Sorry, not going to trust research from a backwoods school in Alabama.
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
nothing wrong with Alabama. There are however, significant problems with Spencer's methodology when he cherry-picked his statistical analysis, and citing a physicist as some sort of authority on climate change, no matter if he did go to school at the same place as Garrett.
it's also funny that the WSJ will publish articles from random and RARE crackpots like this, but try to get a letter by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences published and you can bloody well fuck off.
The most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal with respect to manmade climate change is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a scientifically accurate essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. The National Academy of Sciences is the nation’s pre-eminent independent scientific organizations. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn’t publish this letter. Instead they chose to publish an error-filled and misleading piece on climate because 16 so-called experts aligned with their bias signed it. This may be good politics for them, but it is bad science and it is bad for the nation.
Just the liberal media at it again.