Posted by: Barry Bickmore | April 5, 2011

Roy Spencer’s Non-Response

A couple days ago Roy Spencer posted on his blog that, although he has “received many requests recently to respond to an extended blog critique by Barry Bickmore of my book,” he wouldn’t be responding to my 3-part review.  Now, I don’t mind if Roy doesn’t have time to respond to my critique–everyone has to prioritize, after all.  But I had to laugh at the way he went about announcing it.  “I will not be wasting much time addressing blog criticisms of my work,” he says.  Why?  “The peer-reviewed literature is where I must focus my attention.”  What’s more, he seems to view my critique as a “media attack.”

One of the downsides of going against the supposed “consensus of scientists” on global warming–other than great difficulty in getting your research funded and published–is that you get attacked in the media. In the modern blogging era, this is now easier to do than ever.

The reason I found the announcement a bit amusing was that, well, I had read his book!  You see, Spencer explained in The Great Global Warming Blunder that one of the main reasons he decided to write his book was that he couldn’t get some of his work published in the peer-reviewed literature.

The climate modelers and their supporters in government are largely in control of the research funding, which means that most government contracts and grants go toward those investigators who support the party line on global warming.  Sympathizers preside as editors overseeing what can and cannot be published in research journals.  Now they even rule over several of our professional societies, organizations that should be promoting scientific curiosity no matter where it leads.

In light of these developments, I have decided to take my message to the people.  (The Great Global Warming Blunder, pp. xi-xii.)

This expert’s comments revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of how temperature changes are caused, and as a result my paper was rejected.  In fact, the editor was so annoyed he warned me not to bother changing and then resubmitting it. (The Great Global Warming Blunder, p. 112.)

Spencer went on to complain that the media have ignored even the work he has published in the peer-reviewed literature.

Taking my message to the people seemed like a necessary step, because I have found that even publishing peer-reviewed research is no guarantee that anyone will take notice.  (The Great Global Warming Blunder, p. 150.)

This leads to another reason why I wrote this book:  The usual news outlets have taken on the role of censors, refusing to report any new science that does not accord with their worldview.  When it comes to global warming, they have made sure that only certain kinds of scientific results are reported to you, the citizen.  (The Great Global Warming Blunder, pp. 159-160)

Thus, if one of Roy Spencer’s papers doesn’t pass peer review then, well, it’s because of the grand conspiracy to silence him, so he’s perfectly justified in taking his “message to the people.”  That leaves scientists who would like to respond to Roy’s work in a bind, however, because what science journal would publish a rebuttal to a book printed by some ultra-right-wing political publishing house?  (Seriously.  Click the link and look around his publisher’s website.)  But if anyone bothers to publish a rebuttal on, say, a blog, Roy can just ignore it because, after all, it wasn’t peer reviewed!  Likewise, if “the media” ignores Roy’s work, it’s because they are “censoring” out things they don’t want people to hear.  But if someone not only pays attention, but goes so far as to do an extensive critique, including programming Spencer’s simple climate model into a computer and exploring it, it’s just another media “attack” on poor Roy.  It seems that Roy Spencer hasn’t left many options open for those who want to engage with his views.

The rest of Roy’s comments in the non-response were equally fascinating.  If he is going to ignore the pleas of his readers to respond to my critique, where will he instead turn his attention?  Well, he says he’s focusing on Andrew Dessler’s (2010) paper, which contradicted Spencer and Braswell’s (2008) claim that climatologists had been systematically overestimating how positive the cloud feedback is, at least in the short term.  Roy says he has startling new evidence for his interpretation, and will be submitting it to Science magazine (although he allows that Science might reject his paper because they are biased.)  Of course, I mentioned Dessler’s work in Part 1 of my review, but the interesting thing, from my perspective, is that even if Spencer and Braswell turn out to be right about this particular point, Spencer admits that it may not mean anything about whether climate models adequately represent the cloud feedback in the long term (see The Great Global Warming Blunder, p. 118.)  Rather, the really meaty part of Spencer’s work is his claim to show that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has likely been driving global temperature changes over the last century.  If that’s true, then the standard climate models really are out the window.  Conversely, if this part of Spencer’s work doesn’t hold water, the rest may not amount to much in terms of a critique of mainstream climate science.  In fact, in Part 3 of my critique, I took Spencer’s model apart and showed that his model is pseudo-statistical gibberish, and was rightfully rejected from the peer-reviewed literature.  Arthur Smith went on to do the mathematical proof of why Spencer’s model is nonsense.  By choosing to ignore critiques of his PDO-climate connection, which has not been published in the peer-reviewed literature, I believe Roy Spencer is essentially admitting that this key aspect of his work can’t hold up to scrutiny.  And without that, the rest of his critique of mainstream climate science is a bit vanilla.


  1. Dr. no nothing Dessler ,is really a waste of time for Dr. Roy Spencer,and folks like myself, that already know the man made global warming CO2 theroy is BS.

    The global warming models have already been proven wrong ,in that they have been consistenntly wrong on their prediction of what the atmospheric circulation would be evolving into, and hence their future climate forecast is wrong. If the world was not biased the theory would be declared dead,because it is wrong and is being shown to be wrong as each day passes.


    1. predicted the atm. circulation to evolve into an ever increasing +ao ,reality is an ever increasing -ao.

    2. predicted a continous rise in temp. ,reality is temp have leveld off ,or l fallen slightly over the past 8 years.

    3. predicted drought in Australia due to more El Ninos and a warm PDO,reality floods in Australia with a cold PDO and a La Nina ,with more to come.

    4. predicted the lower troposheric hot spot near the equator due to the so called positive feedback, between co2 and water vapor,reality the positive feedback does not exist ,along with the hot spot.

    what controls the climate

    1. solar,volcanic activity,soi oscillation,pdo/amo,ao/nao.

    All the above items with out going into detail are and wil continue to phase into a cold mode this decade ,which will result in this decade being the one ogf global cooling.

    For more details I suggest you go to Dr. Spencer’s website and look at the messages under the March 2011, temperature report that came out today.

    You and those who take your stance are already proven wrong, you are dead men walking. I would debate you, or Dr. no nothing Dessler, anytime ,anyplace. obet you

    • Salvatore,

      Your supposed “predictions” are often nonsense. For instance, standard climate models do NOT predict monotonically increasing temperature. They predict temperatures will go up and down over a few years time, but mostly up if you average over a long enough time period. Since weather patterns are chaotic, models can’t be very good at predicting exactly when those ups and downs that last only a few years will occur.

      Everyone who does modeling knows that models are always oversimplified, and so they can’t be good at predicting everything. The question is how good they are at predicting what they were designed to be good at. This is why Roy Spencer used a simple, “zero dimensional” climate model for his analyses. He understood that it couldn’t be good at mimicking every aspect of the climate system, but it might be ok for some of them.

    • salvatore del pretee, a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect ‘in the wild’.

      salvatore del pretee, you blithely dismiss the widely and highly respected Dr Dessler.

      Ignorance is curable, you need to educate yourself. Just because you can see the weather through the window, does not make you a climate expert.

    • Apparently, the predicted cooling did not happen.

  2. The tropospheric hot spot? That’s not related to greenhouse warming. It’s a prediction for warming from any cause.

    The only issue at the moment is why it’s hard to find / measure. Is it measurement error? Or equipment failure or algorithms in the observation gizmos or half a dozen other things? As always, it’s just more-work-required.

    I’ll grant you the models are way off on predicting the speed of melt of Arctic ice. But, again, more-work-required. That too will be incorporated successfully.

  3. Barry,you are taken in on this issue, but that is okay, because time will tell once and for all who is correct and who is not correct. I have many notables that agree with where I am coming from, and of course many that don’t agree ,but that is fine.

    I have past history on my side also,which your side frankly does not have because the warming that took place last century, was nothing that had not ocurred before in earth’s past history . Infact it was a mild warming, compared to previous warm up’s in earth’s past, it is not a one time event.

    Barry, the models to the letter have all predicted the atmospheric circulation wrong. Infact Joe D’ Aleo ,has shown over 30 items that the models have failed to predict. One of the biggest being the more -AO oscillation versus the more + AO.

    Barry, I have emails in contrast going back a few years ago, that said if solar activity enters a prolong minimum state ,and high latitude volcanic activity increases, the atmospheric circulation can be expected to show much blocking and tend toward a more -AO. Which is exactly what has happened. I have emails to back up, what I said ,and when I said it. Unlike yourside, that keeps changing their story to make it try to fit with the global man made warming hoax ,even when things that are happening are the exact oppposite ,of what was predicted as recently as 5 years ago by your side.

    Your side predicted as an example, a more zonal,mild winter regime for the N.H, it has been the exact opposite for the past 3 years, and I have news for you,it is going to be continuing, for the rest of this decade.

    The temperature trend for the past 8 years and especially now ,are showing that the co2 man made global warming theory is very weak, if it were not weak temperatures would still be rising as is called for ,for this theory. Your theory boxes you in on this issue because it states as CO2 concentrations increase, the temperature will go up on average. All the increase or most of it has been wiped out over the past few months.

    Barry, also you answer your own question as to why your models are not good. Reason being the chaotic,radomness of earth’s climatic system. They can’t do it,and never will be able to do it.

    Not to mention they put no solar data into the models ,or geological activity ,which just makes their predictions even worse.

    How you can say solar,volcanic ,oceanic cycles ,atmospheric cycels and how they phase in,and the duration and magnitude of the phase in is nonsence is beyond me.

    I had to send this last reply. Take Care. Nothing personal, good luck in your climate studies.

  4. ‘The temperature trend for the past 8 years and especially now ,are showing that the co2 man made global warming theory is very weak’

    Nobody who is being honest said that CO2 was the only cause, or that its effect couldn’t be hidden by inter-annual variability in the short-term. It’s the effect of CO2 over the long term which is the problem. Methinks that was a straw-man.

    And here was I thinking that climate change was defined over periods of 3 decades or greater.
    Last 30 years 360/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last: 360/trend/plot/gistemp/last:360/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/rss/trend/plot/esrl-co2/last:360/normalise

    Last 8 years as suggested by persalvatore del prete as evidence

    Looks like someone’s been cherry-picking to me!

    I thought cherry-picking was dishonest.

  5. ‘what controls the climate

    1. solar,volcanic activity,…’

    ‘Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for some 36,300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2008 [Le Quéré et al., 2009], release at least a hundred times more CO2 annually than all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2010).

    The half dozen or so published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 132 million (minimum) to 378 million (maximum) metric tons per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998; Kerrick, 2001). If estimate medians and author-preferred estimates of these studies are used to lessen the influence of outlier estimates, the range is restricted to about 150-270 million metric tons of CO2 per year. The current anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of some 36,300-million metric tons of CO2 per year is about 100 to 300 times larger than these estimated ranges for global volcanic CO2 emissions.

    In recent times, about 50-60 volcanoes are normally active on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 3.1 million metric tons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,700 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require the addition of over 100 mid-oceanic ridge systems to the sea floor.

    Global volcanic CO2 emission estimates are uncertain, but there is little doubt that the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate is more than a hundred times greater than the global volcanic CO2 emission rate.’

  6. It does not matte,r because CO2 has nothing to do with earth’s temperatures, I wonder what it will take to drive that fact across?

    Don’t you realize that, the warming that has now ended, that took place last century was one of the weakess warming periods the earth has undergone ,let’s take a time period ,of the last 20,000 years.

    Don’t you realize last century had natural cycles ,that were mostly in a warm mode, and yet despite that, plus the CO2 increase, temperatures only rose +.6C.

    Starting in 2005 things started to change, and we are now starting to see the results of this change in the global temperature. I am not cherry picking, I am just stating a fact ,that the global temperature trend has stopped going up,and further I am forecasting, due to the natural forces that effect earth’s climate, now phasing toward a colder mode ,that this decade will be the decade of cooling.

    Time will tell who is correct and who is not correct.

    In closing I put my phase in theory of solar,geological activity.oceanic temperature changes,soi oscillation changes ,atmospehric circulation changes such as the AO,NAO up against the man made global warming CO2 theory, anyday of the week. I would debate anyone ,anytime on this issue, but that won’t really matter, because long before this decade is out we will most likely have the answer. The question is will your side finally accept the answer, or keep trying to invent new ways to keep the CO2 man made global warming theory alive,as your side is currently doing now. Example, your side after saying over and over again, how the winters as a result of global warming, will be milder ,due to a more +ao, have now reversed, and have used the idiotic argument that low ice levels in the Arctic ,has contributed to a more -AO ,which is causing the severe winters and of course, the route cause is all due to global warming. That is nonsense , and I predicted, and I have the emails to back it up ,that if the sun were to stay in a prolong minimum state, combined with an increase in high latitude volcanic activity, that the atmospheric circulation would tend to be dominated by a -AO, as a consequence of those items..

    Again all that post here ,need to be honest going forward, and stop trying to SPIN things ,if they don’t work out. I will never spin and if I am wrong I will admit it.

    Will your side admit it???

    • ‘Don’t you realize that, the warming that has now ended’

      No I didn’t realise. I suspect it’s welcome news to all those scientists who work for NOAA, NASA and numerous other scientific organisations that climate change is all a delusion.

      ‘…let’s take a time period ,of the last 20,000 years…. starting in 2005…’

      Er – what? What happened to the rest of the 20,000 years? Doesn’t that ignore 99.965% of your 20,000 years? Now that’s what I call cherry picking!

      You choose to ignore forcings. Only if the forcings change, will the amount of warming change. IIRC, The forcings are being dominated by CO2, changes in land use and various positive feedbacks. Since the forcings are generally increasing, heating will continue. Heating doesn’t always result in warming, because it can be distributed where it can’t currently be measured, or result in melting of ice and snow. Warming can be masked in the short-term by variability.

      There is no sign of your future cooling. Where is the science that predicted it?

      By science, I mean ISI WoS Journal science, not secret ’emails’, to which only you are privy.

    • Now that it is 7 years later, it looks like your prediction of cooling has not played out, Salvatore. Instead we have broken records year after year for hottest global average temperatures. You said, “time will tell,” and I guess you were right.

  7. Barry, You have mis-characterized and/or misunderstood Spencer’s response. He said that right now he was too busy trying to get his current work published and that if that fell through things would be different and he would have more time for rebuttals of your writing.

    • JohnnyB,

      You seem to have added quite a bit to what Roy actually said! Where, for instance, did he say that “if that fell through things would be different and he would have more time for rebuttals of your writing”? Maybe he meant to imply that, but he certainly didn’t say it.

      As I indicated above, it’s fine with me if he just doesn’t have time. I just thought it was funny that he folded his announcement into 1) a characterization of my critique as a “media attack,” and 2) lofty pronouncements about focusing on the peer-reviewed literature, given what he said in his book about the peer-reviewed literature.

      • “…Since we will also be submitting this evidence to Science, and they are very picky about the newsworthiness of their articles, I cannot provide any details.

        Of course, if Science refuses to publish it, that is another matter. Dick Lindzen has recently told me Science has been sitting on his critique of Dessler’s paper for months. Science has demonstrated an editorial bias against ’skeptical’ climate papers in recent years, something I hope they will correct.

        In the meantime, I will not be wasting much time addressing blog criticisms of my work. The peer-reviewed literature is where I must focus my attention.”

        Clearly he is saying: -If Science rejects his article, things will change wrt his defense of his theory on the blogs and: -He won’t be wasting time addressing blog criticisms “in the meantime” while he focus on the peer-reviewed literature.

        Response: Johnny, it seems to me he is saying that if Science refuses to publish his piece, he will be free to divulge the details.

  8. I just picked 20,000 years ,to be recent, you can pick any time frame you want, and the same results ,will result, which is many temperature changes both up /down, in degrees of magnitude, much greater then what happened last century.

    The scientist that you refer to don’t know what they are talking about, because they are putting data into their models that is not complete,not accurate ,and not comprehensive enough ,which would allow the models to give a good forecast for future climate. That fact is being shown, to be more and more relevant, as each day passes by, and temperatures fail to comply with what they had forecasted.

    I would say there are many signs of my future cooling ,along with the increase in geological activity I had forecasted, due to a mostly quiet sun, with spurts of activity. The geological activity is tied into the cooling. This started in year 2005, and is now starting to be realized. You will have to see for yourself, as this decade progresses ,and the temperatures don’t respond the way you expect them to respond.

    The science that has predicted it, I have came up with ,with my phase in theory, that says if the items that control the climate,solar,volcanic activity,soi oscillation ,pdo/amo ,atmospheric circulation all phase into a cold mode, long enough, and in a degree of magnitude strong enough, temperatures will follow, once the lag time is accounted for. The reverse will happen ,when they phase into a warm mode.

    Up to year 2005, they had been mostly in a warm mode for the last 150 years or so, which can account for all of the recent temperature rise.

    Just look at what has happened to temperatures since last summer, due to the cold pdo and La Nina, two of my phase in items that control earth’s climatic system, and trump co2 a 1000x over. What does it take for you guys to see the light?

    Also since year 2005 temperatures have stalled out.

    Just wait until the volcanic activity picks up more and the atmospheric circulation becomes more and more -AO ,along with the sun staying in it’s mostly quiet state during this prolong solar minimum ,which started in year 2005. Prior to year 2005 the sun was active to very active, with no prolong minima activity, going back to 1850, which is when the last solar prolong minimum ended ,the Dalton Minimum.


  9. I am glad I can give this board some balance, since it seems to be very heavily in Barry’s, global warming camp. It is good to show there is another side to this ,and I am not alone. Many agree with what I am saying essentially.

    If one goes to these websites one will see that to be so.,, to name a few.

  10. I was coping Salvatore’s name to paste into the comment box and inadvertently left clicked. The link took me to Climate Depot. Needless to say Salvatore is likely Marc Morano or one of his denierlings. So Salvatore’s ‘theory’ is just Denialist BS.

    I include the Wood for Trees plot for the last 15 years and the warming signature has emerges from the chaotic annual variability. 180/mean:12/plot/uah/last:180/mean:12/plot/rss/last:180/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:180/trend/plot/gistemp/last:180/trend/plot/uah/last:180/trend/plot/rss/last:180/trend/plot/esrl-co2/last:180/normalise

    I suspected Salvatore was a lost cause, I now suspect he gets paid for that rubbish.

  11. Hi Dr Bickmore

    I have posted a comment on Roy Spencer’s page. Reading your review again and sifting the argument from the rhetoric you make some very good points. It took my time because your review was badly marred for me by the number of comments about Spencer’s mode of academic debate, his dismissal of critics etc. This suggested to me that I was not your intended audience. It may be great stuff for your supporters but it is not helpful for those of us who are trying to form a view of the significance of anthropogenic influences on climate.

    Having read his book and browsed his blog he appears to me to be a man who treats others in a civilized way. Some of your comments appear to me to be an attack on the man and not the issues and actually beside the point. His book was an attack on an idea and was designed to appeal to a particular audience. It made me sufficiently interested to do some research and think about the issues. I did not treat it in any way like an academic paper but as a statement of his point of view. I would have found a more balanced, and less personalised review from you most helpful. Dr Judith Curry is an excellent example of someone who has a blog where arguments at a sophisticated level are conducted largely without acrimony. I have found her discussions of the issues of uncertainty and the debate that followed most helpful.

    I appreciate that this is a debate which inflames people and I would say that I find some of the comments from those who are opposed to your point of view equally unpleasant and very unhelpful.

    Thank you for your attention.

    • Hi Bob,

      You say that I am in the wrong to complain about “Spencer’s mode of academic debate, his dismissal of critics, etc.” So do you think he was right to say that his colleagues can’t explain past climate change episodes and dismiss all natural drivers, when both charges are flatly untrue? Do you think he was right to hold up his PDO paper as a casualty of bias in the academic review process, when in fact, his conclusions were based on statistically meaningless nonsense and were rightly rejected? Do you think he was right to accuse his colleagues of “hiding” evidence for natural variations in climate? Do you think he was right to accuse his colleagues of ignoring his work without even waiting a year to see what kinds of responses others could come up with? I think any reasonable person has to admit that Spencer was going way over the top with his criticisms, so if your main concern was how mean I was to bring up all this, I question whether your objections all boil down to a gut reaction to seeing someone you admire being taken down several pegs.

      But at least you are objective enough to note that some of the substantive points I brought up are really hard to get around. In other words, you recognize that even though I expressed my disgust at Spencer’s “mode of academic debate,” I was able to put that aside and try to make valid points about the substance of his arguments. I recognize that even though I think you are being overly sensitive about MY “mode of academic debate,” you are able to take a deep breath and consider my arguments at face value. I appreciate that.

      • No gut reaction Barry – I admire good scholarship and I admire robust debate and I do wish you well and success in pursuit of your science. It is a big plus for you, in my view, that you have responded to my comments gracefully. I too appreciate that. You are to be commended on opening yourself to challenge and I look forward to passing this way again.

  12. Amoeba, time will tell,but unlike your side ,I can go back to past history, to ganer support for what I say. Your side can,’t and your side acts as if this warming that took place last century was a one time event ,that never has happened before ,when the reality is, it has happened many times over ,often times with a much greater degree of magnitude change ,compared to the last century.

    Just that fact alone, is enough to put the man made co2 global warming theory to rest.

    • Actually Salvatore, if you read Part 2 of my review of Spencer’s book, you will see that climate scientists not only accept that climate change has happened in the past, but they explain it with essentially the same models they use to explain the past century, and project into the future. Contrarians such as Spencer like to pretend this is not the case, so they can impress the uninformed, but that doesn’t make it so.

  13. If that is the case ,why has every prediction the climate models have made been wrong? Don’t believe me,just go to the website You will find a greenhouse score card study, that shows some 30 predictions the models made, and how each and every one of them is wrong. Joe D’Aleo led the study. It is based on the facts.

    I also fail to see any explanation given by the models, to explain past climate changes. Tell me how the models have explained that, and while you are at it, show me how the models have explained the many abrupt temperature changes, earth has had in the past, in the course of a 10 year period? Examples, being the Younga Dryas, Eemian Interglacial, starts and endings,just to name two rather recent events.

    My phase in theroy does explain it, by showing how thresholds can be reached, if the items that control the climate, phase in long enough, and in a degree of magnitude strong enough ,to accomplish those thresholds.

    So what you are trying to convey is earth’s climatic system is so sensitive to a trace gas CO2 ,that has increased by 100 ppm(TRACE AMOUNT) over the last 100 years ,that all other factors such as solar,pdo/amo,soi oscillation,volcanic activity,atmospheric circulation changes,albedo changes,Milikanovich cycles, to name some,cannot overcome this trace increase, in a trace gas, and that at the end of the day,this trace gas, if it should continue to increase, will cause earth’s climatic system to go into an ever increasing warm mode,due to positive feedbacks associated with the CO2. This is just ridiculous.

    If that were the case ,why then in the past ,when CO2 concentrations were much higher ,and increasing at times, with the positive feeedbacks you claim now ,must have been present back then, did the temperatures of earth fail to keep increasing? Why did they reverse, if in the past CO2 was increasing and the positive feedbacks from this CO2 increase must have kicked in? Why did they reverse, if earth’s climatic sytem is so SENSITIVE to CO2,what over came it?

    If you say something caused the concentration of CO2 to reverse, that won’t cut it, because the positive feedbacks would have already been in place, and one would have fed upon the other,only some external source could have changed this .

    In summary earth’s climatic system is externally controlled, not internally controlled, and Solar/Milkanovitch cycels and their effects, and feedbacks, are the true causes of climate change, and that will be proven this decade,I believe.

  14. Joe Bastardi, of Weatherbell, website, expresses the co2 non effect on earth’s climatic system very well today. It is just common sense, it is the oceans,the sun and geologic activity.

    This is going to be learned the hard way this decade, as the temperatures WILL NOT be doing ,as the models have forecasted.

    Decade of global cooling, I am on record. If I am wrong trash me. Take me to the cleaners.

    Barry ,you can say all that to me, if I am wrong, I won’t mnd . I will admit it, IF I am wrong.

    I have to say as of now, my confidence is quite high ,that I am correct. Will temp. go straight down, no, but the overall trend ,will be down.

    • Salvatore,

      This is why you end up being ignored. You quote a bunch of TV weathermen–not real meteorologists who do actual research in the field–as if they were experts. Then if someone tries to address one of your points, you don’t seem to understand what was said. I’m happy with the arrangement that we can just wait and see if your predictions pan out, however, so you can go post somewhere else, for now.

      • Barry, I have to agree with Salvatore in that reading many posts from believers and deniers alike I have, almost universally, found that views expressed by believers are centred on the abusive and dismissive attempts at discrediting the views of deniers. Many relying on the supposed 97% consensus as support for their beliefs. I do not think I am alone in thinking that such behaviour and reliance on consensus is indicative of an insecurity in such beliefs. Why then, otherwise, the unholy wails of protest from believers when it is suggested, by Trump unfortunately, that Global Warming theories and model predictions should be debated with a team of intelligent and informed deniers. All science should and must be debated; Climate Science is no different.

  15. I think we both made our points. For now we will wait and see, who is right and who is wrong.

    trace gas, trace increase, equals control of earth’s climatic system. lol

  16. Dr Bickmore,
    We await the judgement of time.
    I’m not confident that your mob will come out on top.

    • AusieDan.
      ‘We await the judgement of time’

      Effectively, we have been doing bad things to the climate for a long time. It’s similar to poking and provoking a large dog with a stick to see what will happen. Except we are inside the cage with the large dog and we cannot get out. Your suggestion is like waiting to see how much we can do to piss it off sufficiently that it will bite. BTW, once it starts biting, it won’t stop.

      When things really start to happen it’s already going to be too late. Since the evidence is that the climate has moved from metastable state to metastable state in the past within a very short time. There’s every reason to believe that it could do so again.

      I can’t help thinking your approach is hardly a very intelligent idea. Listen to the scientists, they are the best guide to what is likely to happen.

  17. Amoeba, the so called scientist are dumb dumbs when it comes to climate, and you will find that fact out very shortly.

  18. Stupid is an unlimited resource, nevertheless, use it wisely.

  19. Salvatore keeps sending new comments, which I keep deleting. Here’s the e-mail I sent him.

    Hi Salvatore,

    I’m not posting any more of your comments, for the following reasons.

    1. You’ve posted way more than anyone else on the thread, so you’ve been given plenty of space to make your points.

    2. Your “arguments” boil down to “It’s ridiculous to think CO2 affects the climate much. What about other factors like the Sun, etc.? A couple TV weathermen, like Joe D’Aleo, agree with me.”

    3. Since the above isn’t an actual “argument,” but just an assertion based on dubious authority, you then resort to name-calling. And you aren’t even good at it. “Dumb dumb”?

    Now go spam someone else’s blog.


  20. […] because no statistician would ever suggest such a thing.  Spencer’s answer?  He says he’s too busy writing papers for the peer-reviewed literature to respond to a critique on a […]

  21. […] the peer-reviewed literature, so he couldn’t be bothered to respond to a mere blog critique.  I thought that was kind of funny, given that my review was about work Spencer had published in a book because he claimed the […]

  22. […] of his core audience.  For instance, amid pressure to respond to my criticisms of his book, he initially said that he didn’t have time to respond to it, and later said there were so many errors in my […]

  23. […] Spencer’s PDO Model Study Group,” and include others you trust.  Roy Spencer refuses to answer my criticisms, so maybe a smart guy like you could do him a favor and put them to […]

  24. CO2 has a high molecular weight and is heavier than air. Therefore, the most CO2 is at the surface of the Earth.
    Look below.
    The water vapor molecule (H2O) has a low molecular weight. The water vapor packages are lighter than air and therefore they rise up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: