While I Mostly Agree with Conservative Climate Scientist Roy Spencer’s Op-Ed That Climate Change is Not a Crisis, I Also Know His Willingness to Put Politics Ahead of Science by His Embarrassing Denial of Trump’s 2020 Election Loss

 

     Around 2010 or 2011 I read climate scientist Roy W. Spencer’s book, ‘The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists.’ I also reviewed the book. Spencer is now a fellow of the conservative Heritage Foundation.

     I wrote about Spencer in my 2021 book ‘Sensible Decarbonization: Regulation, Risk, and Relative Benefits in Different Approaches to Energy Use, Climate Policy, and Environmental Impact.’ Spencer is a Christian dominionist, judging by his one-time presence on the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance, a Christian dominionist group. A section from my book about religion influencing climate and environmental views is produced below:

     Dominionism is based on a quote from Genesis that says humans should rule over other living creatures. Based on a 2011 article in The Guardian, there is an evangelical group called the Cornwall Alliance. They published a book by James Wanliss called Resisting the Green Dragon: Dominion Not Death that paints environmental movements as a “native evil.” They are motivated by what they call the “dominion mandate” that they interpret from the Book of Genesis. Former NASA climatologist and meteorologist Dr. Roy Spencer, collaborator with climatologist Dr. John Christy who is also a Baptist minister and former missionary, both of whom are responsible for developing the way we estimate temperature in different levels of the troposphere with satellites, is, or at least was, on the board of advisors of Cornwall Alliance. Spencer’s website’s most recent posts after the 2020 election seem to be all about using statistical science to prove election fraud against Trump. The Cornwall Alliance is also closely related to the policy group CFACT and the climate skeptic website ClimateDepot. Spencer also writes books about climate skepticism. I read his 2010 book The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Scientists which was interesting but unconvincing. He suggested in the book that many climate scientists know that cloud behavior is really a forcing and not a feedback but deny it. He also accused mainstream climate scientists of ignoring natural climate cycles like the 30-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation which he thinks affects global climate not just regional climate. Its cooling phase does match the cooling phase from the 1940s to the 1970s but other scientists relate it to astronomical cycles. By that logic we should have seen another cooling phase in the 2010’s but the reverse happened in surface temperatures, except in the satellite data where the so-called “pause” is documented in Spencer and Christy’s data, but not in other data. The jury is still out I suppose, but not looking good. He exploits real uncertainties in the science, especially around the feedbacks of clouds, which he sees as forcings. Spencer, a meteorologist, notes that weather is chaotic and unpredictable and suggests that climate as statistical averages should be too. Most would disagree with that. As an example, people with solar panels can track their output based on sunlight availability which varies and is unpredictable by the day but is quite predictable in yearly averages. Spencer also argues for lower climate sensitivity. He also thinks, as many meteorologists do, that natural climate variation is underestimated by the IPCC and others. His scientific views are certainly important to consider, but his anti-green views like denying any lowering of emissions is warranted and that coal-burning should continue unabated, and his religious views in light of endorsing environmentalism as a religious enemy of a sort, might betray some conflicts of interest.^{[1] [2]}      

 

 

 

Spencer’s Op-Ed

 

     Spencer first refutes that there is a crisis and downplays severe weather:

 

“Other than modest warming, there has been little change in any kind of severe weather that can be attributed to global greenhouse gas emissions.”

 

     He cites the IPCCs data and the analysis of Roger Pielke Jr. to back up his statement. Pielke notes:

 

“The IPCC has concluded that a signal of climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability for the following phenomena: river floods, heavy precipitation and pluvial floods. Landslides, drought (all types), severe wind storms, tropical cyclones, sand and dust storms, heavy snowfall and ice storms, hail, snow avalanche, coastal flooding, and marine heat waves.”

 

     He also cites a 2024 paper by Pielke Jr. that uses NOAA data and evaluation procedures to debunk the NOAA’s notion that there is an underlying signal that can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change.

 

“This paper performs an evaluation of the dataset under criteria of procedure and substance defined under NOAA’s Information Quality and Scientific Integrity policies. The evaluation finds that the “billion dollar disaster” dataset falls short of meeting these criteria. Thus, public claims promoted by NOAA associated with the dataset and its significance are flawed and at times misleading.”

 

     Pielke Jr. also notes that the dataset, NOAA’s ‘billion dollar disaster time series,’ which began in the late 1990s is often cited to show that extreme events have become more frequent and severe when the data may not show that at all. He derides the use of economic loss data:

 

“Climate data should be the basis for claims of detection and attribution of changes in climate variables, not economic loss data.”

 

Three graphs from the paper are produced below, The first one shows that there certainly have been increases in billion-dollar disasters but the next two show that adjusting for percentage of GDP, the cost trend is actually been going down:

 

 

     Spencer states that virtually all of the IPCC's three dozen climate models have over-predicted global warming from actual warming rates. I am not sure how he concludes this. He could be concentrating more on the satellite temperature data than the surface data. He notes quite correctly that sea level rise has been occurring since the 1800s, before human increases in CO2 output, and that any signal of its acceleration is not very clear, if even present. He also states that tropical reef damage due to higher ocean acidity has also been less than predicted. He refers to Net Zero by 2050 goals as “extremist.” I would not go that far. I would rather refer to them as overly aspirational.

     One might say he ignores other data such as the accelerated warming in the Arctic region, observed changes in warming in other geographic regions, changes in the geographic extent of species due to warming, and increases in extreme heat in some regions. He attributes the extreme heat in cities to the urban heat island effect.

     He also notes the benefits of CO2: the influence of CO2 on the increases in crop yields and increases in growing seasons in high latitudes. For the latter, he cites an article by Jadu Dash that states:

 

“Over the last thirty years, the vegetation growth period has lengthened by around a month.”

 

“It’s a fact: climate change is increasing temperatures, drought frequency and extreme weather events.”   

 

     Thus, Spencer here kind of acknowledges that the ‘modest warming’ he favors as the most accurate assessment, does have some significant effects on climate by extending groweing seasons. He does not address the second quote.

     Finally, Spencer asserts that we have all been misled and there is no climate crisis. Perhaps, but there is certainly a climate situation that certainly has the potential to get worse if there is no curb on anthropogenic CO2. When impacts would occur is not yet clear but as data certainly suggest changes in growing season lengths and species biological ranges, there are clearly signals of warming that is causing those effects or the effects themselves are the signals. Attribution science is notoriously difficult and will likely remain so. Therefore, it will remain easy for each “side” of the climate argument to use the same data to reach opposite conclusions. Climate scientists are not stupid. Spencer may disagree with that since he disagrees with most climate scientists. He may not see them as stupid but clearly, he sees them as misinformed and under the influence of the climate change activism crowd. If more climate scientists agreed with Spencer and other climate skeptics, it would perhaps make it easier for me as well. However, judging by his political and religious leanings and his lack of support among other climate scientists I would say that his op-ed should be taken with a grain of salt, although it is certainly worth considering and pondering.

 

 

 References:

---

[1] Spencer, Roy W., 2010. The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists. Encounter Books.

[2] Hickman, Leo, May 5, 2011. The US Evangelicals Who Believe Environmentalism is a ‘Native Evil.’ The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/may/05/evangelical-christian-environmentalism-green-dragon

Commentary: Climate change: The science doesn’t support the heated rhetoric. Opinion by Roy W. Spencer, The Heritage Foundation. Tribune News Service. October 10, 2024. Commentary: Climate change: The science doesn’t support the heated rhetoric (msn.com)

What the IPCC Actually Says About Extreme Weather. I promise, you'll be utterly shocked. Roger Pielke Jr. The Honest Broker. July 19, 2023. What the IPCC Actually Says About Extreme Weather (substack.com)

Scientific integrity and U.S. “Billion Dollar Disasters”, Roger Pielke Jr. npj Natural Hazards volume 1, Article number: 12 (June 2024). Scientific integrity and U.S. “Billion Dollar Disasters” | npj Natural Hazards (nature.com)

What impact does climate change have on the seasons? Institute Polytechnique De Paris. Jadu Dash. April 16th, 2024. What impact does climate change have on the seasons? (polytechnique-insights.com)