2014 as the mildest year: Why you are being misled on global temperatures

OR: Why I should have been an engineer rather than a climate scientist

By Roy Spencer

RoySpencerI’ve been inundated with requests this past week to comment on the NOAA and NASA reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record. Since I was busy with a Japan space agency meeting in Tokyo, it has been difficult for me to formulate a quick response.

Of course, I’ve addressed the “hottest year” claim before it ever came out, both here on October 21, and here on December 4.

In the three decades I’ve been in the climate research business, it’s been clear that politics have been driving the global warming movement. I knew this from the politically-savvy scientists who helped organize the UN’s process for determining what to do about human-caused climate change. (The IPCC wasn’t formed to determine whether it exists or whether is was even a threat; that was a given.)

I will admit the science has always supported the view that slowly increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels should cause some warming, but the view that this would is any way be a bad thing for humans or for Nature has been a politically (and even religiously) driven urban legend.

I am embarrassed by the scientific community’s behavior on the subject. I went into science with the misguided belief that science provides answers. Too often, it doesn’t. Some physical problems are simply too difficult. Two scientists can examine the same data and come to exactly opposite conclusions about causation.

We still don’t understand what causes natural climate change to occur, so we simply assume it doesn’t exist. This despite abundant evidence that it was just as warm 1,000 and 2,000 years ago as it is today. Forty years ago, “climate change” necessarily implied natural causation; now it only implies human causation.

What changed? Not the science…our estimates of climate sensitivity are about the same as they were 40 years ago.

What changed is the politics. And not just among the politicians. At AMS or AGU scientific conferences, political correctness and advocacy are now just as pervasive as as they have become in journalism school. Many (mostly older) scientists no longer participate and many have even resigned in protest.

Science as a methodology for getting closer to the truth has been all but abandoned. It is now just one more tool to achieve political ends.

Reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record feed the insatiable appetite the public has for definitive, alarming headlines. It doesn’t matter that even in the thermometer record, 2014 wasn’t the warmest within the margin of error. Who wants to bother with “margin of error”? Journalists went into journalism so they wouldn’t have to deal with such technical mumbo-jumbo. I said this six weeks ago, as did others, but no one cares unless a mainstream news source stumbles upon it and is objective enough to report it.

In what universe does a temperature change that is too small for anyone to feel over a 50 year period become globally significant? Where we don’t know if the global average temperature is 58º or 59º or 60º F, but we are sure that if it increases by 1º or 2º F, that would be a catastrophe?satellitet

Where our only truly global temperature measurements — the satellites — are ignored because they don’t show a record warm year in 2014?

In what universe do the climate models built to guide energy policy are not even adjusted to reflect reality, when they over-forecast past warming by a factor of 2 or 3?

And where people have to lie about severe weather getting worse (it hasn’t)? Or where we have totally forgotten that more CO2 is actually good for life on Earth, leading to increased agricultural productivity, and global greening?:




Estimated changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL).

It’s the universe where political power and the desire to redistribute wealth have taken control of the public discourse. It’s a global society where people believe we can replace fossil fuels with unicorn farts and antigravity-based energy.

Feelings now trump facts.

At least engineers have to prove their ideas work. The widgets and cell phones and cars and jets and bridges they build either work or they don’t.

In climate science, whichever side is favored by politicians and journalism graduates is the side that wins.

And what about those 97% of scientists who agree? Well, what they all agree on is that if their government climate funding goes away, their careers will end.


Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.  Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE.  Dr. Spencer’s first popular book on global warming, Climate Confusion, is now available at Amazon.com and BarnesAndNoble.com.


About the Author: CFACT

CFACT defends the environment and human welfare through facts, news, and analysis.

  1. My Yoga Video

    Ok, I’ll comment here too. Dr Spencer writes: “I will admit the science has always supported the view that slowly increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels should cause some warming, but the view that this would is any way be a bad thing for humans or for Nature has been a politically (and even religiously) driven urban legend.” … Hmmmm this line is laughable because he completely ignores or side steps the whole greenhouse gas theory that cause polar ice melting in one fell swoop. (I was actually reading Dr. Spencer’s book this afternoon and reading a commentary on the mistakes in his book page by page.) He also never mentions heat but he does say “Some physical problems are simply too difficult.” … Hmmmm, you can’t measure the heat trapped in the ocean and then easily calculate how much ice might melt from a heat storage? I understand the physics are complicated but My father used to travel to the poles etc. and I was up in his attic yesterday looking at his huge blue parka. He knew exactly what temperature he was going to face and the temperature in the ocean depths near the poles has been measure for quite some time. It is simple calculus to estimate heat storage changes and the estimates are accurate enough to sound the alarm of polar ice melting over the next 100 years. This guy is such a hypocrite. Selling books and speaking everywhere without citing heat numbers for personal profit.

          • My Yoga Video

            ahhhh, finally we clearly see the error in your thinking … adding ice to roads lowers the melting/freezing point … that is why salty sea water near the poles is almost always at -1 to -2 C.. And, sea ice is fresh water (always) … so the land ice melts via the summer / winter cycles, moves to the ocean areas via runoff and snow / rain … and refreezes when is comes in contact with existing freshwater sea ice … this is not my theory but a well established fact about the cycles of the poles. The misunderstanding is when people confuse the amount of ice with the amount of heat in an arctic region. You are making the classic error … and believe me most high school science teachers who know about ice migration at the poles will not make the error you just made … this is not rocket science.

            • Scottar

              No, there is error in your thinking, it’s the AO cycle of incoming warm water cycles:


              Arctic Temperatures and Ice – Why it is Natural Variability

              In 2007, NASA scientists reported that after years of research, their team had assembled data showing that normal, decade-long changes in Arctic Ocean currents driven by a circulation known as the Arctic Oscillation was largely responsible for the major Arctic climate shifts observed over the past several years. These periodic reversals in the ocean currents move warmer and cooler water around to new places, greatly affecting the climate. The AO was at a record low level last winter explaining the record cold and snow in middle latitudes. A strongly negative AO pushes the coldest air well south while temperatures in the polar regions are warmer than normal under blocking high pressure.

              The International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks showed how arctic temperatures have cycled with intrusions of Atlantic water – cold and warm.

              You must be conned by the pseudo science by the warmistas. LOL


              Multidecadal Ocean Cycles and Greenland and the Arctic

                • Scottar

                  Well hey, I see your a fan of that Cook Clown. You know he’s good buddies with Gavin.

                  Spencer kind of told you. I have extensive literature on it and too numerous to cover here in one comment. But it’s actually a part of the UN’s Agenda 21. And the global elites, primarily big bankers and such, the type that attend the DAVOS conventions.

                  The perversion of science first started with Hansen and was later further implemented by the UN. Hansen used Venus as the poster child of GW. He claimed that is was the CO2 that was causing the hot temperature when it’s actually the makeup of the atmosphere of SO2 clouds and high density concentration of the atmosphere that follow gas laws, not the alleged CO2 forcing hype. And it lacks water as a moderator. It became a hot planet due to it’s volcanic history that made it what it is today.

                  Hansen hyped the science, and since Congress does not really have many scientists, they bought into it during a super El Nino cycle after 1980, cycle 21~22. Who would question a prominent scientist at the time who was head of NASA’s GISS? And the main stream media, owned by only 6~7 corporations at the time, obliged Hansen and his fellow enviro alarmists for a power play. Since Hansen got promoted to the director position of GISS, the climate research arm of NASA, almost an agency to itself, he ostracized or ‘reassigned all those who opposed him. In days of old, rulers would just have their opponents killed or banned. But from that point on Hansen got loonier and loonier.




                  Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry

                  In 1986, Hansen predicted in congressional testimony that the Earth would be some 2 degrees warmer within 20 years. Since that time it may have changed 0.25 degrees?.

                  UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for ‘high crimes against humanity’ for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008

                  When Hansen started politicizing global warming the progressive lefties got involved and spread the propaganda of AGW. They infiltrated various agencies, especially after the IPCC got created. They politicizing of AGW is covered here basically:


                  and here


                  And I have several very extensive articles of how the IPCC hijacked the science I have yet to dig up, but these are the best and most comprehensive overviews. With further encroachment of the new enviro left various science agencies got taken over at the board levels and decent was stifled:


                  Peer Review And ‘Pal Review’ In Climate Science

                  The science morphed into back scratching cronyism for power and money. This is especially true for politicos who thrive on power and corruption. So that’s basically how the science got hijacked and corrupted since the 70s. I have many articles and news items to further prove that.

