Dr. Roy Spencer on Fox's John Stossel show

Two studs…both with integrity.

Too lukey, of course. “We’re not sure warming would be harmful.” Considering that all recorded history suggests it would be beneficial, Spencer is just caving to the wrong Null.

Good video…concise…to the point….we need more of it…..
But Roy, him confessing to be lukewarm on CO2….well he could do
better:
Why side with Warmists/Alarmists, who stand like a donkey in front of
the climate clock, do not understand the clock’s mechanism and
tout that rear -end donkey emissions are the “driver” of the clock’s
mechanism…?? We know more than this by now…….
JS

We are already decarbonizing by fuel switching from carbon rich coal to carbon poor CH4. The UK did it we have been doing it and are doing it big time since the cost of CH4 is so much cheaper than CH4 in the UK and the rest of world. Hmmm, why is that? Hydraulic fracturing. Pretty amazing isn’t it.
And when the new CAFE standards kick in our consumption of gasoline will remain flat and possibly decline slightly just as it did between 1978 and 1992 when CAFE standards kicked in and the fleet turned over. Pretty remarkable, isn’t it?

Reblogged this on Is it 2012 in Nevada County Yet? and commented:
I have high regard for Dr Spencer and his data satellite collection tools. It is hard to argue with the data.

If you have read his books it’s plainly obvious that Dr. Spencer is NOT a lukewarmer. He is, in fact, exactly correct. Probably no one on the planet understands cloud feedbacks better than Dr. Spencer. Dr. Roy explains and describes the greenhouse effect perhaps better than anyone else (more’s the pity he doesn’t teach). I think anyone with a basic understanding of the AGW issue would agree that theoretically additional CO2 in the atmosphere could result in some degree of warming. As Dr. Spencer alluded to, the likelihood of anyone being able to tease an anthropogenic signal out of the noise of natural variability is slim to none. Further, just reference the work of Dr. Craig Idso regarding CO2 enrichment of the atmospheric CO2 and its effect on plant growth. Then just look at recorded history – warm good, cold bad.
I LOVE Stossel and DVR his show every week and I have the greatest respect and admiration for Dr. Roy Spencer.

My respect for Roy Spencer and Stossel dropped a lot when Spencer said that stopping CO2 emissions would shut down nearly the entire economy. The economy could function just fine on nuclear or even solar, and electric and hydrogen vehicles. We would probably only be something like 10% poorer. Not nice, but not terrible.

Mindbuilder – don’t know what study you are referencing but not even the uber greenies agree with you. In fact that is the aspect they like the best – enforced poverty on most everyone while they get the gas to deal with the serious problems – to take care of us.

Pity there was so little space to get into the matter. Three topics, six minutes, barely enough just to touch each, no time to go into explanations and controversies. Also the narrator appears to be making fool of himself a bit which does not go well together with the topic to me (but I don’t know the show, maybe it’s normal there).
Let’s wish more comes soon.

MindBuilder says:
March 26, 2012 at 1:33 pm
My respect for Roy Spencer and Stossel dropped a lot when Spencer said that stopping CO2 emissions would shut down nearly the entire economy. The economy could function just fine on nuclear or even solar, and electric and hydrogen vehicles. We would probably only be something like 10% poorer. Not nice, but not terrible.

Well, I guess you don’t understand economics very well, do you? Nor do you seem to understand that electrical vehicles are more expensive and less practical than the conventional vehicles they would replace. As for hydrogen — why do you think we don’t have millions of hydrogen vehicles on the road now, because of some big oil conspiracy?
And just try to build more nuclear plants. It will be years before you get past the lawsuits, if you ever do.
In short, everything you advocate would be tremendously expensive and impractical.

MindBuilder says:
March 26, 2012 at 1:33 pm
My respect for Roy Spencer and Stossel dropped a lot when Spencer said that stopping CO2 emissions would shut down nearly the entire economy. The economy could function just fine on nuclear or even solar, and electric and hydrogen vehicles. We would probably only be something like 10% poorer. Not nice, but not terrible.
____________________________________
Spenser was correct. If you stopping CO2 emissions TODAY, it would shut down the US economy period.
Nuclear energy provides 19.2 percent of the United States’ electricity. Fossil fuels meet around 84 percent of U.S. energy demand.
The industrial sector uses 30 percent of the nation’s energy. It breaks out as:
1,379,981 Residential (37%)
1,335,981 Commercial (stores) (35.8%)
1,009,300 Industrial (27%)
7,700 Transportation (0.2%)
So you could run emergency and vital functions only plus less than half of the residential. No commercial, no industrial and no transportation.
What everyone seems to forget is smelting ores and fabricating takes a heck of a lot of energy and your windmills and solar panels and biofuels are not the Energy savers everyone seems to think they are.