Roy Spencer

Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at UAH, may be the "world's most important scientist," according to a website, because of his view of global warming. (UAH photo)

A screen grab of article at AmericanThinker.com on UAH scientist Roy Spencer.

HUNTSVILLE, Alabama - The man who may be the world's most important scientist has a corner office on the third floor of the National Space Science & Technology Center on the campus of the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

The view out Roy Spencer's window faces west, providing a real-time vantage point to the incoming weather.

But in the science community, what Spencer sees is frequently different from his colleagues.

Spencer, along with fellow UAH professor John Christy (the director of the UAH Earth System Science Center), do not fall in lockstep with the conventional scientific wisdom that humans are feeding global warming to their own detriment.

"I believe there has been warming and so does John Christy," Spencer said. "The question is what has caused the warming. It's an issue of causation. That's what the science argument is over is the extent to which humans are the cause of past warming."

It's this perspective that led to a story last month at AmericanThinker.com that included this headline: "Is Roy Spencer the world's most important scientist?"

The article's first paragraph offers this assessment of Spencer:

"He has discovered scientific insights and theories that cast great doubt on global warming doctrine. That doctrine has always been dubious and is often defended by attacking the integrity of anyone who dares to raise questions. Spencer is a rare combination of a brilliant scientist and a brave soul willing to risk his livelihood and reputation by speaking plainly."

To this, Spencer has an appreciative response.

"When I saw that, I thought it's nice to have a positive headline once every year or two," he said. "It's usually negative. John Christy and I tend to fight the consensus on the whole global warming thing. It's nice to have some positive press once in a while."

The scientific conclusions regarding global warming drawn by Spencer and Christy over the years have been largely derided. And Spencer dished out some scathing words to the global warming community.

"That's another problem with this whole global warming debate," he said. "It's been taken over by a vocal minority of scientists and politicians -- for instance, Al Gore, who has twisted the science. They've exaggerated what we know and what we don't know to the point where the public has just ended up believing all of these talking points, which have very little basis in fact."

John Christy, the director of the Earth System Science Center at the UAH, has also been criticized for his views on global warming. (The Huntsville Times file photo)

The thing about global warming, Spencer said, is that the globe has stopped warming. The Daily Mail in Great Britain reported last year that scientific data "reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures."

"It's something that we've all known but it never gets out in the public because nobody in the media wants to report on it because it looks like they are global warming deniers," Spencer said. "They are afraid Al Gore is going to call them a global warming denier if they report anything is the truth."

Of course, the issue of global warming has many complicated layers. And in the end, Spencer said there is no absolute conclusion to be drawn that will be beyond dispute - leaving the scientists essentially shooting at what's a moving target.

"We agree there has been warming and where we disagree with the consensus of scientists is on causation," Spencer said. "Thirty years ago, most scientists who worked in this field believed there was such a thing as natural climate change. Now for some reason, in recent years it's gotten to the point that the scientific community has virtually decided there is no such thing as natural climate change any more. It's amazing to me as a scientist as to how they could sweep so much evidence under the rug.

"It's possible that all the warming we've seen in the last 50 years is due to humans. That's theoretically possible, just as there are alternative explanations."

Spencer said global warming supporters believe that while the warming of the earth has stagnated, the oceans are gradually absorbing that heat.

Again, Spencer said, it's possible.

"No matter which way you look at this problem, there are uncertainties," he said. "It's like nothing in this field can ever be proved or disproved. Everything is possible, really. When scientists come out with definitive statements, I just ignore them because there is nothing definitive in this field."

So what's a non-scientist to think?

"What I try to get people to understand is that scientifically, we don't really have any clue in the last 50 years how much of the warming is due to humans versus nature. The United Nations, the Inter-Governmental Panel of Climate Change, they claim it's mostly or all humans. But they have no way of knowing that. It's a possibility.

"But it's also a possibility that it's 50 percent nature and if it is, it's going to make a huge difference. If it's half due to nature, then forecasts warming into the future are only going to be half of what they expect. So it has a huge impact on what we do policy-wise. How much is natural versus man-made. It's a major issue."

Spencer said he spends much of his research these days on how the climate system works, which focuses on the impact of carbon dioxide on the environment. In short, that impact is minimal, Spencer said.

The demand for carbon dioxide from plants almost outweighs the supply, he said.

"Given that it's so important for life on earth, it's amazing how little (carbon dioxide) there is in the atmosphere," Spencer said. "I've had plant physiologists tell me it's almost as if life on earth has been sucking on the atmosphere as hard as it can trying to get all the (carbon dioxide) out that it can.

"That's why there is so little left in the atmosphere. As we add more (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere, life breaths more freely. It's well known that for all the years that we keep adding more and more (carbon dioxide) to the atmosphere, it doesn't matter because nature takes out half of it. It just gobbles it up - mostly as plant food."

The resistance to the theories and conclusions presented by Spencer and Christy is that it jeopardizes the economic livelihood of those who study global warming, Spencer said.

"As long as man-made global warming remains a threat, people whose career whose careers depend on funding from Congress are set for the rest of their lives," he said. "I include myself in that. Congress doesn't fund a lot of money into non-issues. As long as this remains an issue, scientists like myself will continue to get funded to continue to study the problem."

Follow me on Twitter @paul_gattis