That's a shame,
TheVat! Quite naively, I accepted this fellow's biography at face value. I see where Wikipedia says he is a member of the CO2 Coalition, a member of a group of 55 scientists who believe that carbon dioxide plays a minor role in Climate Change.
I see that a number of his papers, like the one I used above for Climate Sensitivity, have been accepted by Geophysical Research Letters, which is a peer-reviewed Journal. Has this paper been questioned? Did the Editor and the reviewing peers make an error in accepting it for publication? What is going on? I'm not familiar with all this intrigue about 'climate change' personalities.
I looked at the link you provided (starting with
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/05 ... er-bullet/). It had everything to do with one paper only, one that
Spencer had published on ocean warming and climate sensitivity. And it confirmed that
Spencer had acknowledged that he had made an error and that he had corrected it. I've seen no criticism of the above paper on Climate Sensitivity associated with Measured Cloud radiative forcing and temperatures. I tried to follow a couple of the links to Climate Sensitivity papers by
Hansen in the trail of that link, but on both occasions, the site recorded something like 'no such site'.
This is a new experience in life for me. I've always been an independent thinker. I am not a member of any group of any kind. I was looking at the science as published and accepted by other scientists (peer-reviewed) and all of a sudden, I'm being told that such science is not acceptable to this forum, because there are 'questions' about the
associations of the author publishing it.
As I've said many times, my opinion of the original science (by
Hansen that 'global warming' is occurring), is that it was poorly based. He did not ensure that the worldwide weather stations whose data he used, had provided anything like homogeneous data over the century. He just went ahead and did the statistics before announcing he had detected 'global warming'. He then dogmatically stated that carbon dioxide was the cause, without repeating the work of
Tyndall from the 1860s. He was the person who suggested that the UN should set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and it's now history that the IPCC appears to have assumed that
Hansen was correct. As we know, it took a weatherman and 600 volunteers to check on the homogeneity of the weather stations, and in spite of appeals for more basic experimentation to be conducted in other areas, the most basic of science has not been conducted.
This applies to Climate Sensitivity as well. The IPCC uses what amounts to proxy data and modelling to produce a Climate Sensitivity factor and when two other scientists use real life experiments to produce Climate Sensitivity figures that are a fraction of those used by the IPCC, the latter being in a peer-reviewed Journal, I'm told that the science is unacceptable because of the
associations, NOT THE SCIENCE, of the authors.
I'll leave it at that without discussing any more of the science, but I would like to reproduce the atmospheric temperature graph of
Spencer's up to January 2020, because it negates the sceptics' proposition that the satellite record does not show a warming since 1998, and puts the current 'warming belief' (not necessarily carbon dioxide sensitivity) back on track. It was the pursuit of checking the sceptics' statement that "warming had not occurred since 1998" that brought me into contact with this graph by
Roy Spencer. IPCC supporters should be pleased with this work of
Spencer's. How could a biased scientist possibly produce a graph confirming 'global warming'?