The flea has tried to mislead again by taking something said by Spencer out of context and giving an incorrect link. I will give the correct link below. Reminiscent of when the flea lied about what Judith Curry said.
Spencer also said:” Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
This just reminds the flea that any assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate is dishonest.

Leo

I went to the reference you gave previously and looked further into what Dr Spencer was saying on his blog.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

Funny how it is inconvenient when somebody delves further into a reference you provided.

Confirmation that CO2 and radiated infrared long waves create warmth:

"The scientists used incredibly precise spectroscopic instruments operated by the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility, a DOE Office of Science User Facility. These instruments, located at ARM research sites in Oklahoma and Alaska, measure thermal infrared energy that travels down through the atmosphere to the surface. They can detect the unique spectral signature of infrared energy from CO2."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

ant,

"...all involved in fiddling with data according to you."

Nowhere have I said the data is being fiddled. Never said, don't believe it.
As we've seen in other threads, when cornered you just make stuff up.
And stuff-up is a phrase you'd be well used to.
But I do think there is an element of confirmation bias in the way the raw data is homogenised. For example if you are a believer in AGW and you design algorithms to take account of say UHIE which show a cooling, you are most likely to assume the algorithms are faulty and to rework them. But if they show a warming, then you'll assume they're right and not seek further confirmation. Hence, confirmation bias.

I'm not sure what I've said above that you need to see citations for. I've not mentioned anything that ought not to known to anyone who was aware of the full story. The problem I find is that many people only like to read one side of the story and thereby are oblivious to other data. I guess you are an example of that.

One thing you might find controversial is my noting that "even alarmist paleo-climatologists admit that temperature over the past 11000 years has been higher than present 25% of the time." This comes from Marcott et al 2013 which found that " Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history."

Somehow, the world and civilisation survived those warmer periods. Given the scare-mongering that goes on these days, that must be a real puzzle for the dedicated alarmist and explains why they prefer to ignore it.

The flea, because he has no science to support his fraudulent assertions, uses scurrilous, untrue defamation of anyone who tells the truth about climate.
He was saved the trouble, and has referred us to the lies about Ted Cruz prepared by the journalist, Graham Readfern, a well known climate liar. I enumerate Readfern’s lies, in the article:
1. The ship of fools led by scientist Chris Turney was not stuck in the Antarctic ice because they believed that the ice would be melted.
2. The hottest year on record was 2015.Absolute nonsense.
3. That Cruz was wrong to say in the 1970s “you had Liberal politicians and scientists who were talking about global cooling” Readfern sets out facts in his article which prove Cruz is correct
4. He says Cruz is incorrect to say that climate change is a religion. There is no science to support it, so it must be based on faith.
Readfern’s lies are better organised than the flea’s, but just as disgraceful and toxic.

mhaze

It is quite often that deniers say that temperature records have been fiddled with.

Berkeley Earth is a private Agency; Richard Muller, a Physicist was skeptical of how temperature was measured, he was partially funded by Charles Koch to research the matter. Much to the chagrin of deniers he concluded that temperature measured by official Agencies was quite accurate.

Paleoclimatologists indicate that temperatures were not warmer in previous historic times. However, in past epochs prior to human existence, temperatures were higher; and CO2 levels were high at times after periods of high volcanic action.

As the ARM 11 year study shows, when higher levels of CO2 are created in the atmosphere then extra warmth is created.

Leo

Cruz obtains donations from mining companies and has investments in mining companies.

Science does not support what you say; Leo, if it did you would be able to provide up to date citations.
You play with words; rather than provide evidence.
You suggest that 2015 was not the warmest year; where is your evidence?
The El Nino year of 1997/8 has been used as a bench mark by deniers to say warming has not happened; consequently, 2015 needs to be debunked as the edifice of the denier argument goes down the drain.

Two recently published papers have indicated that Oceans are warming; the papers used different methodologies to show that to be the case. Oceans have an impact on climate; due to their sheer volume they take a long time to either warm or cool.
Interestingly there is a cool spot developing South of Greenland; why is that the case Leo?

You have stated I lied about Judith Curry; I quoted a tweet she had published.
Quoting WUWT or James Taylor are not rigorous citations. The best you have come up with is a citation from Dr Spencer.
Science is constantly moving forward as old views are shown to be wrong. That applies to all branches of science; a hypothesis is made and then gets proven wrong. The ARM study showed how comments Dr Spencer made in 2008 had been superseded.

No science from you, flea, just more scurrilous, dishonest defamation.
If you have any science to contradict Cruz, let us have it. I gave the reference to show that 2015 was not the hottest year on record, so you are lying again, when you say I gave no reference.I repeat the reference:
“ these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics. NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set.NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/’
Where is your reference to any science, flea, to support your fraud promoting nonsense? Where is the science upon which you rely to show any measurable human effect on climate?