Roy Spencer lets ideology get in the way of science. His website contained a description of absorption cross sections that was clearly wrong. Specifically, he equated the van der Waals size of a molecule with its infrared absorption cross section. If the same pseudo science came from an uneducated person, ignorance would be a valid excuse. A physics PhD, particularly one studying spectroscopy knows that the dipole moment that matters. I don't think Spencer's credentials are fake, rather I think he chose to post intentionally misleading information. That poses a dilemma because Spencer might have something useful to contribute, but his credibility is compromised.
Roy Spencer, Is an intelligent, honest, dedicated scientist who worked many years for NASA, he also is a christian,
He is not a skeptic poster boy, he does not even deny global warming, just believes its effects are over exaggerated.
I am not sure I agree with all he says, but I know that unlike many scientists and politicians these days he has integrity.
Check out his website http://drroyspencer.com/ including the global warming 101 link at the side.
His latest paper was so toxic that the alarmists forced the editor of a journal to claim it should ever have been approved. A rebuttal paper was approved very fast at GRL, and it ended up having to be reworked because major errors were pointed out by ... Roy Spencer.
Unlike other climate scientists, he doesn't have a bunch of wrong predictions under his belt.
It really doesn't matter in terms of forming an opinion. Look at the data. Look where it came from. Look at the conclusions drawn. Learn to separate conjecture from valid inductive reasoning. Learn to spot agendas.
Also learn that the average global mean temperature hasn't drifted by more than a degree in 150 years. That implies a stable steady climate in spite of any human caused influences.
C, your answer drips of ignorance on the face of it. See if you can figure it out.
Roy Spencer is a major climate science denier, even though his work has helped demonstrate human-caused global warming is real. His problem is that he lets his ideology over-rule the science. He does not seem to be able to understand the difference, or at least the borders, between science, religion, and politics.
Let me refer you to 2 previous questions, one of which I answered, and one of which I asked:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
He's a good man and a very accomplished scientist.
Here's his Wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer...
-----------------------
check out what problems his theories have at realclimate. search for 'spencer'. He's an expert at remote sensing but his views on AGW are out of wack with reality, like his views on creationism.
Diehard skeptic who thinks AGW is natural http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer
I have done the Wiki thing.The climate scientist,the right of centre politics,the belief in ID and a contrary view of climate science. Is he just a sceptic poster boy or does he have something to say?
