Strange how few pro-AGW science books compared to AGW skeptic books.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/...te-scientists/
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-W...dp/1594033730/

April 20, 2010, 05:43:49 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Today (April 20) is the official release date of my new book entitled: "The Great Global Warming
Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists", published by Encounter
Books.

About one-half of Blunder is a non-technical description of our new peer reviewed and
soon-to-be-published research which supports the opinion that a majority of Americans already hold:
that warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system - not to an
increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning.


Believe it or not, this potential natural explanation for recent warming has never been seriously
researched by climate scientists. The main reason they have ignored this possibility is that they
cannot think of what might have caused it.

You see, climate researchers are rather myopic. They think that the only way for global-average
temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced 'externally'.by a change in the
output of the sun, or by a large volcanic eruption. These are events which occur external to the
normal, internal operation of the climate system.

But what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to cause its own climate change.
Climate change is simply what the system does, owing to its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal
behavior.

As I travel around the country, I find that the public instinctively understands the possibility
that there are natural climate cycles. Unfortunately, it is the climate "experts" who have
difficulty grasping the concept. This is why I am taking my case to the public in this book. The
climate research community long ago took the wrong fork in the road, and I am afraid that it might
be too late for them to turn back.

NATURE'S SUNSHADE: CLOUDS
The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the
circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud
cover. Clouds are the Earth's sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global
warming - or global cooling.

How could the experts have missed such a simple explanation? Because they have convinced themselves
that only a temperature change can cause a cloud cover change, and not the other way around. The
issue is one of causation. They have not accounted for cloud changes causing temperature changes.

The experts have simply mixed up cause and effect when observing how clouds and temperature vary.
The book reveals a simple way to determine the direction of causation from satellite observations
of global average temperature and cloud variations. And that new tool should fundamentally change
how we view the climate system.

Blunder also addresses a second major mistake that results from ignoring the effect of natural
cloud variations on temperatu it results in the illusion that the climate system is very
sensitive. The experts claim that, since our climate system is very sensitive, then our carbon
dioxide emissions are all that is needed to explain global warming. There is no need to look for
alternative explanations.

But I show that the experts have merely reasoned themselves in a circle on this subject. When
properly interpreted, our satellite observations actually reveal that the system is quite
IN-sensitive. And an insensitive climate system means that nature does not really care whether you
travel by jet, or how many hamburgers or steaks you eat.

CARBON DIOXIDE: FRIEND OR FOE?


The supposed explanation that global warming is due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide from
our burning of fossil fuels turns out to be based upon little more than circumstantial evidence. It
is partly a symptom of our rather primitive understanding of how the climate system works.

And I predict that the proposed cure for global warming - reducing greenhouse gas emissions - will
someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that scientific knowledge is continually changing, it is
increasingly apparent that the politicians are not going to let little things like facts get in
their way. For instance, a new draft climate change report was released by the U.S. yesterday
(April 19) which, in part, says: "Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced .
Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to
human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."

You see, the legislative train left the station many years ago, and no amount of new science will
slow it down as it accelerates toward its final destination: forcibly reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.

But in Blunder I address what other scientists should have the courage to admit: that maybe putting
more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing. Given that it is necessary for life on Earth, the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is surprisingly small. We already know that nature is gobbling up
50% of what humanity produces, no matter how fast we produce it. So, it is only logical to address
the possibility that nature - that life on Earth - has actually been starved for carbon dioxide.

This should give you some idea of the major themes of my new book. I am under no illusion that the
book will settle the scientific debate over global warming.

To the contrary - I am hoping the debate will finally begin.

On Apr 20, 11:45*am, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
Strange how few pro-AGW science books compared to AGW skeptic books.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/...ntists/dp/1594...

April 20, 2010, 05:43:49 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Today (April 20) is the official release date of my new book entitled: "The Great Global Warming
Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists", published by Encounter
Books.

About one-half of Blunder is a non-technical description of our new peer reviewed and
soon-to-be-published research which supports the opinion that a majority of Americans already hold:
that warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system - not to an
increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning.

Believe it or not, this potential natural explanation for recent warming has never been seriously
researched by climate scientists. The main reason they have ignored this possibility is that they
cannot think of what might have caused it.

You see, climate researchers are rather myopic. They think that the only way for global-average
temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced 'externally'.by a change in the
output of the sun, or by a large volcanic eruption. These are events which occur external to the
normal, internal operation of the climate system.

But what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to cause its own climate change.
Climate change is simply what the system does, owing to its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal
behavior.

As I travel around the country, I find that the public instinctively understands the possibility
that there are natural climate cycles. Unfortunately, it is the climate "experts" who have
difficulty grasping the concept. This is why I am taking my case to the public in this book. The
climate research community long ago took the wrong fork in the road, and I am afraid that it might
be too late for them to turn back.

NATURE'S SUNSHADE: CLOUDS
The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the
circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud
cover. Clouds are the Earth's sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global
warming - or global cooling.

How could the experts have missed such a simple explanation? Because they have convinced themselves
that only a temperature change can cause a cloud cover change, and not the other way around. The
issue is one of causation. They have not accounted for cloud changes causing temperature changes.

The experts have simply mixed up cause and effect when observing how clouds and temperature vary.
The book reveals a simple way to determine the direction of causation from satellite observations
of global average temperature and cloud variations. And that new tool should fundamentally change
how we view the climate system.

Blunder also addresses a second major mistake that results from ignoring the effect of natural
cloud variations on temperatu it results in the illusion that the climate system is very
sensitive. The experts claim that, since our climate system is very sensitive, then our carbon
dioxide emissions are all that is needed to explain global warming. There is no need to look for
alternative explanations.

But I show that the experts have merely reasoned themselves in a circle on this subject. When
properly interpreted, our satellite observations actually reveal that the system is quite
IN-sensitive. And an insensitive climate system means that nature does not really care whether you
travel by jet, or how many hamburgers or steaks you eat.

CARBON DIOXIDE: FRIEND OR FOE?

The supposed explanation that global warming is due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide from
our burning of fossil fuels turns out to be based upon little more than circumstantial evidence. It
is partly a symptom of our rather primitive understanding of how the climate system works.

And I predict that the proposed cure for global warming - reducing greenhouse gas emissions - will
someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that scientific knowledge is continually changing, it is
increasingly apparent that the politicians are not going to let little things like facts get in
their way. For instance, a new draft climate change report was released by the U.S. yesterday
(April 19) which, in part, says: "Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced .
Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to
human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."

You see, the legislative train left the station many years ago, and no amount of new science will
slow it down as it accelerates toward its final destination: forcibly reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.

But in Blunder I address what other scientists should have the courage to admit: that maybe putting
more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing. Given that it is necessary for life on Earth, the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is surprisingly small. We already know that nature is gobbling up
50% of what humanity produces, no matter how fast we produce it. So, it is only logical to address
the possibility that nature - that life on Earth - has actually been starved for carbon dioxide.

This should give you some idea of the major themes of my new book. I am under no illusion that the
book will settle the scientific debate over global warming.

To the contrary - I am hoping the debate will finally begin.

The only people fooled were the non-climate-scientists. The climate
scientists have known all along that it is a scam. How could they not?
Except for maybe Fudger Hansen. He seems to actually believe his
psychosis related constructs. He is an actual nutbar.

Eric Gisin wrote:
Strange how few pro-AGW science books compared to AGW skeptic books.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/...te-scientists/

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-W...dp/1594033730/


April 20, 2010, 05:43:49 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Today (April 20) is the official release date of my new book entitled:
"The Great Global Warming
Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists",
published by Encounter
Books.

About one-half of Blunder is a non-technical description of our new peer
reviewed and
soon-to-be-published research which supports the opinion that a majority
of Americans already hold:
that warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the
climate system - not to an
increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning.


