenhouse gas there is in the Earth’s atmosphere. Unlike CO2, it’s not a tiny fraction of a percent but varies from very low to saturation. Yes, it’s good old H2O, in water vapor form.

Humid locations hold in more heat than dry ones, all else being equal. Of course, some so-called scientists point to Venus. Do they forget that Venus is not only closer to the Sun but its atmosphere is mostly CO2? Not a tiny percentage. Very different mechanisms, very different outcome.

As for Earth and its trends, I invite you to google “hockey stick climate graphs” and see what comes up. Funny how a trend can magnify if you don’t extend it so the whole picture is visible. What, 5000 years ago it was warmer than it is now? Gotta hide that from the public.

Does climate change over time? Of course. Are the doomsayers a front for those seeking power? Certainly. As always, follow the money.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.