Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??

[groggy]

I won't find the chair of the IPCC calling for governments to cut carbon emissions? Actually, I have found that:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/07/floods-gales-un-climate-change-extreme-weather

So?
Do you also say that when medical researchers found out that tobacco smoke caused cancer they shouldn't have said smoking is bad for you?
Do you call that advocacy?

All researchers publish their results and all do summaries.
When the research against tobacco smoke grew large enough and the evidence strong enough, they spoke of consensus and a body of research that backed up saying tobacco smoke was bad for you. And when that happened, what did big tobacco do? They hired Heartland to do the same things they are doing now, hiring hacks, faking research and putting out shit that people like you believed to try to keep people buying cancer sticks.

So we've got the IPCC, which represents all legit research, where all the data is available and all the papers available vs your Heartland type folks with a few quacks, some hackers and a lot of oil money (more then the tobacco lobby ever had) out pushing disinformation for suckers like you to believe.

In fact, I dare you to find three legit climatologists who don't back the IPCC reports.

 

[Moviefan-2]

He then bases acceptance on the information from the last IPCC meeting, even after we've shown so much more new data has been examined since.

No, actually, he bases his comments on the fact that the IPCC's predictions about the Earth's surface temperature were completely wrong. Nothing has emerged since then that changes that fact.

 

[Moviefan-2]

So?

Similar to your earlier response of "so what?". The typical response you provide when it is shown that you were wrong.

So this: The IPCC's politicized process has damaged -- beyond repair -- any hope it can have to speak as an authority on science to anyone other than the true believers. It's time to scrap the IPCC.

 

[groggy]

Yes, I did read the article. You missed the point. Whether the long-term projections are plausible not, the point of the article was that the IPCC has a huge credibility problem.

They are quite credible when read in their entirety, including footnotes.

As I said, I would go further.

There is no room for political participation in science. Thus, the IPCC's reputation cannot be salvaged. It should be scrapped. If an international body is needed, one should be created that is focused solely on science.

You mean you think the IPCC is a political party?
Idiot.

Since when is doing research and publishing the results 'political participation'?
They found putting CO2 and other greenhouse gases will lead to climate change and recommended we don't do that, since their results show that climate change will be bad for humanity.
How does that count as 'political participation'?

 

[groggy]

No, actually, he bases his comments on the fact that the IPCC's predictions about the Earth's surface temperature were completely wrong. Nothing has emerged since then that changes that fact.

They aren't completely wrong, but since you can't understand the reports, including footnotes, you are unfit to judge that.
You aren't smart enough to read the reports for yourself so instead rely on the disinformation of the oil lobby.

 

[Moviefan-2]

They aren't completely wrong, but since you can't understand the reports....

LMAO. I'm middle aged, but my memory isn't so bad as to have forgotten how you praised AK-47's summary of the footnotes -- a summary that AK-47 had admitted was absolute gibberish. :biggrin1:

In fact, I dare you to find three legit climatologists who don't back the IPCC reports.

Dares are no fun. Let's make it a friendly bet.

Same wager as the previous bet (the Delingpole book if I win, Mann's rubbish if you win).

Let's be very clear on the word "legit" -- it doesn't have to mean that you like their views. It means that they are employed and conduct research at recognized universities.

If you want to take the bet -- it's on!

 

[groggy]

LMAO. I'm middle aged, but my memory isn't so bad as to have forgotten how you praised AK-47's summary of the footnotes -- a summary that AK-47 had admitted was absolute gibberish. :biggrin1:

I didn't praise, I said he missed the point.
But yes, I admit I skimmed his post and should have caught the bullshit.
Won't happen again.

Dares are no fun. Let's make it a friendly bet.

Same wager as the previous bet (the Delingpole book if I win, Mann's rubbish if you win).

Let's be very clear on the word "legit" -- it doesn't have to mean that you like their views. It means that they are employed and conduct research at recognized universities.

If you want to take the bet -- it's on!

Ok, the bet is on, find me three legit climatologists.

 

[drgeox]

In reply to a question earlier in the thread about the condition of the Antarctic ice sheets. The land ice is increasing in area. The sea ice is shrinking. The total area of the cap (land + sea ice) is shrinking.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Ok, the bet is on, find me three legit climatologists.

-- Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology.

-- Dr. John Christy, Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville; Alabama State Climatologist, lead author on the IPCC's 2001 report.

-- Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville; former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.


I win!

 

[basketcase]

The IPCC's most recent report confirmed that the computer model projections had been spectacularly wrong. Regardless of the bumpf in the Summary for Policy Makers, the actual evidence published by the IPCC confirms that we don't know whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions affect the climate.

At no point have I been "denying" that.

As for your ever-increasing calculations of the number of researchers that you say support the theory, it's probably worth quoting Albert Einstein once again:

You do realize you keep squirming and trying to change tact when faced with arguments right? That's a key characteristic of conspiracy theory believers.

 

[basketcase]

What it means is that scientific theories should be based on evidence, not phony claims about large numbers of supporters or a "consensus."

So back to the conspiracy theory where you believe the scientific consensus has been reached despite the evidence showing otherwise.

 

[basketcase]

What it means is that scientific theories should be based on evidence, not phony claims about large numbers of supporters or a "consensus."

Actually what it means is that if the theory of anthropogenic climate change was wrong, it would only take one professor to prove it. Somehow were still waiting.

 

[basketcase]

I won't find the chair of the IPCC calling for governments to cut carbon emissions? Actually, I have found that:
....

So sad that scientists refuse to stay quiet when their research shows a potential world wide catastrophe.

 

[groggy]

-- Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology.

She supports the consensus views.
Fail.

-- Dr. John Christy, Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville; Alabama State Climatologist, lead author on the IPCC's 2001 report.

Heartland Institute 'expert'?
He's a climatologist, but his work is shoddy, his errors numerous and his standing as a 'legit' climatologist nil.

-- Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville; former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.

Clown.
Believes in intelligent design, quote:

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

Got anyone else?

You lose.

 

[basketcase]

Here is a in depth read of how the 'pause' compares to the previous models.

Worth noting:
- The current temps are at the low end but still within the previous projections
- Deep ocean temperatures have been drastically rising
- Atmospheric temperatures are still increasing though at a lower rate than the previous decade
- Land surface temperatures are still going up

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/0913_Pause_graphic13.jpg
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/09/examining-the-recent-slow-down-in-global-warming/

 

[blackrock13]

-- Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology.

-- Dr. John Christy, Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville; Alabama State Climatologist, lead author on the IPCC's 2001 report.

-- Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville; former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.

I win!

I told you to check out your references for denier scientist, expanding on what Groggy reported.

Judith A. Curry is the chairman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and has held this position since 2002. Judith Curry writes and speaks prolifically on the climate change issue, and runs the blog Climate Etc.

Judith Curry has been invited by Republicans to testify at climate change hearings regarding alleged uncertainties regarding man-made climate change. She has also participated in a variety of blogs in the skeptical community including Climate Audit, the Air Vent and the Black-board.

Curry has been criticized by climate scientists for her climate outreach in the blogosphere based on assertions not necessarily supported by the evidence: particularly that the "climate always changes." Scientist Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, points out that "Climate doesn't change all by itself for no good reason. Something has to force it."

When she was questioned about potential conflicts of interest, this was her response to the Scientific American:

"I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company...does [short-term] hurricane forecasting...for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic and Joe Romm, “Judith Curry Abandons Science,” Climate Progress, November 11, 2010.

Her famous quotes

"The manufactured consensus of the IPCC has had the unintended consequences of distorting the science, elevating the voices of scientists that dispute the consensus, and motivating actions by the consensus scientists and their supporters that have diminished the public’s trust in the IPCC."

Judith Curry. "Climate change: no consensus on consensus," Climate Etc., October 28, 2012.

"If all other things remain equal, it is clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet. However the real difficulty is that nothing remains equal, and reliable prediction of the impact of carbon dioxide on the climate requires that we understand natural climate variability properly. Until we understand natural climate variability better, we cannot reliably infer sensitivity to greenhouse gas forcing or understand its role in influencing extreme weather events. [...] While 20th century climate change is most often exp**********d in terms of external forcing, with natural internal variability providing high frequency ‘noise,’ the role of large multi decadal oscillations is receiving increasing attention."

Judith A. Curry. "Hearing on 'Policy Relevant Climate Issues in Context'" (PDF), Committee on Space, Science and Technology, April 25, 2013.

 

[blackrock13]

John R. Christy

Background

John R. Christy is a meteorologist at the University of Alabama Huntsville. He is closely associated with climate change skeptic Roy Spencer with whom he collaborated on the George C. Marshall Institute Roundtable discussion on climate change in April 2006.

Christy is the Director of the Earth System Science Center of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and has been Alabama State Climatologist since November, 2000. ,

John Christy has testified on numerous occasions against the mainstream scientific views on man-made climate change.

"About John," University of Alabama in Huntsville. Accessed December 2, 2011.

Stance on Climate Change

"I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see."

"My Nobel moment." November 1, 2007. The Wall Street Journal.

BUT!!!!!

Affiliations

Heartland Institute — Listed as a "Global Warming Expert" by the Heartland Institute.

Cato Institute — Speaker at a Cato-sponsored event on global warming.

Competetive Enterprise Institute (CEI) — "Contributor."

Independent Institute — On Institute's "Panel on Global Warming."

"Nation’s Leading Global Warming Experts Unveil New Findings on Climate Change" (Press Release), The Independent Institute, July 28, 2003.

Key Deeds

February 14, 2012

Christy released a study that claimed snowfall in the Sierra Nevada has remained consistent for 130 years, with no noticeable effect from climate change.

James Taylor of the Heartland Institute penned a Forbes article where he claimed that Christy's findings "refute frequent assertions by global warming alarmists that global warming is adversely affecting Sierra Nevada snowfall and snowpack." The climate change skeptic blog Watts Up With That also publicized the story.

When asked about the reaction to his paper, Christy said "In general, it depends on what religion you have. If you believe Man is doing horrible things to the planet, then you can’t believe this report. If you believe the other way, then this is a chapter in your bible."

David Pearce, one of John Christy's colleagues, feels that Christy has gone beyond the data in his study, and that Christy is making claims in the media that have not been backed up by the study itself. Pearce adds that it "is unfortunate because peer-review is the process that filters out unsupported personal opinion from what is backed by evidence."

March 8, 2011

Testified (PDF) at a hearing hosted by the Energy and Power Subcommittee to discuss "Climate Science and EPA's Greenhouse Gas Regulations."

Christy concluded that "if the country deems it necessary to de-carbonize civilization's main energy sources, sound and indeed compelling reasons beyond human-induced climate change need to be offered. Climate change alone is a weak leg on which to stand for such a massive undertaking."

February 25, 2009

Testified before the House Ways and Means Committee at the "Hearing on Scientific Objectives for Climate Change Legislation."

Here is a summary of Christy's testimony:

"Dr. John Christy was skeptical whether there was any way for the U.S. to make detectable changes in global warming. He feared that the scale of carbon emissions is 'simply too enormous,' and the only possible solution is to start a large nuclear energy campaign. According to Christy, 'The actions being considered to "stop global warming" will have an imperceptible impact on whatever the climate will do, while making energy more expensive, and thus have a negative impact on the economy as a whole'."

One source responded to Christy's testimony, concluding that "John Christy has added to the science of atmospheric modeling, but he has undercut his credibility by making claims far exceeding his data and by ignoring findings that disagree with his arguments. Then he sins by distorting his testimony for a purely political agenda."

March 8, 2007

Christy appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary.

The Great Global Warming Swindle also starred fellow skeptics Tim Ball, Roy Spencer, Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Nir Shaviv, Nigel Lawson, Ian Clark, Piers Corbyn, Philip Stott, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Moore, Patrick Michaels, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Fred Singer, Paul Driessen, and others.

(all well known deniers and affiliated with Heartland and/or Cato. See a pattern?)

July 27, 2006

Testified (PDF) at a hearing hosted by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on the subject of "Questions Surrounding the 'Hockey Stick' Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments Part II."

Christy cites his previous studies that concluded "greenhouse gases are increasing in concentration is clearly true and therefore the radiation budget of the atmosphere will be altered. In response, the surface temperature should rise due to this additional forcing. In our observational work however, we have not been able to show clear support for the manner or magnitude of this response as has been depicted by the present set of climate models (Christy, 2002, Christy et al. 2006a, Christy and Norris 2006, Christy et al. 2006b)."

May 2, 2007

Appeared on the Glenn Beck Special, "Exposed: The Climate of Fear" alongside other prominent climate skeptics including Tim Ball, Patrick Michaels, Patrick Moore, Chris Horner, Bjorn Lomborg, George Taylor, David Legates, and Roy Spencer.