Believe it or not, this potential natural explanation for recent warming
has never been seriously
researched by climate scientists. The main reason they have ignored this
possibility is that they
cannot think of what might have caused it.

You see, climate researchers are rather myopic. They think that the only
way for global-average
temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced
'externally'.by a change in the
output of the sun, or by a large volcanic eruption. These are events
which occur external to the
normal, internal operation of the climate system.

But what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to
cause its own climate change.
Climate change is simply what the system does, owing to its complex,
dynamic, chaotic internal
behavior.

As I travel around the country, I find that the public instinctively
understands the possibility
that there are natural climate cycles. Unfortunately, it is the climate
"experts" who have
difficulty grasping the concept. This is why I am taking my case to the
public in this book. The
climate research community long ago took the wrong fork in the road, and
I am afraid that it might
be too late for them to turn back.

NATURE'S SUNSHADE: CLOUDS
The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small,
natural fluctuations in the
circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2%
decrease in global cloud
cover. Clouds are the Earth's sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for
any reason, you have global
warming - or global cooling.

How could the experts have missed such a simple explanation? Because
they have convinced themselves
that only a temperature change can cause a cloud cover change, and not
the other way around. The
issue is one of causation. They have not accounted for cloud changes
causing temperature changes.

The experts have simply mixed up cause and effect when observing how
clouds and temperature vary.
The book reveals a simple way to determine the direction of causation
from satellite observations
of global average temperature and cloud variations. And that new tool
should fundamentally change
how we view the climate system.

Blunder also addresses a second major mistake that results from ignoring
the effect of natural
cloud variations on temperatu it results in the illusion that the
climate system is very
sensitive. The experts claim that, since our climate system is very
sensitive, then our carbon
dioxide emissions are all that is needed to explain global warming.
There is no need to look for
alternative explanations.

But I show that the experts have merely reasoned themselves in a circle
on this subject. When
properly interpreted, our satellite observations actually reveal that
the system is quite
IN-sensitive. And an insensitive climate system means that nature does
not really care whether you
travel by jet, or how many hamburgers or steaks you eat.

CARBON DIOXIDE: FRIEND OR FOE?


The supposed explanation that global warming is due to increasing
atmospheric carbon dioxide from
our burning of fossil fuels turns out to be based upon little more than
circumstantial evidence. It
is partly a symptom of our rather primitive understanding of how the
climate system works.

And I predict that the proposed cure for global warming - reducing
greenhouse gas emissions - will
someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that scientific knowledge is continually
changing, it is
increasingly apparent that the politicians are not going to let little
things like facts get in
their way. For instance, a new draft climate change report was released
by the U.S. yesterday
(April 19) which, in part, says: "Global warming is unequivocal and
primarily human-induced .
Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed
increase is due primarily to
human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."

You see, the legislative train left the station many years ago, and no
amount of new science will
slow it down as it accelerates toward its final destination: forcibly
reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.

But in Blunder I address what other scientists should have the courage
to admit: that maybe putting
more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing. Given that it is necessary
for life on Earth, the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is surprisingly small. We already know
that nature is gobbling up
50% of what humanity produces, no matter how fast we produce it. So, it
is only logical to address
the possibility that nature - that life on Earth - has actually been
starved for carbon dioxide.

This should give you some idea of the major themes of my new book. I am
under no illusion that the
book will settle the scientific debate over global warming.

To the contrary - I am hoping the debate will finally begin.

Regardless of the cause, I'd still like to know what the problem is. So
it gets a little warmer, big deal. There a sale at Macy's on shorts,
stock up.

On Apr 20, 5:45*pm, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
Strange how few pro-AGW science books compared to AGW skeptic books.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/...ntists/dp/1594...

April 20, 2010, 05:43:49 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Today (April 20) is the official release date of my new book entitled: "The Great Global Warming
Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists", published by Encounter
Books.

