Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years.
[Despite] my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. …
Indeed, I was convinced of the intelligent design arguments based upon the science alone.
(Faith-Based Evolution, TCS Daily, 8 August 2005)
Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming …
(7 July 2016)
- 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.
- We believe [that] fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if energy is to be abundant and affordable.
- We believe [that] mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions … will harm the poor …
- [We believe that there] is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming. …
- We deny that carbon dioxide — essential to all plant growth — is a pollutant. …
- We call on Christian leaders to … embrace Biblical thinking [and] sound science …
- We call on political leaders to adopt policies that protect human liberty …
Wolfgang Wagner Falls On His Sword
Roy Spencer and Christy Mislead the World
Would you like to know more?
Roy Spencer (1955)
PhD in Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
- Wagner, Wolfgang. Taking Responsibility on Publishing the Controversial Paper "On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance" by Spencer and Braswell, Remote Sens. 2011, 3(8), 1603-1613, Editorial, Remote Sens, 3(9): 2002-2004, 2 September 2011.
Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. …
Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published. …
Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.
[From] a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process.
The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extent also in the literature, a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers.
In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view … but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents.
This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal.
- Spencer, Roy; Braswell, William. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance, University of Alabama in Huntsville, 25 July 2011.
The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.
Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing, probably due to natural cloud variations.
That these internal radiative forcings exist and likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model.
While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity.
It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.
- Barry Bickmore, Roy Spencer's Great Blunder, 25 February 2011.