All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:

Wednesday, 20 July 2016


Roy Warren Spencer, Ph.D., is a meteorologist, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. Spencer also served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, and is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award.

Roy, with 
Doug Domenech, the Director of the Fueling Freedom Project at The Texas Public Policy Foundation, have released a booklet:

The paper answers basic questions about global temperature data, climate change, and how it relates to energy policy.  

In the paper, Roy addresses the absurd furphy (oxymoron?) -  97 percent of climate
researchers agree that global warming is a serious man-made problem.
The claim that 97 percent of climate experts agree on global warming and climate change is not true, and was based upon a study with flawed methodology. 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.
Roy also addresses “the highest temperature on record."
Since our temperature measurements haven’t been around that long (100 years or so at most), temperature records can be expected to be broken from time to time just due to the chaotic nature of weather variations, without global warming.  
But let’s imagine that we were breaking the same high temperature records every year, year after year. Would that be cause for alarm? 
Well, if there wasn’t any natural weather variability involved, and we had a very slow rate of global warming occurring, say 0.01 F per year, then each year would be warmer than the previous year. Each year would set a new record. 
But who would care? What matters is how much warmer it’s getting, and how fast. 
Also, not all records are created the same. For a given weather station, there can be a record high for the date (not a difficult record to break), a record for the calendar month, or an all-time record high (that’s harder to achieve). These kinds of records are also broken for low temperatures as well. 
Roy's Conclusion:
It should be clear that the science of global warming is far from settled. 
Uncertainties in the adjustments to our global temperature datasets, the small 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. 
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.  

The paper is available here (pdf):


  1. Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[31][32] which states that "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.".[33] He believes that most climate change is natural in origin, the result of long-term changes in the Earth's albedo and that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused some warming, but that its warming influence is small compared to natural, internal, chaotic fluctuations in global average cloud cover.[34] This view contradicts the scientific consensus that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".

    1. Jay-sen Phang is a high school science teacher with no scientific credentials to talk about global warming. Thus he has nothing of substance to say except that one of the most qualified scientists in the world who actually obtains the atmospheric temperature data from satellites contradicts the "scientific consensus". This statement alone shows that Jay-sen knows nothing about science or its history.

      Spencer's arguments are sound and overthrow Jay-sen's nutty vegan, whacky spiritual beliefs, which cloud his judgement. This is betrayed by his next post which displays obvious hostility towards Christianity.

      So what if Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming? That has nothing to do with the sound scientific arguments that he presents. Jay-sen has not done enough research or reading on the subject himself to understand how the surface station data have been altered by employees of various US government agencies, as is well documented. UK has also been involved in the fraud.

      The surface station data have been altered to show fake warming trends. Here is what a Nobel Prize winner in physics has to say about the global warming hoax.

      As a final note, all real scientists are skeptics. That is the heart of science. You must prove your hypothesis and it must stand up to rigorous skepticism. Unfortunately, the injection of many billions of dollars by the US and UK government to try to promote the AGW hypothesis has created a conflict of interest for many (most?) climate scientists who will have there grants canceled if they investigate cooling mechanisms or disagree with the government/green party line of catastrophic warming. Utterly and completely unscientific, despite being cloaked in the language of science.

      Jay-sen: You need to become educated on this subject rather than trying to smear other people and try to discredit their arguments by not addressing them and trying to discredit their beliefs. Your bait and switch does not address anything of substance and is typical of the left. Open your mind, stop believing the propaganda of the left, and start searching for truth on your own.

  2. Roy spencer is a member of the Heartland Institute, a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute, and the favorite climatologist of Rush Limbaugh. In addition to being skeptical about the existence of climate change, Dr. Spencer also doubts the theory of evolution.

    1. Once again, Jay-sen Phang, high school science teacher with no scientific credentials. Good for Roy Spencer that he is a member of the Heartland Institute, they do a good work with the publication and editing of the NIPCC reports, check them out and learn some real science

      Spencer is one of my favorite climate scientists also. Good for Rush Limbaugh that he recognizes the quality of Spencer's work and his impeccable credentials. Phang's weak attempt to attack the messenger instead of understanding the message shows his lack of science knowledge. He should not be teaching high school science or indoctrinating youths with the false AGW world view.

  3. Jay-sen:

    Dr Spencer use a scientific approach to the question of Bible vs Evolution.

    You can read about it here -

    Testing Truth with an Open Mind Dr. Roy Spencer

    Starts with

    To be honest, what little I knew about Christianity bothered me! In particular, Christians in my area who went from house to house inviting people to events at their churches irritated me! These people clearly believed they were part of the one, true religion, if indeed there was one. I asked myself, how could they be so sure? If Christianity were true, why weren't most people Christians? How could anyone in good conscience devote his or her life to any one religion without at least investigating all the other world religions too?


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!