Hansen and Schmidt of NASA GISS under fire for climate stance: Engineers, scientists, astronauts ask NASA administration to look at empirical evidence rather than climate models

Jim Hansen arrest at White House

An embarrassing image for NASA: James Hansen, arrested in front of the White House in Keystone pipeline protest. Image: via Wonk Room

Looks like another GISS miss, more than a few people are getting fed up with Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt and their climate shenanigans. Some very prominent NASA voices speak out in a scathing letter to current NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr.. When Chris Kraft, the man who presided over NASA’s finest hour, and the engineering miracle of saving Apollo 13 speaks, people listen. UPDATE: I’ve added a poll at the end of this story.

See also: The Right Stuff: what the NASA astronauts say about global warming

Former NASA scientists, astronauts admonish agency on climate change position

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Blanquita Cullum 703-307-9510 bqview at mac.com

Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence

HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.

H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.

“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”

Select excerpts from the letter:

  • “The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
  • “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
  • “We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”

The full text of the letter:

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ Thomas J. Harmon

/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

/s/ Tom Ohesorge

/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years

/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

===============================================================

hat tip to to Bob Ferguson, SPPI

UPDATE: I’ve added this poll:

About these ads

485 thoughts on “Hansen and Schmidt of NASA GISS under fire for climate stance: Engineers, scientists, astronauts ask NASA administration to look at empirical evidence rather than climate models

  1. Obviously these guys aren’t “real” climate scientists…..only “rocket scientists”… ;)

    …IOW, they don’t understand the complexities of the blah…blah…blah……

  2. Dr James Hansen, director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who first made warnings about climate change in the 1980s, said that public scepticism about the threat of man-made climate change has increased despite the growing scientific consensus.
    Speaking ahead of a public lecture in Edinburgh this week, he admitted that without public support it will be impossible to make the changes he and his colleagues believe need to occur to protect future generations from the effects of climate change.
    He blamed sceptics who are opposed to major social and economic changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for employing “tremendous resources” to undermine the scientific evidence.

    I wonder just how he defines “tremendous resources”

  3. Come on guys. Give Hansen a little more time and the empirical evidence will appear ,… out of nowhere … and suddenly be warmer today and colder in the past.

  4. Bunch of retired NASA engineers and scientists. Bah! What do they know? I mean, except how to rigorously apply a disciplined methodology and careful scientific thought to incomplete data to make insanely difficult missions work. /sarc

  5. Bravo to these brave men and women ! I’ve considered NASA and GISS joke organizations for years now and never take anything they say about climate seriously. If they want to rehabilitate their credibility they should fire Hansen.

  6. You know they’ll just say “and look – not a climate scientist in the bunch”.

    Rocket scientists vs. Climate scientists.

    Can you imagine Hansen in charge of launch control?

  7. “I have become Prostelyzer, Destroyer of Science”
    — James Hansen, Megalomanic Extraordinaire

  8. Maybe this will start the door opening for Hansen to leave but since his noble leader does not want AGW to go away,he probably will stay. ALAS.

  9. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists …declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts … it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

    Who?

  10. “These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward.

    Correction: “…extreme advocacy for an unproven HYPOTHESIS.”

  11. There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”

    Huh! I thought it was already happening in frightening slow motion. Hansen’s name and reputation will go down in history as a scaremonger who shamed his name, institution, and no one will ever believe a single word GISS has to say on today’s weather let alone the climate.

  12. A reminder – Harrison Schmitt is on the Board of Directors of the Heartland Institute, so some people might consider him tainted. Personally, after talking with him for a while at the Chicago ICCC, he’s managed to remain a very personable, and (dare I say it) “down to Earth” demeanor. He’s also the only geologist to reach the Moon, and geologists have a much better “world view” about the impacts of climate change than people from any other branch of science.

    So, this is going to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. I heard Dr. Hansen talk at a Mensa Colloquium a few years ago, he was careful to he was speaking as a private citizen. I’m tempted to complain to Bolden for every news media piece that doesn’t make that clear, e.g. the recent stories in the news about Hansen and his lecture at Edinburgh. It should be Hansen’s responsibilty to make sure the new media are corrected about that, and infringements should be brought to NASA’s attention.

  13. Yeah, but how many are climate scientists? /SARC
    The climate scientists are in a feeding frenzy from the public teat.

