Spencer is a "lukewarmer". He believes that warming is real, and it's partially caused by human emissions. So, not different from the IPCC in kind, just in degr

Spencer is a "lukewarmer". He believes that warming is real, and it's partially caused by human emissions. So, not different from the IPCC in kind, just in degree. It's not correct to call him a "denialist", given the above. But, he is quite skeptical of the computer models and the general state of climate science. His point is the actual temperature record of the global troposphere over the last forty years takes precedence over a number of computer models, given that many of the inputs to the models are variables which are not well-characterized. Those models are failing to predict actual events. He thinks that the 1.3C/century trend shown in the actual data is not a reason to panic and mangle the economy. He thinks that the overall benefit of global warming and greening due to CO2 may be net positive. His book is pretty even-handed.