Roy Spencer: And all this time, we thought you were a scientist. Weird.

July 6, 2011

When debating climate deniers, often they will bring up the names of the few scientists with actual credentials who remain skeptical that climate change will be disastrous for the planet.  Roy Spencer is usually high on the list.  The self professed “Official Climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show”,  Spencer is most famous for being conspicuously, repetitively, and stubbornly wrong with regard to some of the most critical satellite temperature measurements.  Roy has a new book, which is not about climate, but is rather some kind of manifesto of his free-market economics beliefs.

The book was recently announced on his website, and in a curious answer to a comment, Roy Spencer let slip what he’s really been doing all these years.

The complete comment-

Nicholas, I would wager that my job has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism.

I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.

If I and others are ultimately successful, it may well be that my job is no longer needed. Well then, that is progress. There are other things I can do.

And here we thought the most important thing was the objective, scientific truth.

In the video below, you can hear him fessing up to messing up  the most critical observations of his career.

Key section starts about 5:44  in.


42 Responses to “Roy Spencer: And all this time, we thought you were a scientist. Weird.”

  1. prokaryotes Says:

    And then there is this guy.

    Willie Soon: Powered by Exxon

    When does the mainstream media starts covering the topic of large scale organized crimes against humanity?

    Is climate science disinformation a crime against humanity?

    Deeply irresponsible corporate-sponsored programmes of disinformation have potentially harsh effects upon tens of millions of people

    • neilrieck Says:

      Up until now, scientists like Lindzen, Soon, Singer, and Spencer have been actively involved in protecting the income of fossil-fuel investors under the pretense of protecting the economy, but your phrase “Crime Against Humanity” exposes the actions of everyone involved in this deception for what it is.

      On a related note, please watch this 58m lecture by UCSD Professor of History and Science Studies, Naomi Oreskes, titled “The American Denial of Global Warming”.

    • Eclipse Now Says:

      My thoughts are conflicted: I’d *love* to see these guys sued or banned from their lying disinformation, but on the other hand there would be a huge backlash from the Denialista. Not that I’m frightened of the Denialista, but that it might add energy to their cause through general paranoia over stifling free speech.

      Maybe the real culprits are the media, who in the name of ‘balance’ give both sides equal airtime? That’s the crime! Then there’s Fox news, which — again in the name of balance — is allowed to broadcast their anti-science position 24/7 because other channels dare to broadcast the science position occasionally. It’s part of allowing all the ‘voices’ in a democracy — but eeewwww, are they on the nose or what? (And I’m only here in Australia on free-to-air, and yet I still get enough exposure to their idiots!)

      • prokaryotes Says:

        Eclipse “Not that I’m frightened of the Denialista, but that it might add energy to their cause through general paranoia over stifling free speech.”

        The thing is, that the orchestrated campaign funded by fossil fuel industries and there army of sockpuppets “Cyber Thugs”, undermines the foundation of free speech. They attack the basis of democracy, because a company intrest “a few rich Guys” run the show. They are either victims of the “Danning Kruger Effect” or they are crazy, probably both – risking the survival of the species.

        The Denial Machine will be shut down the moment, when people are put on trial and when their Hubs are taken down. Websites which publish deliberately false climate change data must be treated as a threat, like child-porn. This is a job of the CIA, DoD and other civil law enforcement – the instruments of the government to protect the nation security.

      • neilrieck Says:

        Speaking of FOX, it looks like Rupert Murdoch is finally getting a taste of Karma. His British tabloid “News of the World”, which he acquired in 1969 but had been in business since 1843, is going to go out of business due to the wiretapping/phone-hacking scandal which involves bribing police investigators.
        Why would Murdoch pull the plug on this money maker? He is trying to acquire more/all of British broadcasting company Sky1…
        …but that acquisition requires government approval. By shutting down the paper, Murdoch thinks he can protect the other deal (cutting off the arm to save the body). I seriously doubt that the Brits will fall for this maneuver. Once Americans wake up to the fact that Murdoch’s “FOX Network” is the unofficial propaganda arm of the Republican party, they may revolt. (Mudoch is a Australian who became a naturalized American citizen in 1985)

        • prokaryotes Says:

          “FOX Network” is the unofficial propaganda arm of the Republican party

          Saudi Royal Backs Imam and Fox News
          Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, also happens to be the second-largest shareholder in News Corp., the parent company of the Fox News Channel.

          Richard Nixon and Roger Ailes 1970s plan to put the GOP on TV

          But the thing is that you have the arabic world in the background pulling at least some strings in favor to increase the US dependency on foreign oil.

          Close Encounters of the Absurd Kind
          Non-governmental organizations – such as the Global Climate Coalition – were also active participants in the Madrid meeting. NGOs had no say in the formal process of approving the Summary for Policymakers. They were, however, allowed to make comments on the SPM and the underlying 11 science chapters during the first day of the Plenary Meeting (November 27, 1996). The Global Climate Coalition dominated the initial plenary discussions.

          Most of the plenary discussions at Madrid focused on the portrayal of Chapter 8’s findings in the Summary for Policymakers. Discussions were often difficult and contentious. We wrestled with the exact wording of the “balance of evidence” statement mentioned above. The delegations from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait argued for a very weak statement, or for no statement at all. Delegates from many other countries countered that there was strong scientific evidence of pronounced a human effect on climate, and that the bottom-line statement from Chapter 8 should reflect this.

          In April 2009, the New York Times reported on a document revealed in court as part of a lawsuit. The document demonstrated that “even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

      • MorinMoss Says:

        Speech should not be free when being used to sell lies.

  2. […] related scientists who question how important this is. Of them, Lindzen has repeated made mistakes, Roy Spencer has admitted that he sees his role more as a political propagandist and Willie Soon and Pat Michaels have not only undermined themselves through their various […]

  3. MorinMoss Says:

    I’m firmly of the opinion that Roy Spencer is a much better scientist than James Inhofe and Chris Monckton

    • neilrieck Says:

      Well you are welcome to your “opinion” but it seems obvious to most people that Roy Spencer is a retired scientist who has aligned himself with so-called “think tanks” to deny global warming, deny the dangers of tobacco, deny the dangers of DDT, promote intelligent design, and take an opposite stance on just about everything else. I have never been able to discover if he has any teaching duties, is supervising any doctoral candidates, and now suspect he now only uses UAH as an email/snail-mail drop to lend credibility to his wacky publications. While most scientists use super-computers along with constantly evolving software written by teams scientists over many decades, Spencer publishes cloud-reflection models based upon Microsoft Excel and expects us to take his comparison seriously.

      But look at his own quote from his own book on the economy: “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer, and to minimize the role of government”

  4. Roy is sadly mistaken in thinking that there is still a greenhouse effect which he likes to promote through the most popular page on his site.

    As explained on pp 47 to 49 of Joseph Postma’s October 2012 paper, and backed by evidence throughout this most comprehensive document, there can be no atmospheric greenhouse effect caused by backradiation.


    Doug Cotton

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: