No, Spencer’s Research Wasn’t Funded by Peabody

June 15th, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

My vacation this week was interrupted this morning by some hate e-mail…apparently, the recent Peabody Coal bankruptcy produced paperwork that listed everyone that was ever paid by Peabody for anything.

As far as I can recall, I am quite sure that Peabody has paid me for two things. Neither was payment for climate research, but just for presentation of information and opinions.

First was a presentation I gave to their board of directors, maybe 2-3 years ago, for which I charged my usual speaking fee plus travel expenses to Washington D.C. As I recall, my talk was back-to-back with one by a representative from Natural Resources Defense Council.

The second instance was hearing testimony I was asked to write related to a legal case I’ve already blogged about, here. That took quite a bit of time, requiring rebuttal and surrebuttal testimonies, then travel to St. Paul, MN to testify in front of a judge. I don’t do such things for free, and I always make sure I do it on vacation time from my day job so I can’t be accused of double-dipping.

If people are that concerned about not having any financial relationships with fossil fuel interests, I suggest they stop using electricity and most of our modern conveniences. I would have accepted payment from Satanists for Sane Energy Policy for my opinions if it would help prevent energy poverty and the resulting preventable deaths.

67 Responses to “No, Spencer’s Research Wasn’t Funded by Peabody”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Massimo PORZIO says:

    “If people are that concerned about not having any financial relationships with fossil fuel interests, I suggest they stop using electricity and most of our modern conveniences. I would have accepted payment from Satanists for Sane Energy Policy for my opinions if it would help prevent energy poverty and the resulting preventable deaths.”

    Well said.


    • Bill says:

      I switched my electric provider to a renewables supplier. Burning coal or going without electricity is a false choice.

      • Dan says:

        Dr. Spencer is not against renewables – he is an “all of the above” when it comes to power generation. In most cases fossil fuels produce energy much more cheaply than renewables. The AGW crowd wants to eliminate fossil fuels at enormous cost in dollars and lives and in some cases, the environment (e.g. birds killed by wind turbines), based on sketchy science.

        Personally, what has made the most impact on my electricity consumption has been switching to LED light bulbs and compact flourescents. LED bulbs are expensive but they occasionally go on sale and can be had for reasonable prices. Last year, I replaced 12 most used incandescents in my home: 6 65 watt recessed lights and 6 60 watt lights with LED’s and my electric bills are down 30-40%. Now if I could only find a cheaper way to heat my hot tub …

        • Bill says:

          “…The AGW crowd wants to eliminate fossil fuels at enormous cost in dollars and lives ..”

          Fossil fuels require continuous investment in new wells and mines. Redirecting that investment to renewables at this point costs little, and as technology follows its inevitable cost curve, is actually profitable.

          • mpainter says:

            Bill, your bald assertions are nothing but ignorance lifted off alarmist blogs.

          • Roy Spencer says:

            pretty cool that Bill can change where his electrons come from just by changing accounts. Silly Billy. 🙂

        • mpainter says:

          Dan, you are another. Saved yerself 40% on electricity, did yer? Some light bulb. And Roy Spencer happens to think renewable energy is a waste. So much for Dan and Bill.

          • Roy Spencer says:

            I like LEDs…glad their cost is coming down. Increased efficiency is a good thing…provided it doesn’t cost too much. LEDs last so much longer than incandescents, too.

          • mpainter says:

            Consider this carefully:
            “Last year, I replaced 12 most used incandescents in my home: 6 65 watt recessed lights and 6 60 watt lights with LEDs and my electric bills are down 30-40%”

            Does 12 light bulbs add up to a 40% savings on your electric bill?

            I suspect the Bill/Dan tandem as a huckster.

            I agree LED’s are the future. I have several LED flashlights that I paid $1 for, four diodes per bulb. I’m sold.

      • mpainter says:

        Tell the Chinese that bit about false choice. They chose coal..all the way. They are not alone.

        • Bill says:

          Do you follow the news, or are you just a mouthpiece for big coal like Roy? The Chinese are going all in on renewables and nuclear, and have already peaked on coal.

          • mpainter says:

            My understanding is that the Chinese are over-built on power plants and have suspended plans on new construction. They power needs did not meet projections (due to slowdown in their economy) and today they have excess generation capacity.
            I seriously doubt that the Chinese will invest any funds in “renewables”, so long as their excess power generation capacity continues.

            And I don’t give a hoot for big coal, but big wind is a big lie, and I don’t like peddlers of big loadofbaloney. That means you.

      • chris y says:

        Bill- “I switched my electric provider to a renewables supplier.”

        How much of the electrical energy delivered to your residence was generated by renewable sources before you made the switch? Just a rough estimate will do.

        How much of the electrical energy delivered to your residence is generated by renewable sources after you made the switch? Just a rough estimate will do.

      • KuhnKat says:

        Without fossil fuels your renewables supplier could not provide you with continuous energy. You also are paying more by choice for NOTHING!!! That is they are NOT reducing CO2 as the cost to the environment for siting the renewables and for building the renewable plants makes up for any savings in the alleged “free” energy. Then there is the actual destruction of wildlife…

        Even Hawaii is collecting abandoned turbine farms already as an eyesore and damage to the environment not mediated by the companies that took the subsidies and profits from guaranteed rates.

        Y’all are being scammed and refuse to open your eyes.

        Spain was one of the first putting an end to Solar subsidies as too expensive. Denmark has now called a halt to offshore and possibly onshore windfarms as too expensive. Germany is making up its energy deficits by building coal.

        Yes, the scam is coming to an end and people like you still can’t be bothered to do due diligence to find out what you are backing.

      • Ed Bo says:


        So, on a windless night, do you go without electrical power, just reading by candlelight?

        • Lewis says:

          The idea that one can order electricity from a renewable supplier and then be reliant only upon renewables is rather cute. Even if that were true, there are many other things in our materially wealthy world which depend upon non-renewables for their manufacture and delivery. Food is one. Even if Bill and company buy from a local organic-style farmer, the farmer uses machinery, produced and motivated by non-renewable fuels. The list goes on. Humorously, the electricity used to post to this blog is likely a mix of nuclear, coal, natural gas and a bit of solar/wind. Yet his emotional needs to be a better person are absolved by his legal change in suppliers.

          More to the point – Dr. Spencer gets hate mail for having an opinion which is unacceptable to some. That is unacceptable.

      • Robert Austin says:


        If your “renewables” supplier gives you reliable power 24 hours of the day, then you are depending upon fossil fuel, nuclear and/or hydroelectric power no matter that you fantasize your green renewable credentials to be.

      • Chris Hanley says:

        Good for you Bill, exercising freedom of choice.
        Presumably the cost of your ‘renewable’ energy is not discounted by a cross-subsidy from the consumers of more traditional energy sources like fossil fuels, nuclear etc., those consumers including the relatively poor in your energy market.

  2. Well said.

    Now it is crunch time for those of us predicting the climate, the days of BS coming to an end.

    I will comment more when the June climatic summary comes out.

  3. mpainter says:

    The bigotry of the AGW hard core comes out in their hate mail and in their hatred of coal and oil companies.

    • Brad says:

      But it’s all for the “greater good” you see. Yes. Yes of course. The Greater Good.

    • Bill says:

      Some things are worth hating.

      • fonzarelli says:

        “Some things are worth hating.”

        A skeptic of a half baked theory is not one of them…

        • Lewis says:

          Fonz, you misunderstand the nature of hate.

          It has to do with an emotional need to injure or destroy something which inflicts emotional (perhaps based in physical) pain.

          In the case of AGW true believers; the hate stems from a religious belief in AGW of which the true believers need total acceptance. Why, because they know it is not necessarily true, and skepticism lends credence to the idea that their belief is false. Being told that what they believe may be false, they can do nothing but attack (hate) those who espouse the disbelief.

          It is no different than the Muslim idea of subjugation: Convert, pay tribute or die.

          In the near future, if Salvatore is correct, and hopefully he is not, as the earth cools a bit, the speech and actions of the true believers could become physically dangerous.

    • Russell Cook says:

      The other thing prevalent in all these industry corruption accusations (I’d wager big dollars it was seen in the hate mail that Dr Spencer received) is “guilt-by-association.” Conspicuous by its absence in such accusations are links or references to actual physical evidence proving people like Dr Spencer or Dr Willie Soon are operating under a pay-for-performance arrangement with Peabody, Exxon, or any other of the enviro-activists’ enemies du jour. Ask any enviro-activist if they are outraged at former IPCC Vice Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele for being commissioned by Greenpeace to write a paper for them while he was working within the IPCC ( ) and you’ll be met with either dead silence or wacko obfuscation.

      In my opinion, the weakest point within the entire AGW issue is not in the science, it’s the highly questionable tactic of character assassination leveled at skeptic climate scientists as a means of prompting the public to dismiss skeptics out-of-hand. The ‘industry corruption’ accusation is not only baseless, it’s enslaved to material that three key accusers – Gore, Oreskes and alarmist book author Ross Geblspan – may have known was not what they portrayed it to be (“An Accusation Built on a Foundation of Sand” ). Worse, when anybody digs deeply into any prominent mention of the accusation, they spot familiar names seen throughout the 20-year smear of skeptics: “‘The Usual Suspects’ in the Persecution of Global Warming Skeptics”

  4. sergeiMK says:

    @ Dr Spencer.

    You have never said how you would help the rural communities in Africa India Mongolia, etc get their affordable energy.

    In most of these places water is a scarce commodity not something you would boil then discharge (50%) to the air. You will not therefore have localised generation.

    Cables to these communities will not be cheap in construction and policing.

    How will these impoverished people buy electricity even at 10% of the generation cost

    how will these communities afford refrigerators/cookers/laptops/phones when all these simple appliances cost more than their annual income

    Even if they could afford such luxuries some of these people will need to remain mobile – how will you stretch your cables.

    Most of the rural poor could be satisfied with a 100AH battery and solar charger.

    Pleas answer as I would love to know what you propose.

    • phil says:


      Nothing is cheap. The power grid that serves the U.S. wasn’t cheap. Power stations in the U.S. desert and the water they consume weren’t cheap. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t be built or that the people who use that power are all wealthy.

      No, we can’t run power lines across Mongolia. Yet. But we are already using superconductor technology (developed here at UAH) to move vast amounts of electricity through bottlenecks with little or no loss of power. I can’t tell you what technology will make possible a decade from now, but I’m not willing to give up hope.

      And who’s talking about refrigerators/cookers/laptops and phones? There are far too many places in the world where we could significantly improve the quality of life for the human inhabitants, while making a significant dent in the pace of habitat and species loss, by building one rather ordinary coal-fired power plant and running a single 110-volt line into every residence, powering nothing more exotic than a two-burner hot plate and a single 90-watt light bulb.

      If you want to improve the quality of life for people in Africa, India, Mongolia, et al., why not start with the simple things — the things that matter most — and work outward from there?

    • mpainter says:

      “Most of the rural poor could be satisfied with a 100AH battery and solar charger.”


      Then scr+w the rural poor, right? Batteries for them but energy infrastructure for you and tough tittie for those who are struggling to survive, right?
      For information on how its done, don’t ask here, ask where it’s been accomplished or is in the process of being accomplished:USA,China, India, Russia, elsewhere. You put the fallacious argument that what is not easily achieved should not be attempted. More of your Green bigotry.

      And who are you to declare what the rural poor should be entitled to or not entitled to?

      • M Bauer says:

        mpainter: I see you are back posting nasty comments as fast as you can type. I thought you promised to find a new hobby after you spend 31 of 36 hours posting to Roy’s blog last week. What happened?

        Have you thought about taking up line-dancing? It is big with anti-government wingers and doesn’t take much thinking. Seems like your cup of tea.

        Or therapy. Just saying . . .

        • Amosity says:

          Ha ha ha,

          mpainter has a hard time stopping. Like a drug addict, but the drug is his own junk.

          Mr. mpainter, may I suggest badminton as a new hobby for you? It moves very fast, and there is a (very small) active following. Good for you.

          Best Wishes,

      • mpainter says:

        Speaking of green bigots, we now get more science from the hard-core AGW types.

      • mpainter says:

        That is, for Bauer and animosity hate mail is their norm.

  5. Gordon Robertson says:

    It’s pretty sad when climate alarmists can’t challenge scientists like Roy and John Christy on the science and have to revert to ad homs and smear campaigns.

    It begins at the top. A while back, Obama started a witch hunt to root out ‘climate deniers’, whatever that means. His hopeful heir-apparent is cut from the same cloth.

    Although I don’t support a lot of what Trump is about I hope he wins so I can see the politically correct and the scientifically religious squirm for a few years.

  6. dave says:



    “Their corpses I spread over the valleys and the high places of the mountains. Their heads I cut off and piled into heaps. Their cities I consumed with fire.”

    Tiglath-Pileser I, King of Assyria, writing up his diary after an enjoyable day out.

    • roger says:

      Nothing much changed over time there then.

    • John R Smith says:

      In the old days they didn’t have the political courage to ban “weapons of war.”
      They hadn’t invented weapons of recreation yet.

      Excepting for the imminent doom of climate change, we live in great times.

  7. Ken Gregory says:

    I did a report on the Alberta Climate Plan, see

    I did not receive any funding from Peabody or anyone to produce this report.

    You would think us Canadians would welcome some warming, higher crop yields, longer growing seasons. But no, many want to destroy our civilization to be green and preventing the greening of the Earth.

    Albert plans to spend $22 billion to phase-out coal, impose a carbon tax of $30/tCO2 and limit oil sands production. This will reduce temperatures by 0.00007 C by 2030.

    The best estimate to warming to 2100 is 0.57 C. The transient climate response is 0.85 C with very likely 5-95% range of 0.55-1.30 C. Using Fund, this gives a best estimate social net benefit globally of 16.6 US$/tCO2, very likely range of 24 to 4 US$/tCO2. Greenhouse gas emissions will have only positive impacts in Canada which increase throughout the 21st century. Even at high climate sensitivities of 3 C, the FUND model shows Canada benefits from CO2 emissions by $190 billion annually by 2100.

    • mpainter says:

      “The best estimate to warming to 2100 is 0.57 C.”
      No such thing. Pay no attention to projected temperature. AGW science is egregious.

  8. Richard Salmon says:

    Meanwhile, NASA data releases have highlighted how Greenland ice melt and temperatures have been running frighteningly higher than even recent records in 2014 and 2015. This on the heels of the arctic ice shattering record lows for May. It must be all the urban heat island effect up in the arctic and Greenland \sarc.

    R. M. S.

    • mpainter says:

      Richard Salmon: “frighteningly higher”
      DMI shows Greenland accumulated surface mass balance is presently higher than 1990-2013 mean. So relax, don’t allow the screeches of the wacko alarmists frighten you. Reflect on the benefits to the biosphere of enhanced atmospheric CO2, the foundation of life. Reflect on the fact that the land biomass is increasing by about 2 billion tonnes/year. Then laugh at the hand wringing neurotics.
      You will feel better, I promise.

      • Lewis says:


        While I usually agree with you, the part of 2 billion tonnes/year is something I could do without. Do you have any idea what that means for weeds in the garden?

        • mpainter says:

          It means prettier, healthier, happier weeds. Rejoice.☺

          • M Bauer says:

            mpainter, maybe you should take up gardening! Then you could have a time consuming hobby and you could constantly tell everyone how helpful all the CO2 is for you and your hobby.

            Or therapy . . .


          • mpainter says:

            Note that 2 billion tonnes figure is land biomass and does not include the oceans. Add another four billion for the oceans, due to CO2 fertilization effects. The coccolithopores have multiplied by ten in recent decades in the North Atlantic, according to a recent study. The wailing and gnashing of teeth by the global warmers has increased correspondingly.Tsk, Tsk.

    • Aaron S says:

      Antartic? An Artic only case doesnt seem meaningful and is sort of pathetic as meaningful evidence of GLOBAL warming.

      Major El Nino events have equivalent temperature variability with the last century of global warming. Of course it influences the environment.

      • dave says:


        The National Snow And Ice Data Centre has resumed publishing the “Sea Ice Index” for Antarctica (and the Arctic).

        At present (early winter down there, of course) the area with at least 15% ice cover is very slightly under the average for 1981-2010.

        The “2-meter anomaly” published by R Maue for the first half of June shows:

        Northern Hemisphere +0.549 C
        Southern Hemisphere -0.019 C
        Globe +0.265 C

        The recent high point for the Globe was a touch under +1.0 C, on March 1.

        • dave says:

          “first half of June” is an average. March 1 was a single observation.

          • nigel says:

            “…area with ice cover…”

            Of course, areas of ice are accounted as equivalent which are quite different. An area in the Beaufort Sea which is 15% covered with ice a meter thick is accounted the same as a similar- sized area in the Central Arctic which is 100% covered with 5-meters-thick ice.

  9. dave says:

    I thought of writing to Peabody Energy asking for loadsamoney, but – unfortunately for we wannabe shills – they have gone bankrupt.

    • mpainter says:

      The spot market price for Powder River coal is below $10/ton. PR coal is half the steam coal roduced in the US. Appalachian coal is at $40/ton, can’t get lower because that is cost of production for most mines. Natural gas has pushed coal aside in power generation.

