Roy Spencer responds to Dessler

The saga continues

Roy Spencer has indicated he will be preparing a paper in response to Dessler’s response to Spencer and Braswell’s original paper in Remote Sensing – although he jokes it will take longer than six weeks to get peer-reviewed (because sceptical papers are by definition heresy and must not be given any credibility, © K Trenberth).

However, his initial comments on Dessler are here. The following extract is interesting from the point of view of integrity:

Quoting Dessler’s paper, from the Introduction:

The usual way to think about clouds in the climate system is that they are a feedback… …In recent papers, Lindzen and Choi [2011] and Spencer and Braswell [2011] have argued that reality is reversed: clouds are the cause of, and not a feedback on, changes in surface temperature. If this claim is correct, then significant revisions to climate science may be required.”

But we have never claimed anything like “clouds are the cause of, and not a feedback on, changes in surface temperature”! We claim causation works in BOTH directions, not just one direction (feedback) as he claims. Dr. Dessler knows this very well, and I would like to know:

1) what he was trying to accomplish by such a blatant misrepresentation of our position, and

2) how did all of the peer reviewers of the paper, who (if they are competent) should be familiar with our work, allow such a statement to stand?

I can guess it’s because Dessler’s peer-reviewers are probably all on “the Team”, and they can’t be bothered to actually read the heretical paper Dessler is referring to (or if they did it was treated with contempt), and anyway, who cares if we misrepresent what he wrote? It’s only Spencer, after all.

Double standards at work, as usual.


  1. Misrepresentation is par for the course for alarmists. Sadly, the media regurgitates it as if it were true.

  2. Proof – the science is not settled.

  3. Peter Patrick says:

    Yep, a post like this pretty much sums up your little project. You are obsessed with petty gossip. Thats all you have to base your rant against quality and evidence based climate science on. How about putting your energy and resources into something that does some good? You could help poor kids in Africa…

    • Speaks volumes that you consider the Spencer/Remote Sensing issue to be “petty gossip”, or for that matter the hundreds of other articles based on peer-reviewed science. But that doesn’t mean anything to you – that’s fine. There are plenty of other blogs that will pander to your needs. And who says I don’t do other works for charity? Yet another cheap smear, totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, and for that matter none of your business. Pathetic.

    • Peter, can give us a little bit more substance to chew on? Just bones, no meat?

    • I think if this blog, and others like it, manage to skewer and destroy the concept that tossing taxes into a big black hole marked ‘action on climate change’ is a good idea, then it will have done everyone good. Even you, Peter. Because throwing good money, resources and capital after bad benefits nobody. Not even the African kids. Wasting money on inefficient power, unproductive assets and wholescale torching it by buying carbon promises has to rank as the most ridiculous economic concept ever derived. It’s not just the broken window fallacy writ large, it’s an entire glass factory destroyed.

      But then, destruction of wealth is what it’s all about, isn’t it Peter? The only people in love with the carbon taxing theory that I respect are the ones who admit they like it simply because they hate capitalism and free markets. It’s the ones that pretend they want a prosperous society, but are gleeful about taxing energy to death – they are the ones I worry about. Because they’re either terribly misinformed and lack critical thinking, or are just liars.

  4. this is what dessler has said recently….“People who discount the science of climate change don’t do it because they’ve read the science,” he says. “The science of climate change is a proxy for views on the role of government. From what I understand, Perry’s position is that he doesn’t want government to interfere in private lives or industry. That means climate change — which calls for a government solution; there’s no way for the free market to address climate change by itself — that doesn’t fit anywhere with his political values. So he shoots the messenger.”

    now this is scary. if all on the agw team think this…

%d bloggers like this: