Former NASA scientist dispels notion global warming is ‘settled’ science

By |2016-07-20T23:21:01+00:00July 20th, 2016|Climate|16 Comments

A former NASA climate scientist has put out a new report criticizing the argument that global warming is settled science.

“It should be clear that the science of global warming is far from settled,” said Dr. Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist who now co-runs a major satellite temperature dataset at the University of Alabama-Huntsville.

“Uncertainties in the adjustments to our global temperature datasets, the Daily Caller  New Foundationsmall amount of warming those datasets have measured compared to what climate models expect, and uncertainties over the possible role of Mother Nature in recent warming, all combine to make climate change beliefs as much faith-based as science-based,” Spencer wrote in a report published by the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation.

“Until climate science is funded independent of desired energy policy outcomes, we can continue to expect climate research results to be heavily biased in the direction of catastrophic outcomes,” Spencer wrote.

 Spencer’s report covers a wide swath of climate science topics from the factors behind global warming, to how scientists make adjustments to climate data, to the “97 percent” consensus figure often cited by politicians and environmentalists.

“Besides, if global warming is settled science, like gravity or the Earth not being flat, why isn’t the agreement 100 percent?” Spencer asked. “And since when is science settled by a survey or a poll? The hallmark of a good scientific theory is its ability to make good predictions.”

“From what we’ve seen, global warming theory is definitely lacking in this regard,” Spencer wrote.

Spencer also explained why climate models tend to over-predict how much warming will occur as greenhouse gas emissions rise. Spencer argues a warming bias is built into the models themselves.

“Since climate models can be ‘tuned’ to produce a rather arbitrary amount of warming, they were tuned to be ‘sensitive’ enough so increasing carbon dioxide alone was sufficient to cause the observed warming,” he wrote.

“It was assumed that there was no natural component of the warming, since we really don’t know the causes of natural climate variations,” he wrote. “As a result, none of the models were prepared for the global warming “hiatus” we have experienced since about 1997, because their climate sensitivity was set too high. The models continued to warm after 2000, while the real climate system essentially stopped warming.”

Indeed, Spencer’s satellite data, which measures the average temperature of the lowest few miles of the atmosphere, showed no significant global warming trend for more than 21 years before an incredibly powerful El Nino warming event hit late last year.

El Nino is a naturally occurring warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean and tends to warm the planet. Satellite temperatures are extremely sensitive to El Ninos (and La Nina cooling events), so mid-tropospheric readings spiked in early 2016.

But temperatures have come down after El Nino faded, and now it looks like a La Nina is setting in. Some even expect the so-called “hiatus” in global warming to return after this year’s La Nina ends.

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller


  1. Immortal600 July 21, 2016 at 7:41 PM

    Ooops! Not all 31 scientific societies actually signed the AAAS ‘consensus’ letter


    • Dano2 July 24, 2016 at 8:04 PM

      Disinformation site! Drink!



      • Brin Jenkins July 25, 2016 at 3:24 PM

        Again no info just a one line idiots comment.

        • Dano2 July 25, 2016 at 4:58 PM

          Incapable of identifying information. Standard fare.



  2. Immortal600 July 21, 2016 at 7:45 PM
    • Ian5 July 21, 2016 at 10:21 PM

      Oops! The sensationalist c3headlines misinformation story is junk science which misrepresents the conclusions of Professor Turner’s work.

      • Brin Jenkins July 22, 2016 at 2:39 AM

        Now show us how C02 changes from being an effect of heat into the driving force behind it.

        Perhaps you are one of the misled students referred to?

    • Dano2 July 24, 2016 at 8:05 PM

      Actually, Antarctic ice sheets are not growing, as you know.



    • Dano2 July 24, 2016 at 8:06 PM

      Actually, that study does not say Antarctica is not warming, as you know.



    • Lincoln July 27, 2016 at 2:16 PM

      You should simply do as I have done and do this. ‘This user is blocked’ ▼

      • Immortal600 July 27, 2016 at 5:51 PM

        Which one? There are several climate zealots that troll here.

  3. Immortal600 July 25, 2016 at 1:31 PM
    • Dano2 July 25, 2016 at 5:13 PM

      The ice cap is not growing NOW.



  4. Lincoln July 27, 2016 at 2:13 PM

    In addition, MAY 10, 2016 Study Finds “No significant global precipitation change from 1850 to present”

    Precipitation measurements made at nearly 1000 stations located in 114 countries were studied. Each station had at least 100 years of observations resulting in a dataset comprising over 1½ million monthly precipitation amounts.

  5. Commoncents July 28, 2016 at 6:40 PM

    “Until climate science is funded independent of desired energy policy outcomes, we can continue to expect climate research results to be heavily biased in the direction of catastrophic outcomes.” That is a true statement. Anyone who has ever applied for, or is familiar with the process of requesting government grants KNOWS that the results of said “scientific studies” will be politically skewed. They’re not going to kill (or dare to contradict) the goose that lays their golden eggs.

Comments are closed.