July 20, 2006

Testified before the House Committee on Government Reform in a Hearing titled "Climate Change: Understanding the Degree of the Problem."

August 12, 2005

According to a New York Times article, John Christy along with fellow skeptic Roy Spencer admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth's lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer.

"These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models," said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.

July 28, 2003

Co-author of the Independent Institute report "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn't Telling Us" that criticized the EPA's 2001 Climate Action Report.

Other authors of the report included S. Fred Singer, Robert E. Davis, David R. Legates, and Wendy M. Novicoff.

"New Perspectives on Climate change" accused The IPCC's 2001 assessment on climate change of being "misleading, inaccurate, unreliable, or simply wrong."

December 12, 2003

Spoke at an event hosted by the Cato Institute titled "Global Warming: The State of the Debate."

Cato claims that the event summarizes "what is known about the science and economics surrounding greenhouse gas concentrations and abatement. Moreover, it tackles squarely what is perhaps the most relevant policy issue at the moment—the potential costs and benefits involved in dealing with scientific uncertainty."

Peter Fimrite. "Study: Sierra snowfall consistent over 130 years," San Francisco Chronicle, February 15, 2012.

and

James Taylor. "Dear Global Warming Alarmists: We're Still Waiting for Declining Snowfall," Forbes, February 29, 2012.

 

[blackrock13]

• Stance on Climate Change
  
  "There's probably a natural reason for global warming . . . We will look back on it as a gigantic false alarm . . . The Earth isn't that sensitive to how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere. I think we need to consider the possibility that more carbon dioxide is better than less." [2]
  
  Key Quotes
  
  

  "We see something change in our climate and we blame ourselves . . . I don't think we understand what happens. We can watch it happen on the (climate) models, we know it happens, but we don't know for sure how it happens."
  
  Wendy Reeves. "Scientist: Warming not caused by humans," The Huntsville Times, April 19, 2007. Archived April 22, 2007.
  
  "Politicians and some of the scientists like to say that there's a consensus now on global warming or the science has been settled, but you have to ask them, what is there a consensus on? Because it really makes a difference. What are you talking about? The only consensus I`m aware of is that it's warmed in the last century. They completely ignore the fact that there's this thing called the Oregon petition that was signed by 19,000 professionals and scientists who don't agree with the idea that we are causing climate change."
  
  "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," CNN, Glenn Beck special, May 2, 2007.
  
  "Twice I have testified in congress that unbiased funding on the subject of the causes of warming would be much closer to a reality if 50% of that money was devoted to finding natural reasons for climate change."
  
  Roy W. Spencer. "Why Most Published Research Findings are False," Drroyspencer.com, January 3, 2011.

  
  Key Deeds
  
  February, 2014
  
  In a February 20, 2014 blog post titled, "Time to push back against the global warming Nazis," Spencer wrote:
  
  When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.
  They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.
  
  Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.
  
  I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.
  
  David Klepper, "Expert: We must act fast on warming," The Wichita Eagle (Kansas), September 24, 2008. Printed by the uptown neighbourhood association (PDF).
  
  July 2013
  
  Dr Spencer gave evidence to the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works session on climate change. During the hearing (at 3hr 20s), Dr Spencer was asked by Democrat committee member Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: "Do you believe that the theory of creation actually has a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution".
  
  The question was apparently in reference to an article which Spencer had written several years earlier in which he stated the "theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution".
  
  Spencer answered that he believed that "evolutionary theory is mostly religion" and that the DNA molecule could not have happened "by chance". He also claimed that if he was placed in a debate, he would be able to offer more scientific evidence "supporting that life was created" than an opponent could offer that life had evolved.
  
  July, 2011
  
  In July 2011, a paper co-authored by Spencer was published in the journal Remote Sensing, "[which is] a fine [peer-reviewed] journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science," RealClimate found. [6]
  
  His paper looked at a potential connection between clouds and global warming. The paper received significant media attention, and climate change skeptics claimed that it "blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism."
  
  Within three days of the publication of Spencer & Braswell's paper, two climate scientists (Kevin Trenberth & John Fasullo) repeated the analysis and showed that the IPCC models are in agreement with the observations, so refuting Spencer's claims.
  
  In Andrew Dessler's view, "[This] paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take Roy Spencer seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants."
  
  ("Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback," RealClimate, July 29, 2011.
  
  Scott Mandia. "Spencer & Braswell 2011: Proof that global warming is exaggerated? Or just bad science?", Global Warming: Man or Myth?, August 3, 2011.
  
  Joe Romm. "Climate Scientists Debunk Latest Bunk by Denier Roy Spencer," ThinkProgress, July 29, 2011.)
  
  In response to the flawed peer review that allowed the publication of the paper, the Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing stepped down. He had this to say: (PDF)
  
  "After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.
  
  With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements. . ."
  
  Wolfgang Wagner. "Taking Responsibility on Publishing the Controversial Paper 'On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance" by Spencer and Braswell, Remote Sens. 2011, 3(8), 1603-1613" (PDF), Remote Sensing (Editorial), September 2, 2011.
  
  April, 2010
  
  Spencer published The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climatologists which is prominently advertised on his blog.
  
  Apart from concluding that global warming is likely caused by a natural cycle, Blunder poses the question, that "maybe putting more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing."
  
  2008
  
  Spencer published Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor in 2008.
  
  Confusion is described as "forsaking blindingly technical statistics" about global warming to describe the issue in "simple terms."
  
  March 8, 2007
  
  Roy Spencer appeared on the The Great Global Warming Swindle to talk about the "Great Science Funding Conspiracy." Spencer claims that "climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding."
  
  Swindle received critical response from the scientific community, including a letter addressed to ABC signed by thirty-seven British Scientists that claimed "the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest. In view of the seriousness of climate change as an issue, it is crucial that public debate about it is balanced and well-informed."
  
  ABC Australia’s Tony Jones also brings the film's scientific accuracy into question in an interview with the film’s director, Martin Durkin.
  
  February 28, 2007
  
  Roy Spencer was interviewed on Rush Limbaugh's Show. See an excerpt below: [11]
  
  RUSH: You called yesterday and you wanted to say that my instincts on this global warming as you've heard me discuss them, are accurate. You started a discussion of the calculations here, these climate models, saying that they do not factor -- because it's not easy to do or maybe it's not even possible to factor -- in the role of precipitation and clouds. Could you start there, and basically whatever you were going to say yesterday, go ahead and launch.
  
  DR. SPENCER: Well, I feel like -- and there are a few of us that are like this -- that the Earth has a natural air-conditioning process which occurs that is mainly through precipitation systems. Now, people will think, “Oh, well, you mean when they come by they cool off the air,” and that's not what I'm talking about. It's about the Earth's natural greenhouse effect which is mostly water vapor and clouds. The Earth has a natural greenhouse effect that keeps the surface of the Earth warm.
  
  RUSH: Isn't it true that the majority of greenhouse gases do come from the sources you just mentioned, not manmade sources?
  
  DR. SPENCER: Well, yeah, that's true. Carbon dioxide is a relatively small part of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect. . . .
  
  There's a big problem with [the accepted explanation for the greenhouse effect], though. It makes it sound like the greenhouse effect is what determines the temperature of the Earth, and actually the truth is it's more the other way around. Given a certain amount of sunlight coming in, that is mostly absorbed at the surface of the Earth, weather processes happen which create the greenhouse effect because most of the greenhouse effect is from evaporated water which then turns into clouds, and of course water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas.
  
  RUSH: I dare say I have to interrupt you at this point because most people who only pay attention to the crisis mongers, believe that there is no greenhouse effect other than that created by man. The whole notion of the greenhouse effect has led people to believe that man has totally manufactured this and that it's totally harmful. What you're saying is it's a natural thing that helps keep the Earth's temperatures moderate?
  
  DR. SPENCER: Yeah, that's right. That's right. All the scientists agree with that. What you're talking about is the fact that the media distorts things so much that people don't get the right information. If you're using the media to rely on to get the science about this issue, you won't.
  
  December 13, 2007
  
  Spencer is listed as a signatory to a 2007 open letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon that denied man-made climate change.
  
  ("Watch Out For Global Warming Muths!", Irregular Times, February 20, 2009.
  
  "Facts, Science Smash the Global Warming Myth" (Transcript), RushLimbaugh.com, February 28, 2007. Archived with WebCite, February 17, 2012.
  
  "Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations," December 13, 2007. Reprinted by the Science & Public Policy Institute.)
  
  The letter states that "it is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity throughout the ages."
  
  July, 2006
  
  Spencer is listed as a "scientific advisor" for an organization called the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance" (ISA). According to their website, the ISA is "a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development."
  
  In July 2006, Spencer co-authored an ISA report refuting the work of another religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The ISA report was titled A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor: an Evangelical Response to Global Warming. Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including six that have received a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years. [13]
  
  The other authors of the ISA's report were Calvin Beisner, Paul Driessen, and Ross McKitrick.
  
  April, 2006
  
  Roy Spencer was one of the 60 "accredited experts" to sign a 2006 open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper denying man-made climate change while urging the government avoid implementing climate policy.
  
  The letter states that "climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"
  
  August, 2005
  
  According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times article, Spencer, along with another well-known "skeptic," John Christy, admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth's lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer.
  
  "These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models," said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.
  
  November 16, 2004
  
  Spencer signed a 2004 open letter to John McCain refuting the findings by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA).
  
  (Andrew C. Revkin. "Errors Cited in Assessing Climate Data," New York Times, August 12, 2005. Archived with WebCite, February 17, 2012.
  
  "Climate Experts Respond to Arctic Climate Impact Assessment," PrNewswire, November 16, 2004. Republished by the Frontier Center for Public Policy, November 20, 2004.)
  
  The letter concludes that any past warming that occurred in the arctic cannot be attributed to greenhouse gas concentrations. It was signed by prominent climate change skeptics including Richard Lindzen, Tim Ball, David Legates, Pat Michaels, Gary D. Sharp, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.
  
  1998
  
  Spencer appeared as a "Featured Expert" in a video by the Greening Earth Society (a project of the Western Fuels Association) called The Greening of Planet Earth Continues. In the video, "expert scientists assert that CO2 is not a pollutant, but a nutrient to life on earth."
  
  "The Greening of Planet Earth Continues," Co2 Science. Accessed February, 2012.
  
  Affiliations
  
  Cornwall Alliance For the Stewardship of Creation (previously "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance") — Member, Board of Advisors.
  
  Tech Central Station (TCS) — Author.
  
  International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP) — "Expert." [19]
  
  "Heartland Experts: Roy Spencer," The Heartland Institute. Accessed February, 2012.
  
  George C. Marshall Institute — "Expert."
  
  "Roy Spencer," Tech Central Station. Archived May 6, 2007.
  
  "Experts," ICECAP. Accessed February, 2012.
  
  "Dr. Roy Spencer," George C. Marshall Institute. Accessed February, 2012.
  

 

[Moviefan-2]

Good lord, Blackrock. You went to all that effort to post information -- and none of it makes a bit of difference.

The terms of the bet were:

-- That I name three climatologists who don't support the IPCC's reports.
-- That the named climatologists are employed and conduct research at recognized universities.

Regarding the terms of the bet, the only relevant parts are quoted below.

Judith A. Curry is the chairman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and has held this position since 2002.

John R. Christy is a meteorologist at the University of Alabama Huntsville. Christy is the Director of the Earth System Science Center of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and has been Alabama State Climatologist since November, 2000.

The terms have been satisfied, in full.

I win. Groggy loses.

 

[blackrock13]

Good lord, Blackrock. You went to all that effort to post information -- and none of it makes a bit of difference.

Regarding the terms of the bet, the only relevant parts are quoted below.

The terms of the bet were:

-- That I name climatologists who don't support the IPCC's reports.
-- That the named climatologists are employed and conduct research at recognized universities.

The terms have been satisfied, in full.

I win. Groggy loses.

I don't care about you idiot bet.

The point of the summary was that almost every major or high profile denier, including the three you offered up, have a connection with CATO or HEARST Institutes. Their credentials are long and full of questionable twists, but they all have worked under a dark cloud or two. Any scientist that believes in divine creation is automatically under suspicion. Groggy should have asked for creditable scientists and you should have offered up names whom are clearly not bought and paid for mercenaries of big business and right wing organizations. There are approximately 60 high profile denier hi-lighted in many anti GW debate about a 1/3 of them get repeated over and over as experts with substantial credentials and points to offer, some as many as 15% of the time, but when looked at more critically they show themselves to be little more than mouthpieces for organization like HEARST and CATO or connected to them by money of membership.