  14. Duke Kraft Cunningham Schmitt Kerwin Worden…the list is going to hurt many, many people.

    Wait now for the Bad Astronomer to poo-poo them one by one. Moon hoaxers will rejoice.

  15. to Mark Bofill , you say:
    ” Bunch of retired NASA engineers and scientists. Bah! ”

    Think think think, Mark.

    Why do you not wonder howcome so many engeneers and scientists happen to speak out only when they are retired??

    Think!

    The fact that peoble wait until after retirement to speak out should us all even more concerned of what is going on in climate “scence”.

  16. The Weather Clown has been busy destroying actual thermometer readings for decades. Actual readings may be harder to find than one might think. Remember that NIWA (New Zealand) only got caught when they were unaware that the national library had a compilation of all old weather data. Until that point NIWA provided altered data as original.

  17. It’s about time the honest scientists, engineers and others at NASA and GISS speak up against the blatant fraud being perpetrated on US citizens via global warming propoganda. I do think they may be too late, though. They should’ve done this years ago instead of waiting for the scrutiny to fade.

  18. There is no question that NASA and GISS deserve a thorough house cleaning, starting at the top. Ditto EPA of course.

    However, the electorate will return Pres. Obama and a Dem house due to the rediculous nature of Rommney running on tax breaks for the rich when he pays less income tax as a percentage than probably his hair stylist.

    Thus this letter from the NASA allumni is the only way to address the issue of bad science. The signataries must now step into the media spotlight and make good science an issue during this election. Only then will Pres. Obama slow his carbon agenda. There is no hope of him seeing the light and abandoning it, after all, it is a new religion for many.

  19. Too little too late.
    It has made me very sad to watch NASA throw its reputation away over this nonsense.
    I dreamed of working there as a kid – and I would now beg my own kids to stay well clear of it if such an opportunity arose.
    I’m afraid there will be no going back from this – for them or the Royal Society.

    Future pronouncements are valueless.

    How did they ever let this happen?

  20. Of all the unmitigated gall…
    These people are former NASA “employees” and quite obviously out of the loop and uninformed.
    Their letter has absolutely nothing to do with the Commander- In- Chief’s new mission for NASA: reaching out to the Muslim World.
    /

  21. just to point out the obvious. NASA has had its space exploration wings clipped. NASA and GISS are getting grants for Climate Change studies. Where is the money? Pay me an hundred thou a year and I’ll produce a scientific paper that says that the monkeys are causing climate change, if that’s what you want to hear.

  22. The poll looks tight between the retirement supporters and the keep him on. I voted to keep him on.

  23. Bwaaaa!! (sorry… I couldn’t help it)

    I knew it was only a matter of time before REAL scientists would start to take a stand against this CAGW charade.

    This trickle of brave scientists will soon turn into a torrent, and eventually it will be a race across academia of who in their department were the first to express serious doubt on this awful CAGW *sigh*ence.

    I’m going to take the time to send many of the signatories of this letter to Bolden an e-mail thanking them for their courage.

  24. I am one who would join the sentiment of, “with my taxes, I purchase civilization”.
    However, I am not okay with paying this man’s bills.

    So while I wanted to click keep him going, I say skip the watch, and give him a boot in the behind on the way out the door. He obviously will not stop spouting nonsense once (if) removed from his position at NASA – but I think it would do a lot to help discredit him and the entire movement, if the original warmist himself was sacked for his lies and abuse of power.

    All that said, this just made my whole week :D

  25. Oh Dear. Sounds like Mr Hansen should not have travelled to Scotland, because the rebels are raising Cain, while he’s out of the country. Very medieval stuff really. No doubt, it’ll reinforce both his martyrdom for the cause and his messianic complex.

    Pointman

  26. Fire somebody for being wrong?
    Hell no!
    That’s a warmist tactic.
    A voice of dissent is always needed. We might think we’re right, we might actually even be right, but we cannot know we’re right unless we’ve heard and considered every alternate argument.

  27. What a novel idea! Let the data lead, not the models. The only thing surprising is that it took them so long to ask that question.

  28. I think this leter comes from Heartland too LOL

    REPLY: No, it doesn’t and you’re an idiot for suggesting it does – Anthony

  29. It’s about time some heroes stepped up to help out when emprical data alone is losing the battle to illogic and policy drift. Looking on the bright side, at least all that massive computer data leak from NASA is just giving junk info to the pirates and spies–oh except for that three-stage nuclear- capable missile about to be fired from North Korea.