    • Scottar

      I think your statement is laughable as you ignore the effects of the sun. Dr. Spencer is a certified scientist- climatologist. He works with statutes through a contract with NASA. He has a background in meteorology and experience to boot.

      Dr. Roy Spencer: B.S. in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Michigan; M.S. and Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

      Before you can understand climate you must understand meteorology and I think Dr. Spencer understands both well.

      And as funcky321 points out the ice caps and Greenland are not melting outside of natural viability and tectonic influences. You fail to understand the underlying climate balancing system that causes spurious melting cycles which then recover.

      • My Yoga Video

        Scottar, my expertise and original training is in understanding and dealing human error when interpreting complex data. I have worked with many Phd’s that are experts in many fields especially in understanding the interpretation mistakes people make. Originally I worked for the U.S, Navy on battle scenarios and how to the display the data to the commanders. We were creating new ways of displaying the complex data involved in protecting an aircraft carrier from various types of attacks. A very complex problem subject to many types of human errors. After that, because of our great success, they had me work on the undersea battle / detecting submarines problem. I worked with people like those portrayed in the movies Top Gun and Hunt for Red October (some of the character in those movies were based upon real people like Kelly McGillis, Tom Cruise’s girlfriend … she used to visit our office and we went to her office). After 8 years of military big data problems I went to work for the mining industry and their environmental pollution issues of contaminating ground water wells, after that I worked on stock market problems of interpreting data. Each of these tasks took several years to complete. Just because someone has a Phd means nothing to me. They just need to attend a university and complete coursework. Often the Phd researchers get statistical help because the math is not easy for them. I saw it all the time. Complex math like multi-vartiate Statistic, correlations, and combinatorics are really easy for me. My mind sees the issues immediately. Dr. Spencer clearly does not or he has alternative motives. The correlations in climate data are the big warning bell ringing loudly. Yes it is a complex problem and it is possible that the heat in the ocean could start radiating back into outer space at increasing rates or the heat could somehow get reabsorbed into the earths core but that is not what we are seeing via the correlations right now. An evaporative cooling effect from an increase in cloud cover balanced by a water vapor greenhouse effect and again balanced by a cloud cover that reduces solar radiation from reaching the surface is the complexity that Dr. Spencer references and has some experiences in understanding. Those are good points that he makes. We really do not understand that trifecta of interactions and how those three effects (and a few others) affect re-radiation back into outerspace. But, the correlations are still ringing the big warning bell loudly despite the complexity involved in understanding those three. The correlations simply do not change because of 18 years of potentially flat land/air temperatures because the collection of heat energy has continued to increase via the ocean and the surface temperature correlates with it over the duration of the increase. Several times over the years I have asked skeptical meteorologists to sit down and talk math privately or publicly. They wont do it because it appears they are afraid of looking bad. I can be really intimidating because my grasp of the issues involved in understanding complex math models is usually very immediate. It is my natural skill. When I was younger and more aggressive my boss would tell me not to talk too much during a meeting because I would shut too many people down and stifle creativity. So he had me summarize the meeting at the end and then see if they had objections. So sorry if I come across as trying to shut you down too firmly. I just believe that the conservative fear of harming the economy by shifting away from fossil fuels is unfounded. I volunteered for Ted Talks last year a bit and heard some pre talks that were not ready to be rel talks about some technologies that should create amazing electric cars that charge in minutes and home heating solutions via simple geothermal pumps that bore only 20-30 feet under any home. There is a very bright alternative energy future.

        • Scottar

          But as Spencer has pointed out the science has been politicized and perverted. And he has support on that:


          John Casey is a former White House space program adviser, consultant to NASA Headquarters, and space shuttle engineer. He is now one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts. John is a former White House space program adviser, consultant to NASA headquarters, and space shuttle engineer. He is now one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts. In short, John is the very definition of a government insider. He spent 35 years conducting classified research, examining confidential documents, and directing critical scientific programs.


