Bad astronomy weighed in on the spencer article. Bad astronomy is still media, but is right up there among the best regarded of the "science guys".
I was rather surprised to see that Real Climate had already published an article about it. Real Climate is simply stated the absolute top of the popularly accessibel sites about climatem it is where the actual climate scientists talk to the public, it;s very advanced at times, difficult to follow even for someone like me.
Both Bad Astronomy and Real Climate said pretty much that Spencer's article was not good.
Turns out Spencer is has a history of publishing bad articles.
http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer
Quote:
Satellite Research Refuted
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.
|
And Spencer is funded by - wait for it - Exxon.
Quote:
Spencer and the Heartland Institute
Spencer is listed as an author for the Heartland Institute, a US think tank that has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Heartland Institute has also received funding from Big Tobacco over the years and continues to make the claim that "anti-smoking advocates" are exaggerating the health threats of smoking.
Spencer and the George C. Marshall Institute
Spencer is listed as an "Expert" with the George C. Marshall Institute, a US think tank that has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Spencer and ICECAP
Spencer is listed as an "expert" by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP).
ICECAP is a global warming skeptic organization that believes we should be preparing ourselves for the next ice age.
ICECAP was initially registered by a representative of the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), Joseph D'Aleo. SPPI is a prominent global warming denier group backed by the Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FoF). FoF has received over $1,272,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Spencer and Tech Central Station
Listed as an author for Tech Central Station daily (TCS), an organization that until recently was owned and operated by a Republican lobby firm called DCI Group.
Spencer, Blunder, Swindle and Confusion
Spencer also operates his own blog on global warming in which he describes himself as a "climatologist, author, [and] former NASA scientist." On his blog, Spencer states that "the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming in the last 100 years."
Spencer also published a book in April, 2010, titled 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."
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." In other words, the book tries to sidestep any valid research on climate change.
Roy Spencer also appeared on the notorious film 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."
|
So, basically Spencer is a prominent global warming denier.
Which means he is hardly unbiased. There are plenty of less biased satelite measurment experts, in a few months we should have comment from other such experts.
However, because science is what it is, actual climate scientists will certainly read his article and see wether or not his conclusions have merit.
I guess I should post what Bad Astronomy and Real Climate had to say.