  30. Wait fo the documentary on the History channel.

    The rise and fall of NASA from Redstone rocket to Keystone pipeline.

  31. NASA should not worry about losing credibility because of Hanson and Schmidt. They lost it when they had 8 years to replace the shuttle (the span of time from the mandate to get to the moon and achieving the goal spanned), came up with something that looked like the Apollo moon rocket and then could not pull it off.
    I will admit it is embarrising that Hanson and Schmidt don’t seem to like satellite data much, preferring old terrestial instruments in constant need of correction. As far as the “tremendous resources” Hanson acuses skeptics like these of having, he has a point. These people are retired and no longer have to rely on government grants for support to make ends meet so they no longer have to hew to a narrative. They are free to say what they think.

  32. good for them. Now I wonder if any of this will ever be covered by the Mainstream Media….Not

  33. Mr. Green “skyrocket” himself is still in charge! The EPA continues to kill jobs while the DOE continues to make fake jobs. It will take many years to recover from the damage done to the U.S. economy if a regime change is made in the next election. The damage will continue if no change is made.

  34. The letter should have been sent to mainstream media, as it will have no effect, since the Heads of NASA will throw it in the wastepaper basket. I think that we will find that mainstream politicians and parties, Universities and even prominent warmist climate scientists will start avoiding the AGW issue which will completely but discreetly disappear over time over the next 2 to 3 years. In the end its was ONLY the actual temp data that did it/will do it oops. We will then be left with Governments green agendas, Greenpeace etc… fighting about alternate energy sources, pollution, overpopulation city design etc which I certainly have no objection to etc. However they will no longer mention C02 induced global warming. It very hard to get these types of people to ever admit they were wrong totally BTW so sorry guys/gals we will only get a phyrric victory LOL

  35. As someone has already said, as a kid I used to dream of working for NASA. Now I can hardly even look at the NASA website because you have to wade through all the PC sh*te before getting to what that once great organisation should be all about. Even then, the truly inspirational stuff, the stuff that inspires our youth to achieve greatness, is found aging away in the archives. NASA has largely replaced its hero astronaut, engineer and managerial staff with tedious bureaucrats with no dreams or vision. Is it any wonder NASA has atrophied and become a haven for charlatans the likes of Hansen.

  36. Leo Morgan says: April 10, 2012 at 11:21 am

    A voice of dissent is always needed. We might think we’re right, we might actually even be right, but we cannot know we’re right unless we’ve heard and considered every alternate argument.

    Okay Leo, we’ve been listening to Hansen spout his Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming rhetoric for nearly three decades now. Just how long do *YOU* suggest that we need to keep considering the same failed argument before we can finally reject it?

    The CAWG hypothesis has had more than enough time to “prove” itself and yet the empirical data is still not supporting it. As far as I am concerned, with all the fail predictions / projections and the massaged / manipulated data we’ve seen from GISS (and others), it’s high time we finally called BS on Hansen, Gore, Mann and all the other “CAWG high priests” and move on.

  37. The odd thing is keeping Hansen in post and in the public eye is actual a good idea for AGW skeptics given his ‘over the top’ maddness that works only with the AGW faithful but turns off most other people .

  38. OK. Now where are the historians, anthropologists, geologists and all the other disciplines that can now re-invent the MWP and the LIA? Why are the other, retired, fruit fly professors not saying anything? It is a good thing the baby boomers will start to retire soon so that they can add their voices to the cacaphony of dissent with the “settled science”.

  39. By the way Anthony, as this great fraud known as global warming begins to crumble at last, and the signs have been gathering for quite a while now, we skeptics owe you a huge debt of gratitude. Where would we be without you brave bloggers?

  40. It would be interesting to know what percentage of NASA’s retired personel this letter represents, as that could perhaps give a guide to the level of disquiet within NASA’s current workforce.

    At what point does it become a critical mass that then allows current NASA employees to speak out.

  41. This is the group we need stepping up to the microphone, the ones in the background who have been cut out of the discussion. Now the staff, retired and not, who do the GISSTemp corrections. And in Australia and New Zealand, the staffers, not the management. Currently employed.

  42. RE: The Poll

    Forget the gold watch – just pitch him out the door, via his collar and belt loops!

  43. This would give me hope…if I thought the MSM would report it prominently.
    I hope they prove me wrong.

  44. Daniel says:
    April 10, 2012 at 11:23 am
    “I think this leter comes from Heartland too LOL

    REPLY: No, it doesn’t and you’re an idiot for suggesting it does – Anthony”

    Please tell me he simply left off the /sarc tag

  45. “Tremendously Resourceful” would be more like it, but I have my doubts we’ll ever hear Jimbo cough it up. To say that ‘it’s about time’ is redundant. “What took them so long” is unanswerable. Will anything come of this? Now THAT’s the trillion-dollar question.

  46. Kent S. says: “…Pay me an hundred thou a year and I’ll produce a scientific paper that says that the monkeys are causing climate change, if that’s what you want to hear.”

    It will never pass peer review. It is well known that monkeys are too busy writing climate models.

  47. Its about time!!!

    NASA has made teaching materials available for quite some time. They must present a balanced and scientific viewpoint.

  48. This letter is not a message aimed at the MSN but rather the NASA establishment. Given the calibre of some of the names on it, NASA knows they ignore it at their peril. Stand by for some distancing of NASA from the alarmist mantra in the future and perhaps a polite suggestion to Hansen, that he can more properly devote himself to the cause full-time, by simply relinquishing his NASA responsabilities.

    Pointman

  49. Well I have recently become aquainted with one individual, who shall remain nameless, who shared the whole NASA moon experience with these individuals; particularly the astronauts themselves (he was not one), and I can say, I am happy to see these prominent individuals come forward, and ask that the whole institution, they were part of, be not reduced to a laughing stock.

    Good show Mates; let’s let the science tell the story.

  50. “CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center”

    At first glance, I read this as Chris “COLOSE”!!

    Spent the next 5 minutes cleaning coffee off my keyboard……….

  51. That’s a tough choice in the poll – his idiotic wacko environmentalist has done wonders for those who were on the fence! But in the end, I had to say give him the boot. Do gold watches come in solar powered versions – maybe a wrist sun dial would be more appropriate ;)

  52. Geo says:
    April 10, 2012 at 10:39 am
    Obviously these guys aren’t “real” climate scientists…..only “rocket scientists”… ;)

    If there were a “science market” instead of a “carbon market”, I wouldn’t trade one rocket scientists for all the climate modelers and AGW alamrmists in the world. Not even a junior rocket scienttist.

  53. That’s a tough choice in the poll – his idiotic wacko environmentalism has done wonders for the fence sitters. But in the end – I say give him the boot. Do gold watches come in a solar powered versions? Or maybe a wrist sundial would be more appropriate. ;)

  54. No sign anything by Black or Shukman on the BBC yet. I’m not holding my breath on it appearing any time soon.

  55. Ed_B says:
    April 10, 2012 at 11:07 am
    ” However, the electorate will return Pres. Obama and a Dem house due to the rediculous (sic – and hilariously ironic!) nature of Rommney (sic) running on tax breaks for the rich when he pays less income tax as a percentage than probably his hair stylist.”

    Ed,
    Thanks for the political climate prognostication! I’ll give it the same weight as any climate prediction from Jimmy Hansen. The republican platform is shaping up to be ‘no changes to taxes, just cut the bloated, morbidly obese federal budget’. There is nothing in it about ‘tax breaks for the rich’ (I love that empty socialist demogoguery!). If you have data that shows Romney’s personal tax rate is less than (“probably….”) his hair stylist, please present it here!

    I don’t pretend to know who will win the US presidential election this November. I am, however, working as hard as I can to defeat Barack Hussein Obama and his socialist ‘green’ agenda.

    MtK

  56. Here’s another good website for space junkies:

    http://spaceflightnow.com/

    Hansen? Ignore him. Fire him. He is insane.

    Good letter to NASA if a bit overdue. NASA needs to get out of the Climate debate; quit taking sides; and get back to data and science and let the scientific results fall as they may and the policy decisions be made by publicly elected officials.

    There has been enough nonsense.

  57. Finally. It’s about time that leaders in our country put an end to this fraud (I am not speaking personally of Hansen; I am addressing the shameful destruction both of science and of a once highly respected American institution.)

    Also, couldn’t vote. Hansen deserves a trial for destroying and altering data. If (when) found guilty, he deserves a prison cell and a huge fine. No retirement for him — nor for others who have perpetrated the fraud called CAGW.

    Also, thanks to Anthony, other couageous bloggers. commenters, and scientists. I hope you/we won’t stop the truth-telling until we find that no more funds are being spent for these noxious purposes. Wow! That will be alot of accounting.

  58. “Wait now for the Bad Astronomer to poo-poo them one by one. Moon hoaxers will rejoice.”

    LOL… I hope so! Why not also “escalate” the subject to Buzz Aldrin? I’m quite confident his arguments on the matter still has a lot of punch.

  59. Schmidt responds: This is pure politics. As former employees of NASA they should know full well that NASA doesn’t take official positions on scientific issues. I note that they provide no references for the ‘unsupported’ statements that think NASA has made. Scientists who work for NASA are however expected to talk about their results, write about them and submit them for peer review. What these letter writers are asking for is for the administration to curtail the free speech rights of NASA employees that they disagree with and that is just wrong. If I asked Bolden to tell Cunningham et al to to stop spouting nonsense, I would be instantly criticised for trying to quash dissent, but these guys have no qualms about it whatsoever. The only response needed is to point these people to the NASA statement on scientific openness that was made the last time people tried to politicise discussions of NASA science. Didn’t work then, won’t work now. – gavin

  60. I voted for the firing, but I’d exchange the gold watch for a thorough investigation of the massive outside income he has garnered in recent years which to most appearances is in clear violation of quite a number of agency rules.

  61. Mac the Knife says:
    April 10, 2012 at 11:58 am
    RE: The Poll

    Forget the gold watch – just pitch him out the door, via his collar and belt loops!

    Ditto! Fire his butt, and then open a Congressional investigation on Hansen’s possible misuse of NASA funds and misrepresentation and/or falsifying NASA scientific data and conclusions.

    /Mr Lynn

  62. NASA needs to get back to its roots! They seem to have lost their way and this is at least a step in the right direction.

  63. In the poll I voted for “Keep him going.” But NOT because I think he’s the sceptic’s best weapon, as I do not believe that. The truth and empirical evidence are our best weapons. The reason I want to keep him going is because to fire him would instantly make him a martyr for The Cause, and that would not be helpful at all.

  64. Well, this is NASA. Communism goes down the drain, & what do these guys do: build a really cool space station (& let the rest of space exploration go to wreck) – and present that as a gift to the Russians: where the Yanks have to BEG for every trip they may be allowed for a view of the home planet from space – transported up in an old tin can that wasn’t even state-of-the-art 45 years ago. That firm deserves a lot more people like Hansen.

  65. I guess the otehr 13 votes [at 1942 Z 10th April], for ‘Hansen as Hero’ are also sarcastic votes – mine most certainly was.

  66. .. – and I have had people from NASA volounteering to help with my site in different ways, and im honoured, but the demand of privacy was 1 priority (!)
    So what comes from retired scientists tells a story of what they believe, but cannot say until retirement.

  67. I’m a bit confused. The letter says: “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data”.

    What thousands of years of empirical data are these? All the empirical data I know seem to show conclusively that C02 has a large impact on the climate system.

    They also say: “With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts”. Which ‘hundreds of well-known climate scientists’ are these?

    Could someone provide a list? Otherwise I don’t think they exist. There are a few (Lindzen, Spencer etc) but the rest (Ball, Plimer etc) are hardly ‘climate scientists’ or even scientists at all!

  68. I suspect that other NASA scientists and engineers will sign on to this letter now that its existence is known

  69. NASAs Chief Scientist is a “Climate Scientist” specializing in propagandizing about the dissapearence of the cryosphere. When he was selected, I posted in tips, but the story was never picked up. I dont think this letter will do any good. NASAs new mission is to advance the socialist cause.

  70. Leo Morgan says:
    April 10, 2012 at 11:21 am
    “Fire somebody for being wrong?
    Hell no!
    That’s a warmist tactic.
    A voice of dissent is always needed. We might think we’re right, we might actually even be right, but we cannot know we’re right unless we’ve heard and considered every alternate argument.”

    Hansen is not just a researcher who happens to be wrong. He is the gatekeeper of GISTEMP, data falsificator extraordinnaire, and earns a million a year on the side selling his doomsday prophecies via books, and getting prices from European governments who exploit his unscientific bloviations to justify the tax regime they impose on us, so he is a useful idiot for EU governments.