          Reaching 400 ppm of CO2 Is No Milestone

          Your paper states atmospheric carbon dioxide has reached 400 parts per million, a level that “has not been this high for at least 3 million years.” But 90,000 (!) measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide were made between the years 1812 and 1961 and published in 175 technical papers. These measurements were made by top scientists, including 2 Nobel Prize winners, using techniques that are standard textbook procedures. Ernst Georg Beck made a monumental compilation of these carbon dioxide measurements and graphed 5-year averages, which smooth irregularities and show trends rather than an individual year that might be an anomaly. His work shows an average of 440 ppm carbon dioxide for the years 1820 and 1940. Furthermore, ice cores show over 400 ppm in 1700 A.D. and 200 A.D., as well as 10,000 years ago. Samples from Camp Century (Greenland) and Byrd Camp (Antarctica) range from 250 to nearly 500 ppm over the last 10,000 years.

          So I’m not blown away by your background. The math may be right, but if the data and parameters are wrong then it’s GIGO!


          AGW Falsified: NOAA Long Wave Radiation Data Incompatible with the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming

          • My Yoga Video

            yes, science gets distorted, I trust my judgement … I do not vote liberal or conservative … I vote for issues. I think obamacare is stupid (a special tax just on health care that prevents or slows healthy behavior changes), I think allowing for so many abortions is stupid (pregnancy prevention must be the key), I think executing criminals is stupid (many are suicidal and are taking a “death by justice system” approach), I think protecting the environment is very important and can be good for business (just like WWII boosted the economy), on and on it goes. And, the heat in the OCEAN plus the LAND does not correlate with increased Solar radiation from the sun. It correlates with CO2.

            • Scottar

              You certainly seem to be in bed with the warmistias. I have viewed much research on that and the CO2 increase has a 500~800 year lag from temperature increases according to the ice cores. I have seen 2 papers that show this lag in real modern time.

              And since human emissions account for only at most 5% of the recent 45ppm increase of the temp pause, human emissions statistically really can’t account for the past 2 century warming trend.

              On top of that the greenhouse effect is mostly atmospheric pressure/density. That is why Mars is cold and Venus is hot. Here it’s just right and water has a lot to do with it, vapor, liquid and ice.

              And these 2 sites show that it’s mostly the sun that climate dances to:


              Ernst-Georg Beck 2006-2010; Real-CO2; last update 08 August 2010



              The effects of CO2 got hyped as the politicos realized it could lead to more control and more pickpocketing of the masses via the excuse that the puny emissions of humans where the cause of bogus accelerated warming when it’s actually within normal limits of climate change. The physics don’t support it.

              • My Yoga Video

                Scottar, although I have said it many times before, heat is what matters. 2nd tier 3rd tier “scientists” are going to cherry pick temperature data like you tend to post over and over again. But, you never ever post heat correlations because then you are directly up against the climate modelers who tend to be warmistas because that is the trend when you are not cherry picking. A “global warming” test type of climate model is a statistical research into what correlates to the heat. You never post heat related correlation and neither do your sources because then they cannot cherry pick.

                The shift of ice from land to sea at the poles is a heat related correlation (just not entirely global). Ocean temperatures are heat related and correlate to CO2. Solar radiation changes have been shown to be small contributors to heat in terms of correlation.

                I would be interested in the stat data for : “And since human emissions account for only at most 5% of the recent 45ppm increase of the temp pause” … it sound like a statistical distortion that people make to divert attention from reality. 5% of what from what data source? Sounds like someone is measuring all sources of CO2 and not just the additional via fossil fuels … which would mean whoever gave you the info was an attention seeker looking for a useless dramatic non-point to make. If not please inform me of this revelation.

                • Scottar

                  Cherry pick temperatures? GISS, NOAA and HadCrut have been shown to have done that, even adjusted them to accentuate warming.




                  Jan 25, 2012

                  NASA Games

                  “A “global warming” test type of climate model is a statistical research into what correlates to the heat.”

                  What climate models are you referring to? Most of them exaggerate the forcing of CO2 and have not really represented the temp change when run from the 1880 when the historical temperature data started, albet really flawed when you look at the number and quality of the measuring equipment.


                  “Ocean temperatures are heat related and correlate to CO2”

                  Do you mean oceans temps are an accurate measurement of planetary heat retention and heating and CO2 levels are a reflection of that?

                  “And since human emissions account for only at most 5% of the recent 45ppm increase of the temp pause … it sound like a statistical distortion that people make to divert attention from reality.”

                  Man o man are you steeped in the koolaid.


                  Carl Sagan was able to predict the surface temperature of Venus without knowing the composition of the atmosphere, using only Newtonian mechanics/gravity and thermodynamics. The same approach works for Earth and all of the other planets in our solar system that have significant atmospheres.


                  Jul 19, 2014

                  New Paper Finds Only ~3.75% of Atmospheric CO2 is Man-Made From Burning of Fossil Fuels

                  The findings are in stark contrast to alarmist claims that essentially all of the alleged 130 ppm increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times is of man-made origin from the burning of fossil fuels, finding instead that only 15 ppm or ~11.5% of the increase is of fossil fuel origin.


                  Jul 19, 2013

                  The Phase Relation Between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperature


                  Carbon Cycle Modelling and the Residence Time of Natural and Anthropogenic Atmospheric CO2:

                  The short atmospheric CO2 lifetime of 5 years means that CO2 quickly is being taken out of the atmospheric reservoir, and that approximately 135 giga-tonnes (about 18%) of the atmospheric CO2 pool is exchanged each year. This large and fast natural CO2 cycling flux is far more than the approximately 6 giga-tonnes of carbon in the anthropogenic fossil fuel CO2 now contributed annually to the atmosphere, creating so much political turmoil (Segalstad, 1992; 1996).

                  The warmistas are trying to hide the facts, they don’t want it to ruin their climate money machine!

                  • My Yoga Video

                    Hey, i am glad you finally brought up Segalstad. The only view that makes sense to me if I were a denier is that CO2 is correlated with something else that is the actual cause of global warming and has run its course or will not “run out of control” … and that this factor has not been found yet. Segalstad says the oceans can buffer all the CO2 and that the CO2 is probably mostly from deforestation. But, there are two big flaws in his arguments. 1) He tested his buffering of CO2 in water theory using jars filled with CO2 like soda water … completely ignoring the real world conditions that everyone else has been processing. If he really wanted to prove his theory why doesn’t he use or test his theory with biosphere technology … you know the people who lived in the biosphere that were CO2 poisoned and had to leave early. They simply could have trapped the excess CO2 using water extraction methods … hmmmm … also 2) There is a huge spike in global temperature and CO2 levels during WWII when lots of fossil fuel was used. WWII saw a huge spike in industrial output but not in deforestation.

                    • Scottar

                      Hmmmm, why do you not provide links to prove your claims? I gave you several research papers to prove my point from Ernst-Georg Beck, whose work was based on numerous other (referenced on his site), to a paper from journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/gloplacha Ole Humlum Kjell Stordahl Jan-Erik Solheim plus the new paper :

                      Only ~3.75% of Atmospheric CO2 is Man-Made From Burning of Fossil Fuels

                      A paper published today in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics finds that only about 3.75% [15 ppm] of the CO2 in the lower atmosphere is man-made from the burning of fossil fuels, and thus, the vast remainder of the 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is from land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing and plant respiration.

                      I think the science is well established pass the IPCC’s bullcrap and Segalstad would know how to accurately measure CO2 content.


                      As for the alleged post industrial CO2- temp increase, bullcrap!












                      The first warming period (1910-1945) occurring before CO2 emissions began to soar after 1945 so it cannot have been caused by rising CO2. From 1945 to 1978, while CO2 emissions were soaring, the climate cooled, just the opposite of what should have happened if CO2 causes global warming. Thus, CO2 has little or no effect on climate.
                      So the alleged CO2 forcing is not there.

                      So show your cards!

                    • My Yoga Video

                      ok, fact verified … only small percentage of the CO2 is human generated … the warmistas don’t disagree.

                      Also, the warmistas also don’t disagree about the 5 year lifetime for CO2, the the pool of CO2 that needs 5 years to be removed keeps getting larger, thus the higher CO2 levels these days … so … if is just a matter of interpretation. The 5 years mentioned and the IPCC dont disagree … someone has been mixing up terms to confuse people. The problem is the size of the pool of 5 year CO2 …

                      I am just surprised you keep rooting for the underdog scientists without credentials … it is because you believe the creationist theory is being disputed by scientists in general and therefore anything mainstream scientists believe must be false? …. Some evangelicals believe that Darwin and creationism cannot coexist …. hmmm … that is really quite a myth that confuses many people but not me … the bible was a collection of stories designed to teach principles but not to be taken literally … so the bible is metaphorically correct and literally not correct and therefore fits perfectly with Darwinism and many other sciences. It particularly fits well with Quantum Mechanics. I have a funny feeling this is not about science for you but more about religious beliefs that you have trouble resolving … I have no trouble mixing things like spirituality, God, and science … I understand them all quite well and am content with them … are you?

                    • Scottar

                      “Also, the warmistas also don’t disagree about the 5 year lifetime for CO2, its that the pool of CO2 that needs 5 years to be removed keeps getting larger, thus the higher CO2 levels these days … “

                      That’s because there is a 500~800 year lag time between temp changes and the ocean response, where most of the CO2 comes from if you read the posts links I gave you. What the warmistas have presented the masses is contrived pseudoscience and I provided several links outside of Segalstad. But you keep on believing it’s mostly anthropogenic. The ice core records show that.

                      “The 5 years mentioned and the IPCC don’t disagree”

                      Table 1 of the IPCC TAR WG1 report says that the CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere before being removed is somewhere between 5 and 200 years with the footnote: “No single lifetime can be defined for CO2 because of the different rates of uptake by different removal processes.” This is just typical of the IPCC, they do the same thing with temperature projections, the IPCC predict from their bogus climate models that they expect a temperature increase from 1~5C. If a car salesman told you that you can expect 10 to 50 MPG from this car would you buy it?

                      “ I am just surprised you keep rooting for the underdog scientists without credentials “

                      It’s their sources you moron. They totally debunked the claim about the claimed industrial CO2 increase along with the alleged temperature spiking using the raw NCDC data. If someone writes a book about a scientific subject, then their credibility relies on their references. c3headlines.com has credible sources while all you have is apologetics. Where are yours?

                      You accuse me of being a skeptic on a religious basis of faith when it’s you who is showing AGW religion in your flawed rebuttals of your AGW convictions. Even the Pope exhibits this religion. Your go to site seems to be Skeptical Science if not Real Science. I have been to those sites and they don’t allow a free and open discussion of the issues, it’s mostly Orwellian.


                      “The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.”

                      “U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.“

                      A scientist didn’t write the above linked article but the author supports his claim with numerous links to the scientists themselves with notable quotes from the the more prominent ones, and it’s not from the Oregon Petition either. These guy are solid scientists, religion nor gravy money has nothing to do with their views and reports.

                      “I have no trouble mixing things like spirituality, God, and science … I understand them all quite well and am content with them … are you?”

                      First you try to dazzle me with your dimbulb brilliance, now your trying to baffle me with your BS! Science is separate from religion although you have articles-books on the science religion controversy. But that’s your problems of mixing up the 2, especially when it come to climate change. Myself, I’m a Deist and take into account most of the major religions with ancient history.

                    • Scottar

                      This applies mostly to you with all your apologetics. “The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said in January that 2014 was the warmest year since records began in the late 19th century. U.N. experts believe it’s 95% likely that human activities, including the burning of fossil fuels, are causing the planet to warm.” All the links I provided show the official-official claims by the UN and NASA and NOAA is Orwellian- pseudoscience crap!

                    • My Yoga Video


                      Like I have said before when people talk about something other than correlations to heat, specifically ocean heat, I know they do not know what they are doing. I simply don’t care about ice cores unless they correlate with heat today. What correlates to heat today is a problem either directly or indirectly and if is indirect then the relationships should be measured and money should be spent exploring the measurements. So anyone who says global warming alarmist scientists are greedy and just want to get paid are idiots. Complete idiots. So if you are going to stick to that as part of your game plan just know I have significantly less respect for your efforts. We need to know these correlations better and better. Everyone needs this information ASAP. Denier talk is valuable only if it contributes to understanding the issues. And therefore critical review of the facts is useful so for that i cheer you on.

