The Feb. 12 “National View” column, “
Science doesn’t support the heated rhetoric over climate change
,” questioned the severity of climate change and presented an important minority perspective.
However, the conclusions reached by its writer — Roy W. Spencer, an author and a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville — ran counter to the overwhelming consensus of climate science, much like those who deny the link between vaccines and public health or who argue the Earth is flat despite centuries of evidence to the contrary. While scientific discourse benefits from skepticism, it must be grounded in rigorous methodology and full engagement with the data.
Claims presented in the commentary have been thoroughly examined and rebutted in peer-reviewed research. For instance, Andrew Dessler in 2011 directly challenged Spencer’s work on cloud feedback, demonstrating that clouds likely amplify, rather than mitigate, warming. Similarly, Trenberth, Fasullo, and Abraham, also in 2011, highlighted methodological flaws in Spencer’s simplified climate model, which fails to account for critical oceanic and atmospheric processes. Additionally, Wolfgang Wagner, former editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, resigned after his journal published Spencer’s 2011 study, acknowledging that the paper was “fundamentally flawed” and failed proper scientific scrutiny.
Moreover, Spencer’s work has been associated with funding from sources tied to the fossil-fuel industry and organizations that actively promote climate skepticism. He has received funding from NASA, NOAA, and the Department of Energy, but his connections to industry-backed organizations have raised questions about potential conflicts of interest. Notably, documents from Peabody Energy’s 2016 bankruptcy filings revealed financial ties to Spencer. He also serves on the board of the George C. Marshall Institute, which has received funding from ExxonMobil and is affiliated with the Heartland Institute, a think tank that has actively sought to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.
Primary climate indicators continue to affirm significant change: Global surface temperatures have increased by over 1°C since pre-industrial levels, Arctic ice extent continues to decline, and the frequency of extreme heat events is rising. These trends are well documented by organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and NASA’s Earth Science Division.
That said, Spencer’s criticism of how climate change is often used as an excuse for avoiding responsibility in other areas was valid. Policy failures in land management, such as the widespread use of drain tiling, have had measurable impacts on hydrology and flood patterns. When these factors are ignored in favor of a simplistic “climate change did it” narrative, it prevents meaningful mitigation efforts. Addressing climate change requires both reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and taking responsibility for localized environmental-management decisions.
In short, while Spencer’s perspective should not be dismissed outright, it should be understood as an outlier within the broader scientific discussion. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of climate change, and dismissing its impact only delays necessary adaptation and mitigation strategies.
Joseph Barisonzi of Bloomington, Minnesota, is vice president of the Minnesota Division of the Izaak Walton League, a volunteer executive director of youth programming, and president of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed Board. He wrote this for the News Tribune.