I am disappointed myself to see C lower himself to ad hominem attacks. Who cares about what kind of person Roy Spencer is? I thought that us "warmers" believed in AGW because of the evidence.
The evidence is what matters, not personalities.
To answer graphicconception, Roy Spencer has a history of coming out with evidence against global warming, and being wrong about it. The UAH satellite temperature was found to be in error--multiple times--by others, and Spencer and buddies had to fix it. The errors were in the direction that diminished warming. Perhaps this just a coincidence that the mistakes he made supported what he espouses. It is good that he fixed some of his mistakes (although I'm not sure what choice he had), but he keeps "publishing" things on his blog that would never stand up to real scientific scrutiny, yet they get the attention of the denial crowd because he is a "legitimate" scientist (legitimate, but often badly wrong).
They go to a great deal of effort to keep his papers from being published. Then when he did get published by Remote Sensing, the warmists threatened the editor into resigning from the journal, saying the paper should not have been approved. Then they got a rebuttal paper approved VERY fast by GRL. This paper was filled with errors, caught by none other than Roy Spencer. For an ALWAYS WRONG scientist who gets no respect, he sure was capable of spotting those errors. Yet somehow it is his papers that require the long peer review. You would think climate scientists would be more deferential towards skeptics and bloggers who have managed to find errors and get corrections or outright retractions from Lewandowsky, Cook, Mann, Kaufmann(Arctic warming paper), Steig (Antarctic warming), Hansen, Gergis(fresh hockey sticks from the Southern hemisphere, etc.
This guy is a respected scientist and the satellite database of global temperatures that he initiated and still manages is an important piece of humanity's understanding of climate. But among his peers he as developed a reputation as "Always Wrong Roy Spencer".
His integrity does get challenged by his peers. He's not a complete quack like "Climatologist Cliff Harris" who you cite. But he plays with his numbers when publishing research. He's known as a curve-fitter. That is, when he published calculations based on his models, he changes the parameters in order to get the the numbers he wants. For example, the mixing layer of the ocean's surface is about 20 feet deep; he has published calculations using as a parameter a mixing layer as shallow as 5 feet, then in his last paper he used 700 feet just to make his numbers work.
Spencer has stuck to his random cloud theory for 25 years despite his own data working against him. His work is not often cited by researchers and has become just a solitary observer among climatologist. He gets brought out consistently by climate change deniers because there are no younger, still active researchers who support their case. Spencer is famous now only because of his minority stance.
***********************
Where Mike get this nonsense that Spencer has trouble publishing a good paper is baffling. Mike likely has no support for his silly claim. Spencer has earned his 'Always Wrong" reputation through papers that he has published such as his last one in Remote Sensing, but especially from his series of papers in the 1990s. He published multiple papers claiming that the satellite data showed that other sources had it wrong. He even went to far as to claim that the satellite data showed a cooling trend.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1...
But he was wrong. He just didn't know how to read his own data. He didn't know how to adjust for orbit shift. It took a graduate student to catch him. This is after Spencer had advocated over years for use of Satellites, and then sold NASA into support him -- and then it turned out the he didn't know what he was doing.
http://www.quikscat.com/papers/msu/A_Rea...
For any other scientist, this embarrassing gaff would have permanently ended his public career. He is only known because he is a denier, and the denier community needs a "scientists", even if their only guy has proved to be so mistake-prone.
His only crime is thinking for himself. He has the gall to reach conclusions different than the "consensus" view, and for that he must be silenced by any means necessary.
He wrote an interesting paper on the behavior of clouds over the ocean. He has observed that as the temperature increases, the clouds thin out, letting more heat escape into space. Such a paper as this absolutely cannot be tolerated.
Dr. Spencer is not a sham. He is a Principal Research at the University of Alabama Huntsville, a legitimate climatologist who happens to disagree with groupthink. He has won four major awards.
I believe the original poster of this question claimed that Judith Curry was not a climatologist and had never published a peer reviewed paper.
When even other alarmists are slapping their foreheads at your idiotic statements you know you've gone off the deep end.
I often wonder what Roy Spencer has done to the warmies. He seems to get under their skin quite regularly.
We are all familiar with the argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy. Just in case anyone is not, that is when someone says something and you try to show it is wrong by saying bad things about the person.
I think there ought to be a sub-division of ad hom attack called ad hom by proxy. That is when you can't think of anything constructive to say so you post a link to their entry at either desmog or sourcewatch. Thanks Dook.
One of the points levelled against Spencer and Christie in desmog is the fact that they admitted that their satellite measurements were wrong. In my view, being able to admit when you were wrong is a plus point. More climate scientists should take note. Heck, more people should take note.
His main "crime" is that he is sometimes "off message" as regards the so-called consensus. That Freedom of Speech clause was put in the Constitution for a reason.
You have to include several other climate scientists if you're going to list Roy Spencer. John Christy is another highly regarded climate scientist.
Considering climate alarmism from evolutionists is as stupid as liberalism itself, then I can understand why alarmists would attack Spencer. Evolution can not be stopped according to evolutionist scientists, but they will surely try and guide the human condition in their direction by misleading them with apocalyptic tales of Anthropogenic Global Warming that will be devastating to all humans.
Climate Science promoting AGW is 2-faced and hypocritical! Always has been. It defies the intellect of humankind and our rational thinking of what the real world is.
Scientific dolts!!!
Spencer has never been thrown in jail for breaking laws while protesting for a scheme to fully implement a new world order.
114 out of 117 climate models are overestimating. Every single time that the data has been "corrected" it has led to more warming.
So we are clear as to what this means... This means that 97% of their climate models are overestimating even after their "corrections" that all create greater warming.
With results like that, only completely politically-biased tools would look at the "denier" scientists for their critiques.
I am blocked from answering, as far as I know Dr Roy Spencer is a respected scientist, his fellow scientists do not question his integrity, not even those who oppose his views
Roy Spencer is a religious extremist [2] and for him science comes second to his religion. [1]
"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." [2]
Then again to deniers bias in science is only "bad" when it comes to those scientist who accept the scientific consensuses.
Spencer is the Poster Boy for the thing Deniers claim they most object to – a scientist who allowed his professional integrity to be compromised by his subjective, non-scientific beliefs.
======
>>His main "crime" is that he is sometimes "off message" as regards the so-called consensus. That Freedom of Speech clause was put in the Constitution for a reason.<<
The Constitutional right to free speech refers to political expression.The Denier position on global warming is 100% political and no one have ever denied Denies their right to political expression - or their right to be scientifically illiterate liars.
