This blog received the following comment from our alarmist friend David Appell, freelance writer:
“Roy, nobody who is serious about climate change takes you seriously. You’re a denier who has made too many mistakes. No one who knows anything is going to bother commenting here–they upset you so much that all you can think to do is block them.
You long ago left the realm of science. As they say, science advances one funeral at a time. Nobody believes your time series anyway. You did that to yourself.”
As many here know, our UAH temperature dataset is used by researchers around the world, including those who believe the more alarmist narrative of anthropogenic climate change. It has been validated with global weather balloon data in multiple peer reviewed studies.
And I’m not sure why exactly I am a “denier”; that has always mystified me. I’m even part of the supposed 97% that believes the climate system is warming partly (maybe even mostly) from our CO2 emissions. John Christy and I even published a climate sensitivity paper that assumes ALL recent warming is from CO2 emissions.
Also, I routinely allow comments here from people who disagree with me on the science. Very few people have been blocked, and those from bad behavior.
So, I think David was just having a bad day. I imagine these are difficult times for freelance writers since everyone with internet access can now be one. He’s again talking about shutting down his pro-climate alarmism, pro-COVID vaccination blog, Quark Soup. Too bad. So, for those who might want to send wishes of moral support, he can be reached at david.appell@gmail.com.
Gene Albrecht says
I have “no” idea what I just read nor why it appears in an email sent out by CA. I would like to understand as read it through multiple times and seems antithetical to what I believe CA is all about and what I believe.
1) We are coming out of an Ice Age…warming is part of that journey.
2) CO2 ‘may’ very well have contributed to the rate and eventual peak temperature in the future but the process end is not, by a long shot, an existential threat.
3) Increasing CO2 may well be a vital component to feed the human species.
4) Our response to climate change should be 3 fold:
* Increasing funding to find alternative sources of energy that compete $-for-$ with fossil fuel and not waste time on lower cost/benefit technologies available from wind/solar.
* Build less in areas of risk from climate based risks such as weather and build in ways to mitigate consequences costs and danger. Look at Okinawa’s concrete housing evolution for ideas how this might be done.
* If the concerns are truly for human flourishing and safety, spend money as championed by a truly genius economist, Bjorn Blomberg.
Please help me understand…and I don’t mind if you point out that I have just missed the obvious intention.
Gene
Rick says
Gene, thank you for the substantiations of Spencer’s science. I think his point was the blog was attacked, and the attack was fiction when compared to his body of work. My assessment only. Best
Alan Lee says
God bless you Dr. Spencer, by your knowledge and achievements, you are one we should be listening to on climate change. You are the champion of the scientific method which seeks the truth gather than consensus.
Liam VENNER says
I to am mystified by Mr. SPENCER’s remarks. I am and have been solidly in the Camp because there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere how can it possibly affect our temperature. What does 420 parts per million work out to percentage wise, .00042% ?
From their efforts, since the 1970’s to the 1990’s it was the environment they used to limit the worlds population. That didn’t work so they changed gears in the 1990’s, first Temperature of 5 degrees, settling on maybe 1 degree, that didn’t work, so they are now in the climate phase of their scheme. Its still population limiting or even a billion or so of population decreasing. Its still diabolical.
Liam VENNER
Liam VENNER says
I to am mystified by Mr. SPENCER’s remarks. I am and have been solidly in the Camp that because there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere how can it possibly affect our temperatures. What does 420 parts per million work out to percentage wise. 00042%
From their efforts starting in in the 1970’s to the 1990’s they used the Environment to promote population limiting. That didn’t work so in the 1990’s they switched gears, first Temperature, 5 degrees they said, That didn’t pan out so now they are in the Climate Change phase of their scheme to limit or even a billion or so population decreasing. Its still diabolical.
ROBERT SHANNON says
I don’t remember where I read a piece by an archeological scientist that said that CO2 increases are a product of warming and appears after the climate temps have increased, not the cause of warming. Did I misread or is this a theory or truth?
Matthew V says
The comments by Mr. Appell seem to have struck a nerve with Dr. Spencer or perhaps it was just a last straw scenario on the top of the countless other attacks. It is quite understandable on the part of Dr. Spencer to defend his science against those who attack his work based on environmentalist dogma rather than sound scientific principles and I share his frustration that this is the scientific current we are now swimming against. I would advise against calling on readers to flood Mr. Appell’s inbox with “moral support.” This would be easily construed as doxing, something that many on the other side have no scruples with engaging in, yet something that we should never stoop to as we attempt to advance the truth with grace.
Dan Pangburn says
About 90 % of humanity’s increasing contribution to water vapor (WV) is from increasing irrigation. Increasing irrigation has contributed to Global Warming by increasing the residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere of about 10.5 days by only a few minutes (about 12) each year. The tiny increase in average residence time occurs because irrigation is done where there is little WV and average time to travel to an area of precipitation is increased.