The IPCC has extensively studied natural variability... natural variability has a cause, it's not magic, it doesn't come out of nowhere and we have the ability to track natural variability. For instance we can track variability on the sun and we know the sun isn't responsible for the changes that have occurred. We also know that it is not clouds. Einstein said we should "make things as simple as possible but not simpler." I think Roy's [Spencer] model is in the latter category. His simple model is fatally flawed, in my view. There are 2 figures in his written testimony, fig 3a and 3b, the radiation that's contrived there is about a factor of 10 too large, the ocean mix layer he uses is about a factor of 10 too large, and he starts the model off with an artificial starting point. Unlike the IPCC models that have been scrutinized by hundreds of scientists and many papers have been written about them, analyzing them, Roy's [Spencer] model has no standing whatsoever.
-- Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate and Global Dynamics Division
*(Roy Spencer is listed as an author for the Heartland Institute, a US think tank that has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998)
The Committee Chair, Barbara Boxer said it may be necessary to subpoena documents that the White House has censored on the health threats of global warming. Former EPA official Jason K. Burnett implicated the Office of the Vice President, Dick Cheney, as well as the White House Council on Environmental Quality for censoring “any discussion of the human health consequences of climate change” in testimony to Congress.
Truth is hard to come by in the Bush Administration's war on science.