Home/Blog
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. For the uninitiated, while Politico is allegedly a news organization, it has a history of supporting Progressive and Leftist causes.
To be fair, the summary lead at the top of the article is pretty good: “A common refrain: Climate policy hurts the poor, and the continued use of fossil fuels is a boon for humanity.“ But, at best, today’s Politico article entitled, “Meet the 4 influencers shaping Chris Wright’s worldview” is a mix of truths, half-truths, and misleading innuendoes. The article is by Scott Waldman. The four alleged influencers of Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s views on climate science and energy policy are, in order, Bjorn Lomborg, me, Alex Epstein, and John Constable.
I will let the others speak for themselves. What follows is, verbatim, the article addressing my influence on Sec. Wright. I don’t need to comment on everything because some of it is true. I will only offer clarifications where appropriate. Why? Because there are a lot of untruths circulating about me and unless I address them from time to time, those things become part of a narrative that is difficult to dislodge.
Quotes from the article are in italics; my response & clarifications are in bold:
Spencer, whose work was cited as a resource in Wright’s report, is a research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and is listed as an adviser to the Heartland Institute, which promotes climate misinformation. I used to give talks at Heartland conferences, but haven’t in recent years. I don’t have a formal relationship with them. I don’t speak for Heartland Institute, but I thoroughly disagree with the claim that they promote “climate misinformation”. That shoe fits Politico much better.
While some of Spencer’s work on atmospheric temperatures and other areas of study has been funded by NASA and the Energy Department, he has attacked federal climate researchers as being biased because they receive taxpayer money, and he has claimed that people alive today won’t experience global warming. On the first point… true. On the second point, I believe what I have said is that most people today will never notice global warming in their lifetimes because it is too weak (about 0.02 deg. C per year) compared to natural climate, seasonal, and day-to-day weather variability. In my book, people who believe they have witnessed human-caused global warming are about as delusional as flat-Earthers.
Spencer also served as a visiting fellow for the Heritage Foundation, which produced the Project 2025 policy proposal that has guided the first months of President Donald Trump’s second term.
The groups Spencer has been affiliated with have received millions of dollars in donations from foundations that oppose regulations, but he claims the American public has “been misled by the vested interests who financially benefit from convincing the citizens we are in a climate crisis.” That includes environmental groups and journalists, in his telling. And I stand by that claim. Look at the artwork at the top of this article, and see if you can figure out what it implies.
“Climate change is big business for a lot of players,” he wrote in a Heritage Foundation publication. “That includes a marching army of climate scientists whose careers now depend on a steady stream of funding from governments.” True. And I have said my career also depends upon that funding.
For years, Spencer has worked with organizations that have received funding from an interlinked network of fossil fuel companies — a multitrillion-dollar global industry — as well as wealthy foundations with billions of dollars in holdings that support groups opposing climate and energy regulations. What are you implying, Scott? That I’ve been paid off by this multitrillion dollar global industry? I know that’s what you are doing. But they have never funded me. At most, I have giving an occasional invited talk, which I receive honoraria for when offered (standard practice, and the same has applied to environmental organizations I have spoken to).
He states on his website that he has not been paid by oil companies, but a court filing in 2016 revealed that he received funding from Peabody Energy, the coal giant that for years spent millions of dollars on funding climate denial groups. That was one of my invited talks: As I recall, it was a Peabody board of directors meeting, and they wanted someone to provide a counterpoint to a Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) talk given at the same meeting. Peabody never funded me to do work.
Spencer has appeared before Congress a number of times, typically as a Republican witness attacking climate policy and downplaying climate risks. He served as the climatologist for the late conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, who regularly promoted climate denialism on his show. Again with the “climate denialism” mantra? You really don’t have a second gear, do you, Scott? I don’t deny “climate”. I don’t even deny recent warming. I don’t even deny that recent warming is probably mostly due to humans.
Like Lomborg, Spencer claims climate policy will hurt the poor even as science has overwhelmingly shown the effects of global warming would disproportionately affect the world’s most vulnerable populations. “Science” has shown no such thing. Opportunistic researchers have indeed made such claims, though. But Lomborg, Epstein, and Roger Pielke Jr. are better at refuting those claims than I am.
He authored a book entitled: “Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor.”
Spencer did not respond to a request for comment. True. I long ago learned which media outlets cannot be trusted to represent what I say fairly.
Dr. Spencer:
I applaud your retort to the “allegations” of yet another highly-biased press jackal.
Dr. Spencer excellently responded to Chris Wright’s allegations. Wright’s writing is a dangerous amalgam of truths, half-lies and nonsense. I recognize this way of writing all too well from main stream media in the Netherlands and know from experience that it is exhausting to have to respond again and again to allegations that often don’t make sense.
“I don’t speak for Heartland Institute, but I thoroughly disagree with the claim that they promote “climate misinformation”
They do spread what can only be described as propaganda:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120503233315/http://climateconference.heartland.org/our-billboards/
I received a free book from them awhile back and it certainly seemed to have some highly misleading graphs and descriptions.
And it did quite poorly in a fact-check by a respected news organization:
https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.339G4NM
And it was sent to numerous school teachers.
Nate:
Did you actually read what was in that link you sent, or did you just react to the billboard with Ted Kaczynski’s face? Their point was that the worldviews of environmentalists are often no different from those of mass murderers. Besides, AFP fact checkers are known to be Left-leaning. But in your world, that would be synonymous with “unbiased”.
> are often
Citation needed.
“Their point was that the worldviews of environmentalists are often no different from those of mass murderers.”
Do you really not get how you can’t really say crap like this and turn around and play the victim card?
If you’re going to paint with a broad brush, don’t be surprised when others play in kind.
Sorry Mark B, but Spencer has it right. You Leftists are terrorists and murderers.
Remember, they were shooting at UAH windows a couple of years ago.
Burned any Teslas lately?
Nate is projecting.
The items listed in your “fact check” are misleading or just plain wrong.
Agriculture – the Heartland statement is correct. The response agrees with the statement, but implies future potential outcomes that may or may not happen. Misleading at best.
Snow – the comment gives details that are interesting, but they don’t disagree with the Heartland statement. Overall snowpack has remained the same since the 60’s, but decreased spring and summer snowpack as the comment says.