About one-half of Blunder is a non-technical description of our new peer reviewed and
soon-to-be-published research which supports the opinion that a majority of Americans already hold:
that warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system - not to an
increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning.

Believe it or not, this potential natural explanation for recent warming has never been seriously
researched by climate scientists. The main reason they have ignored this possibility is that they
cannot think of what might have caused it.

You see, climate researchers are rather myopic. They think that the only way for global-average
temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced 'externally'.by a change in the
output of the sun, or by a large volcanic eruption. These are events which occur external to the
normal, internal operation of the climate system.

But what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to cause its own climate change.
Climate change is simply what the system does, owing to its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal
behavior.

As I travel around the country, I find that the public instinctively understands the possibility
that there are natural climate cycles. Unfortunately, it is the climate "experts" who have
difficulty grasping the concept. This is why I am taking my case to the public in this book. The
climate research community long ago took the wrong fork in the road, and I am afraid that it might
be too late for them to turn back.

NATURE'S SUNSHADE: CLOUDS
The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the
circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud
cover. Clouds are the Earth's sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global
warming - or global cooling.

How could the experts have missed such a simple explanation? Because they have convinced themselves
that only a temperature change can cause a cloud cover change, and not the other way around. The
issue is one of causation. They have not accounted for cloud changes causing temperature changes.

The experts have simply mixed up cause and effect when observing how clouds and temperature vary.
The book reveals a simple way to determine the direction of causation from satellite observations
of global average temperature and cloud variations. And that new tool should fundamentally change
how we view the climate system.

Blunder also addresses a second major mistake that results from ignoring the effect of natural
cloud variations on temperatu it results in the illusion that the climate system is very
sensitive. The experts claim that, since our climate system is very sensitive, then our carbon
dioxide emissions are all that is needed to explain global warming. There is no need to look for
alternative explanations.

But I show that the experts have merely reasoned themselves in a circle on this subject. When
properly interpreted, our satellite observations actually reveal that the system is quite
IN-sensitive. And an insensitive climate system means that nature does not really care whether you
travel by jet, or how many hamburgers or steaks you eat.

CARBON DIOXIDE: FRIEND OR FOE?

The supposed explanation that global warming is due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide from
our burning of fossil fuels turns out to be based upon little more than circumstantial evidence. It
is partly a symptom of our rather primitive understanding of how the climate system works.

And I predict that the proposed cure for global warming - reducing greenhouse gas emissions - will
someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that scientific knowledge is continually changing, it is
increasingly apparent that the politicians are not going to let little things like facts get in
their way. For instance, a new draft climate change report was released by the U.S. yesterday
(April 19) which, in part, says: "Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced .
Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to
human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."

You see, the legislative train left the station many years ago, and no amount of new science will
slow it down as it accelerates toward its final destination: forcibly reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.

But in Blunder I address what other scientists should have the courage to admit: that maybe putting
more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing. Given that it is necessary for life on Earth, the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is surprisingly small. We already know that nature is gobbling up
50% of what humanity produces, no matter how fast we produce it. So, it is only logical to address
the possibility that nature - that life on Earth - has actually been starved for carbon dioxide.

This should give you some idea of the major themes of my new book. I am under no illusion that the
book will settle the scientific debate over global warming.

To the contrary - I am hoping the debate will finally begin.

Damn fooled again. This time by someone who believes in the PDO
controlling the world's temperatures (negative PDO for 5 years, record
global temperatures, but hey-ho) and also doesn't believe in
evolution. It's book I don't think will be on my Christmas list!

On Apr 20, 12:45*pm, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
Strange how few pro-AGW science books compared to AGW skeptic books.


You're surprised that fiction/conspiracy sells and scientific method
doesn't?
I expect to see Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory II - An Inconvenient
Obfuscation in theaters soon.

On Apr 20, 9:50*am, tunderbar wrote:
On Apr 20, 11:45*am, "Eric Gisin" wrote:



Strange how few pro-AGW science books compared to AGW skeptic books.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/...rming-blunder-.......

April 20, 2010, 05:43:49 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Today (April 20) is the official release date of my new book entitled: "The Great Global Warming
Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists", published by Encounter
Books.

About one-half of Blunder is a non-technical description of our new peer reviewed and
soon-to-be-published research which supports the opinion that a majority of Americans already hold:
that warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system - not to an
increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning.

Believe it or not, this potential natural explanation for recent warming has never been seriously
researched by climate scientists. The main reason they have ignored this possibility is that they
cannot think of what might have caused it.

You see, climate researchers are rather myopic. They think that the only way for global-average
temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced 'externally'.by a change in the
output of the sun, or by a large volcanic eruption. These are events which occur external to the
normal, internal operation of the climate system.

But what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to cause its own climate change.
Climate change is simply what the system does, owing to its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal
behavior.

As I travel around the country, I find that the public instinctively understands the possibility
that there are natural climate cycles. Unfortunately, it is the climate "experts" who have
difficulty grasping the concept. This is why I am taking my case to the public in this book. The
climate research community long ago took the wrong fork in the road, and I am afraid that it might
be too late for them to turn back.

NATURE'S SUNSHADE: CLOUDS
The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the
circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud
cover. Clouds are the Earth's sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global
warming - or global cooling.

How could the experts have missed such a simple explanation? Because they have convinced themselves
that only a temperature change can cause a cloud cover change, and not the other way around. The
issue is one of causation. They have not accounted for cloud changes causing temperature changes.

The experts have simply mixed up cause and effect when observing how clouds and temperature vary.
The book reveals a simple way to determine the direction of causation from satellite observations
of global average temperature and cloud variations. And that new tool should fundamentally change
how we view the climate system.

Blunder also addresses a second major mistake that results from ignoring the effect of natural
cloud variations on temperatu it results in the illusion that the climate system is very
sensitive. The experts claim that, since our climate system is very sensitive, then our carbon
dioxide emissions are all that is needed to explain global warming. There is no need to look for
alternative explanations.

But I show that the experts have merely reasoned themselves in a circle on this subject. When
properly interpreted, our satellite observations actually reveal that the system is quite
IN-sensitive. And an insensitive climate system means that nature does not really care whether you
travel by jet, or how many hamburgers or steaks you eat.

CARBON DIOXIDE: FRIEND OR FOE?

The supposed explanation that global warming is due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide from
our burning of fossil fuels turns out to be based upon little more than circumstantial evidence. It
is partly a symptom of our rather primitive understanding of how the climate system works.

And I predict that the proposed cure for global warming - reducing greenhouse gas emissions - will
someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that scientific knowledge is continually changing, it is
increasingly apparent that the politicians are not going to let little things like facts get in
their way. For instance, a new draft climate change report was released by the U.S. yesterday
(April 19) which, in part, says: "Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced .
Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to
human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."

You see, the legislative train left the station many years ago, and no amount of new science will
slow it down as it accelerates toward its final destination: forcibly reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.

But in Blunder I address what other scientists should have the courage to admit: that maybe putting
more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing. Given that it is necessary for life on Earth, the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is surprisingly small. We already know that nature is gobbling up
50% of what humanity produces, no matter how fast we produce it. So, it is only logical to address
the possibility that nature - that life on Earth - has actually been starved for carbon dioxide.

This should give you some idea of the major themes of my new book. I am under no illusion that the
book will settle the scientific debate over global warming.

To the contrary - I am hoping the debate will finally begin.

The only people fooled were the non-climate-scientists. The climate
scientists have known all along that it is a scam. How could they not?
Except for maybe Fudger Hansen. He seems to actually believe his
psychosis related constructs. He is an actual nutbar.

Once again Dunderbar spews ****

tunderbar wrote

The only people fooled were the non-climate-scientists. The climate
scientists have known all along that it is a scam. How could they not?
Except for maybe Fudger Hansen. He seems to actually believe his
psychosis related constructs. He is an actual nutbar.

