Skip to main content

Dr. Roy Spencer on Global Warming, 'No one knows' Comments

Many of our readers have urged Catholic Online to interview Dr. Roy Spencer as a leading, qualified skeptic on the issue of anthropogenic global warming. On Monday, Marshall Connolly interviewed Dr. Spencer to hear his expert opinions on the issue. Continue Reading

51 - 60 of 69 Comments

  1. J. Bob
    1 year ago

    Forbes had a interesting discussion on this topic.

    One of the more interesting parts is the use of how the 97% consensus figure was arrived at, as well as the "cherry picking" that went on.

    However Dr. Spencer notes something one does not hear much in this discussion, the term "we don't know".

    Given the blink in geological time, if that, the lack of proper instrumentation to monitor long period climate changes, it seems strange to pronounce with such certainty on how the climate works in over 3B years of the earth's existence.

    Current climate models can't even get the past 15 years correct, let alone the next 100 years.

    or the recent plateau in global temperatures

    So instead of distractions like "creationist" & "out of touch", something to back up ones comments might be in order.

  2. Jerry N
    1 year ago

    Layzej: "In fact, the Earth's temperature remains constant throughout the day and throughout the seasons*."

    In fact, your statement is sheer baloney and there is no fact, measurement or extrapolation of either that can be used to support your ignorant statement.

    The temperature of the earth varies widely with respect to any time, geographic, oceanic or atmospheric location one can identify, and there is no accepted standard method of averaging all these variable temperatures into one, single, non-changing "global temperature" value. Dr Spencer has developed his own method of doing this from satellite-based measurements, and his method is as good as it gets, but it still leaves much room for speculation and debate on its validity.

    Even if there were some standard method that averaged an almost infinite number of widely varying temperatures into an almost constant value, the average value of a varying number is not the actual value of that number, but only a clever statistical computation made from the actual value. Thus, it is obviously false to think that the earth has a single-valued "temperature" and it is even more false to think that the "earth's temperature" is constant.

  3. Jerry N
    1 year ago

    Here comes another party line warming zealot spouting lies out of sheer ignorance.

    Bob Wallace: "Wind is now one of our two cheapest ways to bring new electricity to the grid (along with natural gas)"

    Not even approximately close to the truth for either wind or natural gas. Hydroelectric is the cheapest method to use to produce electricity and it is greener and cleaner than wind or solar. Coal and nuclear power are far cheaper methods of producing electricity than wind or natural gas and both have much greater energy density and are far more abundant than wind can ever hope to be. An inherent problem, i.e., one that cannot be overcome by any new technological development, with wind or solar is that they both require full power backup systems to provide power when there is no sun or wind available, which occurs quite frequently. Ever priced out a wind turbine lately, Mr Wallace?

    Bob Wallace: "He's talking about "surface temperature" and ignoring the amount of heat that has been pushed into the deep oceans over the last 15 years."

    Dr Spencer addressed this in the interview. Apparently Bob Wallace does not read any better than he fact checks. And "surface temperatures" is what all the global warming zealots have been basing all their bogus nonsensical, unscientific scare tactics on for the past 20 years or more. Atmospheric temperatures are a much better and more stable indicator of global temperature because they are measured by the most accurate sensors that we have available and because they are not subject to time-variable ground effects. But the "warmers" stirred up the pot based on surface temperature data even though many of them knew it was bogus science. Now that even surface temperature data is not cooperating with their political ambitions they want to shift to "deep ocean temperatures". Where will they go next when that proves them wrong also? Moon temperatures maybe?

  4. Steve Elfelt
    1 year ago

    One of those Vatican advisors Gordo mentioned is glaciologist Prof Lonnie Thompson from Ohio State. I hope Marshall asks him for an interview as well.

    "Clear and present danger to civilization"

    This would be timely, Marshall, since the US Sec State, John Kerry, has very recently applied this same pseudo-military-emergency/policy phrase to global warming.

    Readers might like to hear Dr Thompson shed light on why Kerry is speaking of the matter in those terms.

  5. Gordo Merrick
    1 year ago

    Dr Spenser is also a creationist who believes that the earth was created 6,000 years ago. He also has connections to big oil. He was also a speaker at the disgraced Heartland Institute. To mention sea ice and not include the loss of ice on the land in the the Antarctic is very unscientific. He knows that the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic has never happened before in recorded history. I would suggest to get and read the book the Merchants of Doubt.

    Everybody recognizes that Dr. Spenser is a qualified scientist.He is not an expert in glaciology,biology and the many other scientific disciplines among the 30,000 peer reviewed papers on AGW. It might be worthwhile to ask the science advisers to the Vatican why they advised the Holy Father about Global Warming. There has been no pause in global warming in the last 15 years and Dr. Spenser knows that as well. The last decade was the warmest since records have been taken.

  6. Bob Wallace
    1 year ago

    Boy, Roy sure is out of touch when it comes to renewables. Wind is now one of our two cheapest ways to bring new electricity to the grid (along with natural gas). Solar has now fallen below 10 cents per kWh and is on a path to becoming cheaper than NG.

    Our grid can accept enormous amounts of "variable" wind and solar before we need to make any changes.

    The guy's wrong about renewables. He's wrong about climate change. He's just wrong.

    He's talking about "surface temperature" and ignoring the amount of heat that has been pushed into the deep oceans over the last 15 years. He must know about this data. There is no way that he has not been made aware of this. He's using only part of the temperature record and ignoring the rest.

    Roy is wrong and dishonest.

  7. J. Bob
    1 year ago

    Thank you Marshall for presenting a real climate scientist's view, that we still have not found the cause for all the climate variation of this planet.

  8. Richard C. Savage
    1 year ago

    The House of Representatives is holding a hearing today (25 April) on "Policy-Relevant Climate Issues in Context."

    For those who wish to read a balanced, non-partisan evaluation of our knowledge of the climate system,

    one of the (two) speakers, Judith Curry, has published transcripts of her testimony (spoken and written) at her website,

    Climate Etc.

  9. Jerry N
    1 year ago

    Bill Butler is one of those who spouts the party line, but obviously does not know much about science or measurement.

    Sorry Bill but your ignorance of the basics is revealed by this "...for the period from 1870 to 2004 the average rate of rise was 1.4 mm/yr.", followed by this: "For the last few decades the rate of rise has been 2.9 mm/yr.", followed by this "The rate of rise has been accelerating..." When a rate of increase is a constant value, it is not accelerating. and 1.4 is not equal to 2.9, so how could the rise be 2.9mm for "the last few decades", but was stable at 1.4mm/yr up to 2004? Your own cited source shows a graph of the data that indicates the rise has been constant at about 5mm/yr since 1990, but the text describing that data says it is 3.3mm/yr. 3.3 does not equal 1.4 or 5.0. Just another example of why citing wiki-anything as a credible source of scientific information is ludicrous. What Dr. Spencer stated about sea rise is exactly in correct agreement with all of the credible measured data on sea levels.

    Regarding Dr Spencer's statement that global temps are not increasing, Bill writes "This statement is demonstrably false and Roy should know better. " Dr Spencer knows a lot and knows it much better than you, or your bogus government-biased cited sources. He has been the main collector and analyzer of NASA satellite temperature data since the satellite program started. Anyone can cherry-pick the satellite data and find some sub-set that makes it appear warming is occurring. Government employees are especially prone to do this because they must tow the party line in order to advance in their job. But when one looks at the entire data set, there is no significant warming trend that can be established for at least the past decade, maybe longer.

    "Roy Spencer should open his eyes ..." Bill Butler should take his own advice, and try to learn some science along the way.

  10. Layzej
    1 year ago

    Jerry N: "hundredths of a degree is statistically insignificant in the extreme on a planet that has a standard deviation of 8 deg in its mean temperature on a daily basis.--my own "non-expert" observation"

    Hi Jerry,

    With respect, you very clearly demonstrate here what a non-expert opinion is worth. In fact, the Earth's temperature remains constant throughout the day and throughout the seasons*. What you experience locally is not reflective of the Earth's average temperature. If the temperature changes at your location it is because the heat has shifted to another location - not because the Earth has cooled or warmed.

    The amount of energy needed to nudge the temperature of the Earth up by a fraction of a degree is immense and can be measured in nuclear bombs per second. Your post is a very vivid demonstration of how easy it is to be misled by your gut. It shows how important it is to heed the scientists who have studied and published on the subject. Dr. Spencer is one such scientist. He holds a minority opinion that is contrary to 97% of scientists who have published in the field and every scientific society ( It would be wise to also consider the consensus view.

    *Heat exchange between the atmosphere and the oceans will cause year to year variation in atmospheric temperature of fractions of a degree - but again, this is not a change in the Earth's energy but is a shifting of the heat within the system.

Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment

Newsletter Sign Up

Daily Readings

Reading 1, Deuteronomy 26:16-19
'Yahweh your God commands you today to observe these laws and ... Read More

Psalm, Psalms 119:1-2, 4-5, 7-8
How blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the ... Read More

Gospel, Matthew 5:43-48
'You have heard how it was said, You will love your neighbour ... Read More

Saint of the Day

February 28 Saint of the Day

St. Hilary, Pope
February 28: Pope from 461-468 and guardian of Church unity. He was born in ... Read More