                      Correlations to heat are what drives the climate models, not the other way around. Without correlations to heat there would be no climate models at all. So for any denier to say “the climate models don’t work” is a ridiculous statement because they exist because of correlations that in fact exist. What a denier could say is they don’t work very well and then contribute their two cent as to why.

                      Here are some links for you, first some ocean heat graphs, and then an actual study that is probably the best out there right now.

                      Heat measurements:


                      The correlation study that explains the temperature lull because of ocean currents (I live across town from these guys):


                      So please, if you are going to reply, don’t reply with someones data that shows that CO2 is no problem at all. You are wasting my time. What I will listen to is an argument that says the CO2 temperature increase will not have a runaway effect because of X,Y or Z … that would be interesting. I would like to understand the cloud effects better but it appears no one does and there are not enough supercomputers to really grasp it right now.

                      So, even if the CO2 is getting buffered by the oceans at a very fast rate like Segalstad states, to assume that it will not be a problem is a huge leap of faith.



  2. funky321

    Growing up in the 60 and 70 I saw this start as global cooling. When that failed the liberals had to rebrand it and launch it as global warming. While all the time never having a viable solution to the problem. But that was never their mission, that was the stifling regulation of fossil fuels that have saved millions of people in poor countries. Now the liberals will say that they do have solutions in solar and wind which have not worked but in all actuality were just political payback like Solindra. When people want to use solar for their own personal use it is regulated and taxed just like power from the companies. They even put boxes on the houses that have solar panels installed so if the companies power is out they also shut down the solar powered homes. That is only politically correct you know. Now solutions that may be viable like solar collectors in space and clean coal converters have been defunded because the liberals are not really looking for solutions they are looking to reward their friends and punish their enemies.

  3. zlop

    Is Roy Spencer another, luke-warming gatekeeper?

    “I will admit the science has always supported the view that
    slowly increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere
    from burning of fossil fuels should cause some warming”?

    (1) Arrhenius, historical, net bottom warming is wrong.
    (2) Greenhouse gases Cool

        • Dano2

          CFACT is one of the best-known fossil-funded disinformation sites. Their latest is the anti-ocean acidification campaign with the non-scientist Mike Wallace. Will die soon, though, only a blip.



        • Scottar


          Monday, October 03, 2011

          The Truth about SourceWatch

          SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources.

          Established in 1983, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) aims to “strengthe[n] participatory democracy by investigating and exposing public relations spin and propaganda” — focusing largely on what it views as the transgressions of political conservatives.

          Members of the CMD Board of Directors include: Joseph Mendelson, a former Director of Friends of the Earth and co-founder of the environmental organization Center for Food Safety; Anna Lappe, co-founder of the social justice organization Small Planet Institute

          The most notable CMD Board member is Ellen Braune, whose leftist affiliations are extensive and longstanding.

          CMD was founded by the leftist writer and environmental activist John Stauber, who continues to serve as the Center’s Executive Director.

          The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. CMD isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a 2-person operation.

          Rampton and Stauber have never provided any documentation to back up this reckless claim; no cases of mad-cow disease have ever been documented in U.S. livestock. John Stauber was 1 of only 4 ‘mad-cow experts’ offered to reporters by Fenton Communications’ media arm, Environmental Media Services.

  4. NiCuCo

    Dr. Spencer says, “the view that this would is any way be a bad thing for humans or for Nature has been a politically (and even religiously) driven urban legend.”

    But his science is religiously driven. Dr. Spencer is a signatory to “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming.” There is no way to adhere to it and be an impartial climate scientist. He is free to worship as he chooses. If his religious views are incompatible with being open to the science, he should, at least, disclose that.

    The document follows:

    An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming


    We believe 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, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

    We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it. With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if energy is to be abundant and affordable.

    We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.

    We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.


    We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.

    We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.

    We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.

    We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.


0 Pings & Trackbacks