Nice strawman argument. It confirms the fact that you have no other
argument except made up crap.

On Apr 21, 7:56*pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Apr 20, 5:45*pm, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
Strange how few pro-AGW science books compared to AGW skeptic books.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/...rming-blunder-.......

April 20, 2010, 05:43:49 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Today (April 20) is the official release date of my new book entitled: "The Great Global Warming
Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists", published by Encounter
Books.

About one-half of Blunder is a non-technical description of our new peer reviewed and
soon-to-be-published research which supports the opinion that a majority of Americans already hold:
that warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system - not to an
increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning.

Believe it or not, this potential natural explanation for recent warming has never been seriously
researched by climate scientists. The main reason they have ignored this possibility is that they
cannot think of what might have caused it.

You see, climate researchers are rather myopic. They think that the only way for global-average
temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced 'externally'.by a change in the
output of the sun, or by a large volcanic eruption. These are events which occur external to the
normal, internal operation of the climate system.

But what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to cause its own climate change.
Climate change is simply what the system does, owing to its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal
behavior.

As I travel around the country, I find that the public instinctively understands the possibility
that there are natural climate cycles. Unfortunately, it is the climate "experts" who have
difficulty grasping the concept. This is why I am taking my case to the public in this book. The
climate research community long ago took the wrong fork in the road, and I am afraid that it might
be too late for them to turn back.

NATURE'S SUNSHADE: CLOUDS
The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the
circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud
cover. Clouds are the Earth's sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global
warming - or global cooling.

How could the experts have missed such a simple explanation? Because they have convinced themselves
that only a temperature change can cause a cloud cover change, and not the other way around. The
issue is one of causation. They have not accounted for cloud changes causing temperature changes.

The experts have simply mixed up cause and effect when observing how clouds and temperature vary.
The book reveals a simple way to determine the direction of causation from satellite observations
of global average temperature and cloud variations. And that new tool should fundamentally change
how we view the climate system.

Blunder also addresses a second major mistake that results from ignoring the effect of natural
cloud variations on temperatu it results in the illusion that the climate system is very
sensitive. The experts claim that, since our climate system is very sensitive, then our carbon
dioxide emissions are all that is needed to explain global warming. There is no need to look for
alternative explanations.

But I show that the experts have merely reasoned themselves in a circle on this subject. When
properly interpreted, our satellite observations actually reveal that the system is quite
IN-sensitive. And an insensitive climate system means that nature does not really care whether you
travel by jet, or how many hamburgers or steaks you eat.

CARBON DIOXIDE: FRIEND OR FOE?

The supposed explanation that global warming is due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide from
our burning of fossil fuels turns out to be based upon little more than circumstantial evidence. It
is partly a symptom of our rather primitive understanding of how the climate system works.

And I predict that the proposed cure for global warming - reducing greenhouse gas emissions - will
someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that scientific knowledge is continually changing, it is
increasingly apparent that the politicians are not going to let little things like facts get in
their way. For instance, a new draft climate change report was released by the U.S. yesterday
(April 19) which, in part, says: "Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced .
Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to
human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."

You see, the legislative train left the station many years ago, and no amount of new science will
slow it down as it accelerates toward its final destination: forcibly reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.

But in Blunder I address what other scientists should have the courage to admit: that maybe putting
more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing. Given that it is necessary for life on Earth, the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is surprisingly small. We already know that nature is gobbling up
50% of what humanity produces, no matter how fast we produce it. So, it is only logical to address
the possibility that nature - that life on Earth - has actually been starved for carbon dioxide.

This should give you some idea of the major themes of my new book. I am under no illusion that the
book will settle the scientific debate over global warming.

To the contrary - I am hoping the debate will finally begin.

Damn fooled again. This time by someone who believes in the PDO
controlling the world's temperatures (negative PDO for 5 years)

Lie.

snip

- Show quoted text -

What exactly do you feel is a lie?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-w...l-oscillation/

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest