Has Roy Spencer jumped the shark in his latest blog post?
Of course aside from the hypocrisy of this argument, there's also the problem of the lack of evidence of any long-term trend in the low cloud cover
So essentially Spencer claims that all other climate scientists are wrong because they're too focused on AGW and only he can see the truth. Unfortunately his 'truth' is a theory for which he provides no physical cause, and which is contradicted by the observational evidence. But then Spencer really gets nutty.
"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."
Ah yes, physics is now circumstantial evidence. The calculations of radiative forcings? Circumstantial. All the correct predictions by climate models? Circumstantial. All the clear fingerprints of human-caused global warming? Circumstantial.
"I predict that the proposed cure for global warming – reducing greenhouse gas emissions – will someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses."
Ironically medicinal leeches are now making a comeback in microsurgery.
"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."
Ah that's a brilliant one. Nature is able to absorb about half of human CO2 emissions (though some carbon 'sinks' appear to be starting to saturate), therefore nature is 'starved for carbon dioxide' and human CO2 emissions are therefore beneficial. Wow.
Has Roy Spencer jumped the shark?