Roy Spencer exploits uncertainty

Roy Spencer is a creationist. And he's apparently learned from "best" (i.e. worst) of them. The creationists were adept at utilizing some of the supposed uncertainties about evolutionary theory to help mislead their gullible flocks into thinking that evolution is not one of the best supported theories in the scientific realm. Things like gaps in the fossil record (explained by punctuated equilibrium), transitional fossils (paleontologists kept finding more and more), the accumulation rate of beneficial mutations (not nearly as much of a dilemma as presented, when it was analyzed properly), the general rate of evolutionary change itself (read "The Beak of the Finch" for more perspection on that), and the apparent sophisticated design of animal anatomical features of many different kinds ("Darwin's Black Box" got thoroughly unmasked in court).

Still, it's an effective tactic -- for a gullible audience. It basically works by finding a quote or a paper by a research scientist that something about the theory is "uncertain" or still "a research problem", and then constructing an entire argument of whole cloth that uses that little expression of uncertainty to create an entire alternate theoretical construct that seems valid -- particularly to the nonscientific audience that needs some seeming scientific backing to strengthen their belief structure. By doing so, the creationist leaders look magnificently intelligent to their followers, and the followers beliefs get bolstered.

Bolstered by lies and fabrications, that is.

Which leads us to Dr. Roy. His "theory" now is that one of the biggest remaining uncertainties in understanding Earth's climate is how low troposheric clouds respond, act, and react as the climate changes. He exploits this uncertainty to state with scientific-sounding authority, "warming doesn't cause changes in cloud cover, changes in cloud cover cause warming."


Listen to the video.

Roy Spencer on the importance of clouds

He says, "The IPCC, the climate modelers, all admit that the behavior of low clouds is their biggest uncertainty in forecasting global warming."

So he's the one that's figured it out? And NONE of the other guys? There's a whiff of Elmer Gantry here.

He's getting louder and louder on his alternate theory of warming, and more visible (aided and abetted by Rush Limbaugh). Which will make him look more foolish when he's ultimately refuted.

He even wrote a book about, "The Great Global Warming Blunder".

Why am I so strongly reminded of "Darwin's Black Box", by Michael Behe?

Spencer addressed roundly:
How to cook a graph in 3 easy lessons