Unfortunately nobody really knows what the situation is, and certainly not the ordinary lay-person such as me.
Spencer looks like a very ordinary thoroughly decent person, which he most certainly is.

But the give-away in this situation is signaled by the company that has published his book: namely Encounter Books which is very much a key player in the USA right-wing (Republican) noise machine.

The True Believers in our technocratic civilization.

The sub-title or promotional blurb for Encounter Books should be The Politics, Culture and Religion of True Believers. Check out their list of titles.
God is effectively a Judeo-Christian white man.

The West versus the Rest - which is the title of a book by one of Encounters featured authors.

The words True Belief are of course two words in capital letters used in this essay.

Pedantic as usual these two stark images sum up what Western techn0cratic Civilization is REALLY all about.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel14.html

And applied right wing (Christian) politics via a review of an UNSPEAKABLY VILE film. On bringing "free" markets" with the assistance of the Christian "God" to the down-trodden masses.

One market under the Christian "God"!

http://www.logosjournal.com/hammer_kellner

Dear William, interesting but futile. Too little too late, where were all these scientists when the world, according to HSBC Bank, was diverting some 74bn pounds into carbon mitigation, which has achieved a global carbon reduction of what precisely?

We have launched a highly scientific, technical, muti-disciplined, research based, data critical debate into where? Yes, the public domain.

The big end of town, so vilified by the warmers is now the main financial beneficiary, along with extra taxes for governments. Europe is scrambling to shift to energy security as the promises of renewables fall far short of expectations; much of the western world is now saddled with eye wateringly costly and inefficient policies, infrastructure and technology.

Where was the contrary science when all this political folly was launched? If less than 200 scientists can sell a “pup” to the public, why couldn’t the thousands of scientists now sticking their hands up, have spoken out sooner

The author's erudite review does not endorse the view that climate science is settled, which the Government's socalled Climate Committee takes for granted in deliberating on the imposition of a carbon tax.

If the Committee and the anthropogenic-global-warming-supporting climate scientists are so sure that they are right, they should have no hesitation in agreeing to the holding of a royal commission into the veracity of climate science.

It is imperative that such a royal commission be held before legislation for any form of carbon tax is presented to the Parliament . As clearly explained by Nicholson, Biegler and Brooks ( see
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/emission-reductions-are-not-blowin-in-the-wind/story-fn59niix-1225962376534 )

a carbon tax will result in steeply escalating electricity prices, which while favouring the renewable energy suppliers, will damage the rest of the economy.

This is a complex paper and one difficult for a lay person to understand especially as the original sources are not readily available. However I feel able to make a few observations.

1. The discussion on cloud cover and temperature and the observation that the interpretation is ambiguous.
“But how do researchers know that “warmer temperatures caused a decrease in cloud cover, rather than the decrease in cloud cover causing warmer temperatures?”

Illustrates the point that a correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

2. In the discussion on the analysis on the graph referred to in the text as Figure 14.
“… shows that, very roughly, when the energy imbalance (due to forcings) is positive, the temperature increases; likewise when the imbalance is negative, temperature decreases. But this relationship is noisy.”
Now I have not seen this figure; but it seems to me that William Briggs, who is a professional statistician, is illustrating the dangers of “data mining.” This in my view illustrates the principle that by judicious selection of end points, and regression lines one can find support for one’s subjective viewpoint.

From the review it seems that Roy Spencers Book would be worth a read. A brief but simple discussion on the difficulties in ascribing causation in science is attributed to the late AB Hill. It can be found at the following site.
www.drabruzzi.com/hills_criteria_of_causation.htm

I support the suggestion of an Australian Royal Commission on this subject.

This is a very balanced book review by a professor who knows the importance of good statistical analysis.

Roy Spencer is a well known "contrarian" climate scientist and his research into 'negative' feedback is important, and must continue. However, as Briggs correctly identifies, Spencer's thesis is uncertain (and imo, not very robust).

One thing is certain: critics and sceptics of "modeling" will be ok with Spencer's brand of "modeling" - amusing.

2010 is the hottest year since temperatures were recorded.