Glaring Inconsistency In Estimating CO2 vs. Solar Forcing Suggests CO2 Impacts Are Wildly Exaggerated

That wasn't a quote by Roy Spencer, it's reality. I'm surprised you didn't know that.
Here's you:
---
To make matters worse the models assume [that the climate system is in a natural state of energy balance, and that there is no long-term climate change unless humans cause it.

Here's Roy Spencer:
---
The most important thing to remember about climate models which are used to project future global warming is that they were “tuned” with the assumption I started this article with: that the climate system is in a natural state of energy balance, and that there is no long-term climate change unless humans cause it.
---

You quoted him. Not word-for-word, but you definitely quoted pieces of his piece.

And he's full of it. No, the models do _not_ assume that the climate never changes naturally. That's a weird fantasy from Spencer.

Here's a fine piece on why Spencer's models are a joke.

 
Here's you:
---
To make matters worse the models assume [that the climate system is in a natural state of energy balance, and that there is no long-term climate change unless humans cause it.

Here's Roy Spencer:
---
The most important thing to remember about climate models which are used to project future global warming is that they were “tuned” with the assumption I started this article with: that the climate system is in a natural state of energy balance, and that there is no long-term climate change unless humans cause it.
---

You quoted him. Not word-for-word, but you definitely quoted pieces of his piece.

And he's full of it. No, the models do _not_ assume that the climate never changes naturally. That's a weird fantasy from Spencer.

Here's a fine piece on why Spencer's models are a joke.

The quote you replied to was... "The models relied upon by the IPCC use the low variability solar output dataset," dummy. That's not from Roy Spencer. That's reality.
 

Similar threads

Forum List

Back
Top