Coral reefs – the Heartland statement addresses warm water adaptation and range expansion. Both are true. The response statement goes into bleaching with the usual propaganda. Try reading Peter Ridd to get an accurate picture.
Sea levels – sea level increase depends on where it is measured. So pick your source to determine if the Heartland statement isn’t accurate. But remember, the Maldives are adding area.
Hurricanes – Heartland and the IPCC are correct. Read Pielke for more information.
US heatwaves – the response slips back to 1950, a common trick when trying to refute heatwave info. The Heartland statement is still correct. Jim Steele and other authors have shown that on a historical basis, the current period isn’t atypical. And the ‘30’s and 40’s were atypical.
Wildfires – again, the Heartland statement is accurate. Read Pielke for more information.
Polar bears – the response goes into the reliability of past data, but recent data indicate and increase increases. Also, predictions of ice going away have not borne out.
Typical fact checker stretching of the truth and occasional fear mongering.
Just you claiming stuff, Steve.
No sources, no credit.
The UN specializes in propaganda, as does the UK met office,and many news channels, but you appear to believe what you want to believe, as do many subscribers to Roys blog,some of it as near to flat earthers as you can get, the chances of todays warming killing you is almost nil,silly comments like,warming 20 times faster than in the past ,and we are walking over a waterfall are only two i have read in the past week,yet the climate continues to improve.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds… Ralph Waldo Emerson.
I fell for the AFP attack on Heartland until I looked at AFPs funding. Follow the money. $$$. Always.
AFP is Agence France-Presse, the equivalent of AP News for France.
They run a fact-check service.
Why is that a problem?
You are over the target when the flak comes at you
I had received the earlier book sent to educators in 2017 by Heartland. That was the one I read and found to be full of misleading or wrong information.
It was fact-checked by scientists and given a score of F.
https://science.feedback.org/report-heartland-institute-sent-to-influence-us-teachers-on-climate-change-earns-an-f-from-scientists/
Nate, if you are just going to use IPCC scientists as fact-checkers of their own claims, why are you even commenting here? For example, it is now well known most IPCC models have climate sensitivities that are too high compared to observations (one of the “facts” you listed). Seriously… why are you still here? We already know what the IPCC claims… we don’t need you to remind us.
I think the issue with Heartland is that they have particular political point of view that they are promoting.
It makes no sense to get science facts from them, since their goal is not to do science.
Just as it makes no sense to get science from Greenpeace.
The UN has a particular political point of view that they are promoting. IPCC-INTERGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change
The IPCC science reports are reviews written by scientists of the science found in the scientific literature.
Roy,
Instead of complaining about “IPCC scientists”, I suggest you explain why you believe their criticism is incorrect. The actual points addressed, one by one, at https://science.feedback.org/report-heartland-institute-sent-to-influence-us-teachers-on-climate-change-earns-an-f-from-scientists/ are clear enough, so just explain why you disagree with them. From a scientific viwewpoint, not based on some “what do scientists know anyway?” stance.
Nate,
You’re saying good science is only found in literature that you approve?
The World’s most prominent think-tank supporting skepticism about man-made climate change……The Economist
“it is now well known most IPCC models have climate sensitivities that are too high compared to observations”
What on Earth is an “IPCC model”? Please explain. Do you even know what IPCC is and what they do?
And the Heartland claim was that “climate models systematically over-estimate the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide”. This is clearly incorrect. See https://science.feedback.org/review/heartland-institute-reports-claim-climate-models-sensitive-co2-not-reflect-evidence/
And if you disagree, explain what’s wrong about the debunking.
So you’re ok if I get science facts from Greenpeace? Who, like Heartland, have political goals, which ain’t to do science.
And the IPCC science reviews are supposed to look at the full spectrum of views found in the science literature.
OK with using Greenpeace? Of course if Greenpeace has credentialed scientists on staff. Is it OK if we disagree with their opinions as long as we don’t lie about their position or slander them?
Well their statements on what has been observed such as sea-level-rise or coral reefs are easy to verify.
Those are a just a couple of items that failed the fact-check.
But feel free to weigh in.
The factoid that seems to get little coverage until recently was how utterly pointless the climate agenda has been. There is a belief that if western economies can curtail CO2 emissions, the climate will get better. But the emissions made in the west just get transferred to Asia and the goods made in Asia with extensive use of fossil fuels simply get exported to the countries who have reduced their emission through de-industrialization. It’s nothing more than squeezing a balloon.
It’s stretch to think the climate can be controlled through reduced CO2 emissions. It turns out it’s even a stretch to think CO2 emissions are being controlled at all.
You cannot be serious. You are making satire. Your claim is that the suggestion promoted in the media, that weather variability is climate change, should now be taken seriously because the uneducated public is buying it.
Weather variability is not something new, even though college students can be convinced that it is. It is the very nature of weather to be variable throughout the seasons and from year to year, as it is influenced by the random movement of large air masses in the atmosphere.
There is not a delete feature on this blog, but this comment rather obviously belongs below and not here.
Sorry about that. I am not sure what happened.
While a person may not consciously notice a global average increase of 0.02°C per year, they can often experience the effects of climate change through changes in frequency and intensity of extreme events.
Statistical studies and perception surveys have documented growing public awareness of climate impacts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_climate_change?utm_source=chatgpt.com).
You cannot be serious. You are making satire. Your claim is that the suggestion promoted in the media, that weather variability is climate change, should now be taken seriously because the uneducated public is buying it.
Weather variability is not something new, even though college students can be convinced that it is. It is the very nature of weather to be variable throughout the seasons and from year to year, as it is influenced by the random movement of large air masses in the atmosphere.
This must be a bot since human English speakers typically don’t say “ making satire.” The verb “make” is not typically collocated with the noun “satire” because “make” is generally used with tangible or creative products, but “satire” refers to a genre or approach.
But I digress.
I am happy to explain the relationship between a shifting mean and the resulting probability of extreme events, but you must read my post again and respond to what I wrote rather than the opposite of what I wrote.
Saying that the Heartland Institute promotes climate misinformation is probably being generous to them since much of their work can actually be categorized as straight up disinformation.
Anyway, the book Merchants of Doubt discusses the Heartland Institute (and other contrarian think tanks like it) and the strategies they use to peddle unwarranted doubt and undermine the consilience of evidence approach to scientific understanding and established facts.
And it’s not just climate disinformation that the Heartland Institute peddles. Their propaganda includes challenges to the link between smoking and cancer, the link between pesticides and toxicity to humans, the link between CFCs and ozone depletion, the link between pollution and acid rain, etc. The strategies they use to gaslight and deceive the public are generally the same across all of their contrarian stances.
This is a good example of why climate change claims cannot be taken seriously. The liberal media like to weave vague and exaggerated science claims with wild political statements.
The story seems like a typical news organizations smear campaign. Highly speculative claims about climate change are pushed out as “the science” endorsed by “the scientists”. Then they claim that any opposition, whether rational or not, is the work of deniers.
It is not surprising that the resident politician, Nate, has arrived with his standard act which is to argue for the sake of argument, whether it makes sense or not.
You are not addressing anything I posted, just generic bitching. Are you a bot?
Nate, I am responding to EVERYTHING you post. This one is just particularly offensive. Dr Spencer is making a very good case that he has been smeared by innuendo in the media. Most people can see that. Your response is to bring in new allegations that are bizarre at best. He does not represent ANY of these organizations were he has given speeches or given supported for that matter. He is not responsible for any action they take on their own. How difficult is that to understand?
The IPCC is not an objective source. Everyone knows that — especially people who like their work.
Nate, if you could behave yourself, you would get a different response from people. You reap what you sow!
Why is it ‘particularly offensive’ to expose some facts about how Heartland operates?
What specifically is ‘bizarre’ about that?
Why is it not particularly offensive to you to try to associate environmentalists with serial killers, as Heartland did?
This is the problem with Nate. The first 3 comments in the topic — in less than an hour — are an attempt to make the case that the smear is valid because Dr Spencer might somehow be connected to something that Nate does not approve. It goes way beyond just rude to insult the host of this site.
Nate claims to be interested is science, but time and time again, his real interest is revealed to be politics. In politics, facts are not important. Politicians don’t have to make sense. All they have to do is argue and oppose the other “side”. Facts get in the way of a good argument.
Here is a fact. Nate would have long ago been banned from many other sites if he dared to act the way he acts here. It is a credit to Dr Spencer that he does not ban people because he supports free speech.
It is easy to just ignore Nate as a pest, and that is the easiest thing to do. It this case, I think Nate has gone over the line of respectable behavior to insult the host, not just once, but repeatedly and disgracefully.
“case that the smear is valid because Dr Spencer might somehow be connected to something that Nate does not approve. It goes way beyond just rude to insult the host of this site.”
Wrong. That is your hyperbolic take on what I wrote, which was a specific criticism of Heartland, whose propaganda efforts I am personally familiar with.
And one can see the posts of others who agree.
Indeed Roy Spencer supports free speech here, and as a scientist, is used to having his views critiqued.
Roy, thank you for doing real science.
People get confused between “global warming” and the CO2 nonsense.
We are seeing about a 40-60 year warming trend, well documented by UAH. But there is no REAL science that can link that warming to CO2. In REAL science, a “consensus” means NOTHING.
The belief that 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface is easily debunked with very basic physics. But cultists don’t want science.
“The belief that 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface is easily debunked with very basic physics.”
Nope. What are you talking about? The warming (i.e. increased temperature of Earth’s surface due to increased concentration of CO2) is basic physics. Learn about the atmospheric greenhouse effect. It was discovered in the 1800’s.
Gadden, the fact that you can’t explain how 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface means you don’t have a clue about the basic physics. Can you pass an easy test?
“Warm” means “raise the temperature”. So what is required to warm a surface?
8:22 am A: An increase in its measured avg. thermodynamic internal energy from, for example, absorbed 15μ photons.
To warm a surface, you need net positive energy to it.
Increased CO2 makes the lower atmosphere absorb more upwelling infrared radiation. This leads to a warmer lower atmosphere, assuming all other independent conditions unchanged. The atmosphere consequently radiates more, including downwards. So, increased back radiation. (See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg)
Result? A warmer surface.
Incorrect Gadden!
To increase the temperature of a surface the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the surface MUST be increased. That kinetic energy is related to the vibrational frequency of the molecules. CO2’s 15&mu photons have lower frequency (longer wavelength) than the WDL photon being emitted by a 288K surface. So even if you deny the absorp.tion properties of photons, a “somehow absorbed” 15μ photon would COOL a 288K surface.
Incidentally, that’s why you can’t radiatively warm a glass of water with ice cubes.
You’ve been misled. Let’s see if you can learn, or just keep throwing crap at the wall.
“a “somehow absorbed” 15μ photon would COOL a 288K surface.”
Clint keeps claiming this is real physics, but he never ever shows us a real physics source that agrees with this absurd nonsense.
Do these photons add negative energy!?
“….the fact that you can’t explain how 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface means you don’t have a clue about the basic physics,”
Stupid boy.
A 15μ photon can warm a 288K surface if it was emitted by a 300K surface.
Simple.
Well pp, are you that ignorant of radiative physics, or are you just slinging crap against the wall?
Doubly stupid boy.
You still cling to the notion that photons carry information about the temperature of the body that emitted them.
Such blind ignorance.
“you can’t explain how 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface”
The real reason that CO2 emitted photons do not warm the surface is much more subtle than you think. Because the photons are relatively weak energy carriers they cannot penetrate the surface skin, however they do get absorbed by the surface. However, the surface skin is always exchanging energy with the atmosphere through conduction. It is always attempting to create energy equilibrium.
Since the photon emission occurs very low in the turbulent boundary layer, the process of CO2 emission cools this part of the atmosphere. It is precisely this atmospheric layer which exchanges energy with the surface skin. The increase in energy by the surface skin and decrease in the lower atmosphere will alter the conduction energy transport according to the 2nd Law.
The bottom line is the energy gets conducted right back into the lower atmosphere to restore equilibrium. It can’t work any other way without violating the 2nd Law.
“you can’t explain how 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface”
The real reason that CO2 emitted photons do not warm the surface is much more subtle than you think. Because the photons are relatively weak energy carriers they cannot penetrate the surface skin, however they do temporarily warm the surface. However, the surface skin is always exchanging energy with the atmosphere through conduction. It is always attempting to create energy equilibrium.
Since the photon emission occurs very low in the turbulent boundary layer, the process of CO2 emission cools this part of the atmosphere. It is precisely this atmospheric layer which exchanges energy with the surface skin. The increase in energy by the surface skin and decrease in the lower atmosphere will alter the conduction energy transport according to the 2nd Law.
The bottom line is the energy gets conducted right back into the lower atmosphere to restore equilibrium. It can’t work any other way without violating the 2nd Law.
“you can’t explain how 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface”
The real reason that CO2 emitted photons do not warm the surface is much more complex than you think. Because the photons are relatively weak energy carriers they cannot penetrate the surface skin, however they do temporarily warm the surface. The surface skin is always exchanging energy with the atmosphere through kinetic transfers. It is always attempting to create energy equilibrium.
Since the photon emission occurs very low in the turbulent boundary layer, the process of CO2 emission cools this part of the atmosphere. It is precisely this atmospheric layer which exchanges energy with the surface skin via kinetic transfers. The increase in energy by the surface skin and decrease in the lower atmosphere will alter kinetic energy transport according to the 2nd Law.
The bottom line is the energy gets moved right back into the lower atmosphere to restore equilibrium. It can’t work any other way without violating the 2nd Law.
pp, you’re making crap up, again.
Where did I ever state that “photons carry information about the temperature of the body that emitted them.”
Don’t you cult kids have any new tricks?
Gadden
Please don’t waste your time trying to convince ignorant and utter deniers like Clint R, Robertson, or some others on this blog of anything.
Such people go so far as to deny Einstein’s work (they even doubt that GPS needs relativistic corrections) or that our Moon (like all major satellites of the solar system) rotates on its polar axis.
That’s beyound the imaginable.
Once again Bindi rushes in with his insults and false accusations.
Just what we would expect from cult children.
So does GPS require realistic corrections for N/S as well as E/W?
Why do GPS satellites tick precisely 38 microseconds faster than clocks on Earth?
richard…GPS is nothing more than an advanced form of Loran-C. During WW II they used a similar tracking system to Loran-C call GEE. Your uncle would likely have been interested in it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gee_(navigation)
The only real difference between these systems and GPS is that GPS uses moving sats. Also, someone on the ground, independent of GPS surface stations, using a hand receiver, can receive signals from the sats and using that info, they can locate their position and altitude relative to the moving sats.
Why some insist that time dilation is a factor is beyond me.
“Why do GPS satellites tick precisely 38 microseconds faster than clocks on Earth?”
Regardless of if they are travelling N/S or W/E?
CR:
“The belief that 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface is easily debunked with very basic physics.”
Really?
Tell us why a 15μ photon cannot be absorbed by a 288K surface?
What sort of discrimination do you think takes place?
Is the 288K surface racist?
Or is the 15μ photon so disgusted by the 288K surface that it stops in its tracks and goes the other way?
In either case, where does the 15μ photon go?
I recall this question stumping the legendary “cotton sox” many years ago.
pp, the issue is about “raising the temperature”, NOT absorp.tion.
Obviously, like the rest of your cult, you have no background in even the basics. If you’re seriously wanting to learn, start with understanding what “temperature” is. Even wikipedia gets it right:
Once you learn about temperature, you can move on to learn what is required to “raise the temperature”. Then, you will see that 15μ photons from the sky can’t raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
But, as you know, cultists aren’t interested in learning….
Clint R simply ignores 1LOT and 2LOT in comments since absorbed 15μ photons from the sky must act to raise the avg. kinetic energy “of the vibrating and colliding atoms making up a substance” per 1LOT and 2LOT thus raise the temperature of a 288K surface per Clint’s wiki clip. Similarly, emitted 15μ photons from the surface to the sky act to lower the surface temperature per 1LOT and 2LOT.
Clint R is just lacking interest in learning…
Ball4, when you start off with a false accusation, there’s no need to waste any more time with you.
I mentioned up-thread what is required to raise temperature:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/05/politicos-hit-piece-on-me-and-energy-secretary-wright/#comment-1704197
Get a responsible adult to explain it to you.
I get the impression Politico would claim Dr. Spenser was bought and paid for by Columbia if someone gave him a free cup of coffee. And the Dairy Association if he took cream in his coffee.
The entire evidence deficient “Catastrophic/dangerous, CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming/climate change” CONJECTURE has been accurately described as “The Greatest Scientific Fraud of All Time.”
It is pseudoscience wrapped in politics.
It has no resemblance to actual science or scientific method.
john…Will Happer described it as a fraud. He claimed he’d accept hoax but fraud represents it better.
One day when you people grow up you will figure out that total majority of government funded science is overvhelmingly fake driven by politix and funding money grab, climate science being the worst example of it
Ofcourse I’m not talking to those who already know it.
HI Dr. Spencer. Once I was a liberal and now I am not. My usual response to people like Politico is to completely ignore them, because as a famous comedian has said ‘You can’t fix stupid.’ Keep up the good work and ignore the critics. And if you get a chance go over to the IT department and ask them whether climate models can be programmed in such a way as to get any result that the programmer wants. As an ex-programmer in corporate IT, I know the answer to that question.
jim…of course, computers are prone to GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). It’s worse than that with climate models, however. A programmer need to understand the algorithm in use between the science and the program and state it correctly. Leading programmers of models such as Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS have demonstrated an unbelievable ignorance of a basic fundamental in the models, positive feedback.
Schmidt actually published a theory describing positive feedback as being an amplifying agent. Anyone who as worked with PF, like myself, are very aware that feedback is only a branch within an amplifying system. It affects the amplification of an amplifier, it cannot produce amplification on its own.
Another issue is the degree of warming CO2 can produce in the atmosphere. Alarmists have stated the factor as 9% to 25%, depending on the amount of water vapour present. How does one expect a warming factor of 9%, never mind 25%, from a gas whose concentration is 1 molecule per 2500 molecules of nitrogen and oxygen?
The warming factor is closer to 0.06%, the mass percent of CO2 in the atmosphere. That amount is supported by the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation.
Dear Roy, I can assure you that you have many admirers across the world, thanks to your well balanced posts over decades. We all know that you are a very competent and honest scientist. Do not take the smear seriously.
Ah, yes…the old misinformation propaganda. I am currently reading an article by a local university outfit claiming to be exposing misinformation, the new term, like homophobia and Islamophobia, geared to shaming those who dare to oppose the status quo.
In the article, the only evidence they offer to support the anthropogenic meme is that authority figures claim it is true that 95% of scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans. No reference to the studies claiming that, just an authority figure pronouncement.
I know of three sources of the 95% propaganda which ranges up to 98%. Two of them were statistical studies based on simple questions and another can be traced back to the cartoonist who runs skeptical science.
One of the studies was done by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian who believes that consensus is a valid form of science. She wrote a book in which she attacked three skeptics who were deceased. Her survey comprised about 1000 papers where she applied a filter “climate change” to find agreement.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/
Heck, even I would have had to agree even though I have repeatedly stated the amount of warming to be in the order of 0.06C for every 1C warming of the atmosphere.
The miscreants who attack Roy and John Christy are not worthy of responses. They are not only malcontents they have major problems with basic intelligence. That’s because they are such cow-towers to authority that their fetish interferes with their abilities to reason.
Some people are wired that way. I have encountered them over and over in life. It’s as if they gain some sense of belonging by blindly following authority figures.
“She wrote a book in which she attacked three skeptics who were deceased.”
Yes and she revealed their efforts to protect their employers Big Tobacco and Big Fossil Fuels, using the very same tactics to tarnish the science.
Science demonstrated that second hand smoke is harmful, and a friend was a non-smoking musician, who played gigs in many many nightclubs, died of throat cancer.
Nate,
You are a propagandist. That’s all. You don’t debate the merit of the skeptic’s argument but resort to attacking the skeptic. If your science is correct then it can stand on its own. It doesn’t and that’s why your ilk attacks the skeptic. For instance, like Berry or Salby you resorted to attacking them, not the merits of their skepticism. If you were truly the scientist you claim to be then you should be spending all your time trying to falsify Green House Theory, not attacking the skeptic. Berry has falsified the notion that human and natural CO2 are treated differently by nature. He did it with mathematics. This, in itself, destroys the IPCC climate model.
Totally false. I discussed the flaws in Berry’s science many times with you. Unfortunately you would not read the papers I gave you. Science ain’t your thing.
No, you didn’t. Berry tried to explain to you but then you resorted to insults.
That was comical. Nate, he was kind to you and Ent. He let you down easy.
Nate,
Here is one of your favorite reference sites, Wiki, talking about e folding time. IPCC calls it turnover time. Turnover time or e folding time takes into account your Suess effect or any other effect. Berry tried to teach you but you proved a poor student.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-folding
“No, you didn’t. Berry tried to explain to you but then you resorted to insults.”
Not at all. I simply disagreed with his science and tried to inform him about the Revelle Factor, which he was oddly unfamiliar with, and he banned me.
Stephen, the reality was that Berry’s theory failed to explain CO2 rise.
Berry’s theory falsified the theory that the rise was due to fossil fuels and mathematically showed that most of the rise was natural. If you understand e folding time then you understand that the Revelle Factor is already taken into account.
Not going to re-argue what has been argued with you a dozen times. You don’t understand the science and you don’t listen.
But this:
“You don’t debate the merit of the skeptic’s argument but resort to attacking the skeptics”
is proven wrong.
What science? Your science is “man did it.” Berry falsified that statement. His model shows mathematically that it is due to nature. He doesn’t explain the mechanism. He doesn’t have to. That’s not how science works. He also showed the Keeling Curve is false. Murray Salby was correct.
If one only reads only blogs by Berry and Salby, and refuses to read anyone else’s papers, like the ones I gave you by Revelle and sevetal others, then you will naturally be convinced by Berry and Salby, whose views of the carbon cycle are extreme outliers.
Each time I have shown you and explained to you the papers that demonstrate that that anthropogenic emissions are the cause of atmospheric CO2 rise, which was accurately predicted 60 y ago, you simply ignore them, and run away.
However Nate, your explanation has been here the entire time. Salby destroys the three major tenets of anthropogenic climate change, Kohler et. al, the Bern Model, and the randomness of temperature. Watch the entire video, Nate. You might learn something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtIgMftbUuw
Sorry, he mathematically supports the idea that temperature is random.
You have not read or comprehended the paper I showed you before, which was first to explain and predict the rise in CO2 over the next 60 y.
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/bolin.1958.carbon_uptake.pdf
And Berry was not familiar with it. Nor did he predict or explain the CO2 rise which has continued.
So why should we believe a guy who is not even familiar with the pioneering work in the field he is trying to work in?
https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/dissembling-with-graphs-murry-salby-edition/
In reply to Gadden…”What are you talking about? The warming (i.e. increased temperature of Earth’s surface due to increased concentration of CO2) is basic physics. Learn about the atmospheric greenhouse effect. It was discovered in the 1800’s”.
***
Not any physics I have studied. I learned that heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface. It’s called the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There is nothing in the atmosphere that can replicate a real greenhouse and that’s why greenhouses were invented, to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
In the 1800s, scientists believed heat moved through the atmosphere (actually, an aether) via undefined heat rays. Bohr straightened that myth out in 1913, after the atomic nucleus and electrons were discovered. Turns out heat needs to be converted to electromagnetic energy by electrons in atoms before it can be transferred through the atmosphere by radiation.
It appears that some modern climate scientists are still living in the 19th century and have never heard of Bohr and quantum theory.
—————–
binny…”Such people go so far as to deny Einstein’s work (they even doubt that GPS needs relativistic corrections) or that our Moon (like all major satellites of the solar system) rotates on its polar axis”.
***
No need to deny Einstein’s work when it is so easy to prove it wrong. In the days of E., they apparently believed time is a real entity whereas it exists only in the minds of humans. The second is fixed to the rate of rotation of the Earth and cannot dilate. E. redefined it to make his theory work and that’s a no-no in science. You need to prove it can be redefined, simply being Einstein is not enough.
His mistake re EM having momentum but no mass is understandable since it was unknown at the time that electrons are affected by the EM fields in EM and not momentum related to EM. It will likely take another century before certain physicists wake up and gain insight into what laymen apparently know now.
Proving Newton wrong is an entirely different matter. No need, he got it right. And let’s get it right, Newton is still the man.
Same with GPS, any relativity is related to the satellite orbital motion, the rotation of the Earth, and the time taken for an EM signal to go between the GPS sat and the surface station. Elementary my dear Watson. No time dilation, and even if there could be, we have no instruments to measure it because there is nothing there to measure. Perhaps a brain surgeon could delve into a human brain and measure it.
ps. clocks don’t measure time, they generate it while synced to the Earth’s rotational period.
Anyone with basic physics can prove the Moon cannot rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at Earth. The idea that the Moon rotates exactly once per orbit is not only ingenuous, it’s plain dumb.
“Anyone with basic physics can prove the Moon cannot rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at Earth”
Eh? Because the moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth, it MUST rotate on its polar axis (in addition to rotating around the Earth, obviously.)
Whoops! According to Nate, anyone that thinks the moon is rotating around the Earth is “absolutely bonkers”.
Gadden wants to reveal his ignorance of basic physics. He’s already demonstrated he doesn’t know anything about photons or temperature. Now, he’s showing he has zero knowledge of orbital motion.
Whether it’s Nate, gordon, barry, bdgwx, Ent, Bindi, Ark, or RLH, I don’t understand why these people are so proud of their ignorance.
Oh dear.
https://science.nasa.gov/moon/tidal-locking/
“Earth’s Moon rotates, but it takes precisely as long for the Moon to spin on its axis as it does to complete its monthly orbit around Earth. As a result, the Moon never turns its back to us, like a dancer circling ― but always facing ― its partner.”
Sorry Gadden but this is about science.
You should have taken physics instead of dance….
Read it for yourself.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/power-switch/2025/05/07/theres-a-new-anti-climate-action-playbook-in-town-00333635
quote from the article…
“Nobody on the clean energy side is trying to say that we should stop using energy and go back to 1750 and have horses and buggies and chamber pots,” Scott Denning, a climate scientist at Colorado State University, told Scott.
“Rather, we’re trying to say that we can still have that sense of growing human flourishing, we just have to do it without setting carbon on fire.”
***
No one on the alarmist side is willing, or capable of explaining how we convert from fossil fuels to alternative fuels by 2035 when zero carbon emissions is proposed. It’s simply not doable yet the alarmists, with their heads buried in the sand, don’t want to hear protests.
A more reliable deadline would be turn of the next century, at 2100.
Meantime, we have to endure their propaganda about doomsday.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/power-switch/2025/05/07/theres-a-new-anti-climate-action-playbook-in-town-00333635
Read for yourself.
What does Trump think of it?
He’s too busy braying about his deal with the UK. Why, oh, why, would a UK government, especially a labour government, cow-tow to him?
Testing
Dr Spencer,
Thank you for conducting valuable, progressive science using established principles of integrity.
It is sad that some concepts that allow science to advance are being challenged or diluted by alternatives that are not good science. The climate change topic has been the breeding ground of much of what is dangerously wrong now with modern science education and conduct.
You have support from other hard scientists who have lived the actual nature of proper science.
Geoff S
With Trump’s convincing election and the dominance of the US in the world economy climate alarmism is deceased, passed on, departed, expired, gone, no more, late, lost and unlamented.
The Politico author and his hapless defenders here remind me of those stranded Japanese ‘holdouts’ who continued to fight after the absolute unconditional surrender.
Or maybe Stan Laurel in Block-Heads (1938).
Republicans might finally be losing interest in election denialism. Stop the squeal!
“Republicans might finally be losing interest in election denialism.”
You wish.
Yeah the first step, is admitting, then it’s one day at a time.
The unaddressed question is how EXXON et al are concealing the warming that is actually occurring? To what extent is AI holographically increasing polar ice, the number of polar bears or otherwise persuading observers that there is no significant change occurring when we know that a major crisis is unfolding?
When the tidal surge from almost monthly CAT 7 hurricanes dump polar bear carcasses in the Huntsville suburbs will Spencer still keep faking that satellite data?
One day when you people grow up you will figure out that total majority of government funded science is overvhelmingly fake driven by politix and funding money grab, climate science being the worst example of it.
The “Catastrophic/dangerous, CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming/climate change” is not only false, it is cmpletely backwards , the higher Co2 and warner temperature is ovewhelmingly beneficial to the life on Earth
Ofcourse I’m not talking to those who already know it.
Good point. However, the chicanery is not only in climate science funding, it is corruption of science right across the board. The entire covid hysteria was driven by innuendo and misinformation. Those scientists opposing the chicanery were ostracized.
eg. When Robert Malone, an expert in mRNA, pointed out that the mRNA-based vaccine would not prevent people getting infected, he was banned by Google and other news outlets for allegedly spreading misinformation.
gadden…”Oh dear.
https://science.nasa.gov/moon/tidal-locking/
“Earth’s Moon rotates, but it takes precisely as long for the Moon to spin on its axis as it does to complete its monthly orbit around Earth. As a result, the Moon never turns its back to us, like a dancer circling ― but always facing ― its partner.””
***
Speaking of dances, you are a bit late to this one. We have already established that the Moon is moving with curvilinear motion, a la Newton, and that it does not need to rotate exactly once to keep the same face pointed at Earth.
Re NASA, I contacted them and they agreed with my analogy as stated above, however, they insisted they were viewing the Moon from the perspective of the stars, claiming it is rotating from that view.
When I replied, pointing out that a body not rotating in one frame of reference cannot start rotating in another frame of reference, there was no reply.
NASA are talking about re-orientation of the Moon wrt the stars and not a rotation about a local axis. To see that, consider a car running around an oval track. For someone inside the track, he/she always see the same side of the car. However, for someone sitting in the stands, he/she sees all sides of the car. The view from the stands is equivalent to the view from the stars and the viewer gets to see all sides of the car.
At no time is the car rotating about an internal axis, its COM. If it did rotate as such, it would go out of control. To firm that up, replace the car with a locomotive running around an oval rail track. It is impossible for that loco to rotate about its COM since it is confined to the rails. To rotate it on its COM, a turntable would be required or a crane to lift it and allow it to be rotated.
The mistake being made by spinners is regarding a 360 degree change in orientation, like a car/loco running on an oval track, with a rotation about the centre of mass. The Moon in its orbit has the same motion as a car or loco running around an oval track. It does not need to rotate about its COM once per orbit.
Speaking of loco, Clint could not contain himself and felt an impulse to insult most people on the blog. However, had me and Dremt not bailed him out on the Moon, by supplying the physics, he’d still be wallowing in his ignorance. Clint’s thanks is backstabbing those who help him understand physics, a futile effort since he can’t understand anything.
There is no doubt that DREMT has been the major factor in debunking the Moon spin nonsense. But poor gordon has been unable to contribute anything. Typically, he just clogs the blog.
His comments all have the same format. He refers to Einstein, Bohr, and other famous scientists, trying to fake a knowledge of the issues. He used to fake being an engineer, but he couldn’t even fool Bindi. He doesn’t understand the thermodynamic definition of “heat”, meaning he’s NEVER studied thermodynamics. He believes “flux” is “energy”. Even a sanitation engineer (janitor) would know that “miles per hour” is not the same as “miles”. Rate is NOT distance. Flux is NOT energy.
But, gordon is obsessed with me. So I get to enjoy the show….
Gee the cranks are fighting over territory. Who owns this corner of the internet?
Meanwhile Clint thinks photons can carry negative energy.
Nobody is buying his unsupported nonsense.
Now link to where I ever said that, child Nate.
See why you’re such a child? You just make up nonsense because you have NOTHING.
Grow up.
“a “somehow absorbed” 15μ photon would COOL a 288K surface.”
Bwa ha ha ha!
Sorry child Nate, but there’s NOTHING about “negative energy” there.
Do you know any adults that can help you?
-photons are quanta of energy
-photon abs.orption is an input of the photon energy.
-cooling is a lowering of internal energy
We know you have trouble with basic logic, but do try your best.
Child Nate, you tried twice to cover up for your false accusation that I ever stated photons have “negative energy”.
But, the fact remains, you threw out another false accusation you can’t support. You make crap up, just like an immature child.
“We know you have trouble with basic logic, but do try your best.”
Nope. You have no logical ability.
So we will hold your hand.
You claim a photon being abs.orbed results in cooling.
Cooling requires a reduction in internal energy.
But a photon abs.orption is addition of its energy.
Therefore the photon’s energy must be negative, according to you.
Child Nate, your comment begins with a false accusation and continues with another demonstration of your ignorance of science. So, the following is only for responsible adults:
I NEVER stated that a generic photon would result in cooling. I mentioned the specific case that, IF a 15μ photon were somehow absorbed by a 288K surface it would result in a lessening of the kinetic energy of the molecules in the surface, which would then result in a lowering of the surface temperature. But of course that small decrease, from one photon, would not be detectable.
The point is, adding energy does NOT always result in increased temperature. Entropy is involved. The energy must be the “right kind” of energy. That’s why photons from ice can NOT raise the temperature of a glass of water.
roy…”But Lomborg, Epstein, and Roger Pielke Jr. are better at refuting those claims than I am.
He authored a book entitled: “Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor.”
***
Roy is being modest here, he has done well explaining issues in climate science as has John Christy.
Some other authors have taken on the IPCC, like Ross McKitrick. The following page is full of hypertext links to various papers he has produced which reveal the IPCC as the amateurs they are. McKitrick is a scholar not a conspiracy theorist, and his critiques are measured, not based in ad homs.
McKitrick and Steve McIntyre are famous for dismantling Mann’s hockey stick,revealing it as an exercise in bad math.
https://www.rossmckitrick.com/ipcc-reviews-and-critiques.html
Also, Richard Lindzen has provided many essays and good evidence re the IPCC while providing good skeptical evidence to refute alarmism in climate science. He has provided a more realistic account of the GHE.
Lindzen is good with explanations of the history of current climate science. He humourously explains how recently, circa 1980, no one called himself a climate scientist and these days everyone is a climate scientist.
In this excellent paper, Lindzen explains the GHE and what is wrong with it. It is worth reading the paper just to read his explanation of the role of convection and an explanation of the global average.
https://web.archive.org/web/20221006180511/https://thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2022/09/Lindzen-global-warming-narrative.pdf
nate…[GR] ““She wrote a book in which she attacked three skeptics who were deceased.”
[Nate}Yes and she revealed their efforts to protect their employers Big Tobacco and Big Fossil Fuels, using the very same tactics to tarnish the science”.
***
Here’s one of the deceased scientists, Frederick Seitz…
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/us/06seitz.html
Strikes me as being a pretty brilliant guy, whose only alleged downside was helping a tobacco magnate spend money on science.
The ban on smoking in public places here in Vancouver has taken place mainly in the past 20 years. Prior to that, anyone complaining of 2nd hand smoke would have been run out of town. In the day of Seitz, no one complained about tobacco companies.
It chagrins me today to see whiners running around blaming the tobacco companies for making them smoke through not informing them as to the dangers. Same with drugs like fentanyl being blamed for the deaths of so many young people. Who the heck forced them to take the drug? I can see it if the kids were duped into taking it but many know what it is they are taking, and like heroin, they don’t care.
I have never smoked, failing to understand what benefit tobacco products would have on my system. In fact, I saw the potential for damage and disease without being told about it. I also took notice of the extent to which my body went to reject the smoke whenever I got stoopid and occasionally inhaled a drag. I would never take a shot at anyone from the past, as did Oreskes and other alarmists, in lieu of a valid rebuttal to their skepticism.
Another brilliant scientist ad hommed by Oreskes re tobacco was Fred Singer…
https://heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/s-fred-singer/
Oreskes lacked the ability to debate scientists like Singer head on and took shots at them from afar based on red herring arguments and plain ignorance. Sadly, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation stooped to the same chicanery. They invited Singer to talk on a CBC program, presumably to talk about his skeptical views, then interrogated him on his relationship with tobacco companies in the 1960s.
Climate alarmists are not known for ingenuity or original thinking, getting by on pseudo-science and a poor man’s consensus.
Oreskes also tried to assassinate Bill Nierenberg, another highly accomplished and intelligent scientist. She was obviously out of her league and understanding of science and had to resort to ad homs and red herring arguments to fulfill her spiteful needs.
Reminds me a lot of Clint [tee hee].
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11172/chapter/13
She represents climate alarmists in general who cannot debate climate science on its merits but must resort to ad hominem attacks, red-herring argument, and outright character assassination.
“In my book, people who believe they have witnessed human-caused global warming are about as delusional as flat-Earthers.”
What a silly statement.
I suspect you would find very few farmers or others who have been involved for a couple decades in agriculture who don’t believe they’ve witnessed global warming.
“Human-caused” as a qualifier seems to carry a lot of water here, but global temperature long term trend has tracked remarkably close to Hansen’s late-80s model.
Humans who think they have detected an increase of 0.2 C per decade probably are delusional. There are so many ENSO variations along with natural variability from year to year and decade to dacade that human perception of that net increase is impossible. On the other hand, it is possible that people who have been told that the earth is warming are likely think they are experiencing something to that effect.
It takes very sensitive satellite measurement or highly manipulated and normalized surface data to measure a world-wide effect of that kind. Even if just one location is analyzed over time, the magnitude of variation over the years will obscure the long term trend, so even a farmer is not able to track a small long term trend.
Nice try, but human perception is not “evidence” of climate change.
Tim, whether you and Dr Spencer like it or not, planting dates have shifted earlier and no one who’s livelihood depends on it believes otherwise.
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213600629/-it-feels-like-im-not-crazy-gardeners-arent-surprised-as-usda-updates-key-map
Humans who think they have detected an increase of 0.2 C per decade probably are delusional. There are so many ENSO variations along with natural variability from year to year and decade to dacade that human perception of that net increase is impossible. On the other hand, it is possible that people who have been told that the earth is warming are likely think they are experiencing something to that effect.
It takes very sensitive satellite measurement or highly manipulated and normalized surface data to measure a world-wide effect of that kind. Even if just one location is analyzed over time, the magnitude of variation over the years will obscure the long term trend, so even a farmer is not able to track a small long term trend.
Nice try, but human perception is not “evidence” of climate change. Claims that humans are detecting climate change is really just evidence of the hype involved in climate claims.
“We have now sunk to a depth in which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”
George Orwell.
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” ~ George Orwell
– George Orwell
The fact is that an increase of 0.2 C per decade is very small. The many ENSO variations along with natural variability from year to year and decade to dacade make human perception of that net increase nearly impossible. On the other hand, it is likely that people who have been told that the earth is warming, and therefore the climate is changing, might think they are experiencing something to that effect.
The satellite measurements and surface data do measure the effect, but that is different than human perception. If just one location is analyzed over time, the magnitude of variation over the years likely will obscure the long term trend, so even a farmer who is out in the field every day will have a hard time trying to track a small long term trend.
Nice try, but human perception is not “evidence” of climate change. Claims that humans are detecting climate change is really just evidence of the hype involved in climate claims.
“On the other hand, it is likely that people who have been told that the earth is warming, and therefore the climate is changing, might think they are experiencing something to that effect.”
Yes. But people with memory of past decades notice it. In New England the lack of persistent snow cover, compared to 20-30 y ago is noticeable.
My neighbor used to create outdoor ice hockey rinks every year, finds it doesnt really work anymore.
You add more proof that climate change is more about hype than fact. The fact is that an increase of 0.2 C per decade is very small. The many ENSO variations along with natural variability from year to year and decade to dacade make human perception of that net increase nearly impossible. On the other hand, it is likely that people who have been told that the earth is warming, and therefore the climate is changing, might think they are experiencing something to that effect.
The satellite measurements and surface data do measure the effect, but that is different than human perception. If just one location is analyzed over time, the magnitude of variation over the years likely will obscure the long term trend, so even a farmer who is out in the field every day will have a hard time trying to track a small long term trend.
Nice try, but human perception is not “evidence” of climate change. Claims that humans are detecting climate change is really just evidence of the hype involved in climate claims.
mark b…”“Human-caused” as a qualifier seems to carry a lot of water here, but global temperature long term trend has tracked remarkably close to Hansen’s late-80s model”.
***
Does that include the 15 year ‘hiatus’ announced by the IPCC in 2013?
That would be the model from which Hansen distanced himself 10 years later, blaming his computer for making a mistake.
Hansen was the father of modern climate alarm, basing his theories on Carl Sagan’s misguided observations that the climate of Venus was due to a runaway greenhouse effect. That’s where Hansen got the notion of ‘tipping point’, a reference to a non-existent positive feedback.
Hansen persisted with that pseudo-science even though the Pioneer probes circa 1978 revealed a surface temperature on Venus of 450 C, conditions in which a greenhouse effect would contradict the 2nd law.
Whatever is going on in the Venus atmosphere it had nothing to do with a greenhouse effect, fictitious or otherwise.
This adds more proof that climate change is more about hype than fact. The fact is that an increase of 0.2 C per decade is very small. The many ENSO variations along with natural variability from year to year and decade to dacade make human perception of that net increase nearly impossible. On the other hand, it is likely that people who have been told that the earth is warming, and therefore the climate is changing, might think they are experiencing something to that effect.
The satellite measurements and surface data do measure the effect, but that is different than human perception. If just one location is analyzed over time, the magnitude of variation over the years likely will obscure the long term trend, so even a farmer who is out in the field every day will have a hard time trying to track a small long term trend.
Nice try, but human perception is not “evidence” of climate change. Claims that humans are detecting climate change is really just evidence of the hype involved in climate claims.
> an increase of 0.2 C per decade is very small.
As compared to what, and when?
As usual, TS is not even trying.
Dr. Spencer is a true scientist, as he reports data obtained from actual observations and strictly adheres to the numbers contained therein.
Moreover, he is correct that seasonal and even daily temperature changes can exceed global changes many times over. The meridional circulation currently observed means very strong temperature drops in spring, when the jetstream descends from the north (in the northern hemisphere). Changes in the jetstream circulation cannot be related to human activity, since they begin in the tropopause and have repeatedly caused the collapse of great civilizations.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f000.png
Unforgettable and unrelenting seeker of truth; a mind that never stopped asking, “Why?” https://youtu.be/uY-u1qyRM5w
Art of the Deal.
The descent of northern air masses into Europe and the formation of blocked highs is causing nighttime temperatures to drop below 0 C and heavy horticultural losses. For example, grapevine plantations have frozen in western Poland. There will be up to 50 percent drops in soft fruit harvests.
https://i.ibb.co/hxrXJRZn/hgt300.webp