      Coal shills have all been fired for lack of performance. Natural gas shills have beat them in a bag.

  10. Norman says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    I hope the haters do not push you out of the subject. I do like reading your points and views and I think it is highly beneficial to science to question the consensus. Especially when it is based upon predictions of computer models that have been demonstrated to be flawed in their ability to predict.

    Thanks for making this blog available.

  11. Russell Kish says:

    Just a comment for climate change. Take a look at the mortality rates in the 60’s and 70’s due to famine. Take a look at the mortality rate due to famine in the period of stalled global warming from 2000 to 2010. The first decade of the 21st century has a death rate from famine 20 times less than the 60’s and 5 times less than the 70’s. So at least in part global warming and extended growing seasons are good humans, but bad for polar bears? I am tired of all the doom and gloom. Eliminate toxic pollution and I will be happy. CO2 is not pollution.

    • Massimo PORZIO says:


    • mpainter says:

      Not only extended growing seasons but anthropogenic CO2 fertilization of the biosphere. This means ever increasing crop yield and also increased grazing and forage for livestock. The latter effect is important in semi-arid regions such as the Sahel, where the “greening” is especially pronounced. Makes the global warmers gnash their teeth.

  12. Bill Marsh says:

    If by ‘peaked on coal’ you mean they are ‘only’ planning on deploying 1100+ more coal fired power plants as opposed to the close to 3000 they have deployed previously, then I suppose they have ‘peaked’ on coal.

    The Chinese are adept at ‘committing’ to lofty goals while they really only commit to doing what they’ve planned to do all along. By 2025 they will have put more CO2 into the atmosphere than the. US has since the 1880s AND will continue to increase CO2 until at least 2030, when they promise to ‘think about’ whether they want to reduce the rate of increase … Or not

    • mpainter says:

      China is temporizing. They know that global warming will be a dead issue in a few more years. AGW RIP

      • M Bauer says:

        mpainter: how about table tennis aka ping pong as a hobby for you? You have a strange fetish for the chinese, and they are obviously quite highly ranked in this sport. If you can’t actually play, you could be a fan boy. Far more popular overall than Roy-Spencer-climate-blog-pain-in-the-arse, i.e. your current hobby. It would be a healthy change.

        Or therapy .. .


      • mpainter says:

        Denmark has abandoned its windmills scheme. It is not the first to do. Spain has already, England now looks sourly on theirs. With La Nina on the way, look for all the windmill hype to deflate as government after government turns its back on the alarmist meme. AGW is a hot air balloon that has run out of gas.
        Phfffffftt! ☺

        • M Bauer says:

          mpainter: When I was a kid we used to tie postcards to helium balloons and see how far they got from home when the postcards were mailed back. This seems like a good hobby for you. Maybe you will get a postcard back from “healthy mental state” one day. Until then, happy floating.


        • mpainter says:

          Who will be next to abandon the “renewables”? The U.S., probably.

  13. Aaron S says:

    The thing that frustrates me about Roy’s situation is the computer modeling and greater AGW crowd are biased by easy funding and inflated scientific status based on the journal politics and government funding. Some of the stuff being published in major journals is a joke. Roy is taking the path of most resistance… i did research in both pro CO2 and a stronger sun perspectives and i can tell you the ease of funding and publication is dramatically different. So the bias platform doesnt work- its just more politics.

  14. Hey Aaron the test for the climate theories is now in the making. It looks like solar activity going forward will finally be reaching the criteria I have stated that will result in a cooling trend ,while at the same time we have CO2 increasing which is suppose to cause warming.

    Now we will find out which side is correct. No spin no excuses. We should have a very good indication probably within in a year or two from now.

    I have maintained if solar activity becomes low enough it will result in lower global temperatures not only due to the weak solar activity itself but he secondary effects ranging from an increase in clouds, snow cover ,sea ice, a lessening of ocean heat content , a more meridional atmospheric (n.h. especially) an increase in volcanic activity to mention some major effects. All these factors should combine to bring down the global temperatures, if this does not happen I will admit to being wrong.


    Now finally finally we may have the test.

    • Aaron S says:

      Agreed and i am excited to see the aa going down. I think the data for cosmic rays forcing climate is overwhelming. Unfortunately it will be a couple years before this la nina is gone

Leave a Reply