    And your argument that we cannot know we are right until after the fact should be applied to all climate models – before they can just fudge a few constants in their programs to “explain” why they have failed for at least the last decade, force them to compare their newest model configuration FOR AT LEAST A DECADE with what happens in reality before giving ANY attention to it. Well, this would lead to a rather big dearth in climate model publications, I should think. And I would call it the precautionary principle protecting us from constant unfounded doom mongering; but the current US administration needs AGW doom mongers to justify filling the pockets of Obama bundlers with green energy loans.

    NASA has long become a joke, the pork barrel habit of disassembling the “reusable” Space Shuttle after each flight, distributing the parts across the US, cleaning them, sending them back to Florida and reconstructing a Space Shuttle from them looks as if Bastiat had invented it to explain how not to do things.

  71. The Obama administration drastically cut NASA’s budget for space exploration but increased their budget for studying climate change. They want to change the primary mission of NASA from one of science to one of government propaganda. That’s not going to change until there is a change in the administration.

  72. This is but another form of the immortal line …

    “Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness.” When McCarthy tried to continue his attack, Welch angrily interrupted, “You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?”

    This is what I believe these NASA legends are trying to say to the head administrator. When you look deep into the eyes of the climate models, nothing peers back at you. Absolutely nothing. Sad really that billions have been spent and 30 years wasted on this reckless charade into a dead alley.

  73. Monty says:
    April 10, 2012 at 12:46 pm

    Monty,

    Is James Hansen a climate scientist? Is Al Gore? Is the man in charge of the IPCC?

  74. I said this morning (April 10, 2012 at 2:44 am) on another thread:
    Oh, NASA, hero organisation of my childhood! Now can’t launch anyone into space, is controlled by pork-barrellers, and employs nuts like Hansen.
    “How have the mighty fallen”.
    —————————-

    Excellent news from all the heroes – perhaps the mighty can now get up, brush themselves off, and cater to our greatest imaginings, not our stupidest fears.

    More Harrison Schmitt, moonwalker; less Gavin Schmidt, viciously devout propogandist.

    Forget Hansen, on to Mars!

    And if NASA can’t, see http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php which also covers SpaceX and other private space efforts.

  75. @Monty
    Confused? I’m not surprised.
    The scam is dissolving before your eyes.
    Confusing when a whole belief system (dare I say religion?) falls apart.
    Even dear Jimmy (see his Edinburgh speech) realizes the jig is up – the skeptics are winning (have won?)

  76. It was a difficult choice, especially as there was no button for:
    “Fire him and then prosecute him”.
    I chose firing.

    -Bad News

  77. Neo says:
    April 10, 2012 at 10:45 am
    He blamed sceptics who are opposed to major social and economic changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for employing “tremendous resources” to undermine the scientific evidence.
    I wonder just how he defines “tremendous resources”

    This is alarmist language.
    “tremendous resources” means “the internet”
    “to undermine the scientific evidence” – means to point flawed data adjustments, or simply saying model data is no real data
    and so on…
    We should build-up a dictionary to be able to communicate with alarmists. Maybe this is the whole issue? Somebody said it is communication…/sarc

    Now seriously, this is great stuff and it shows that slowly people start to put things right.

  78. John Bills said:

    Schmidt responds:

    “…This is pure politics. As former employees of NASA they should know full well that NASA doesn’t take official positions on scientific issues…”

    I’ll agree with Gavin. All this discussion of CAGW is pur politics.

    But his statement that NASA doesn’t take official positions on scientific issues is bull.

    By allowing James Hansen, NASA scientist, head of GISS, to make the statements he does, they ARE making an “official” statement – if we didn’t agree with him, we’d tell him to cool it.

    What other Government employee can protest in front of the White House and not get fired? James Hansen, NASA scientist, head of GISS can.

  79. Hansen, we’ve got a problem.

    It’s true that a few of the astronauts have been speaking out, but when administrative types get into the act, it gets more serious.

  80. “Sad really that billions have been spent and 30 years wasted on this reckless charade into a dead alley.” very true, and now many scientists seeing their budget going to climate science are finally starting to clue in and tell the truth, too bad the money is spend, and they will still be out of a job.

  81. How the press will cover this…
    They won’t.
    The key to good propaganda is not what you say, but what you do not say.

    An of course NASA will look at the many billions of dollars they get to say that CAGW is true, along with the pressure of bureaucrats who see this as a golden opportunity to get billions, even trillions more, and be able to control everything everyone does everywhere, plus the prestige they get from telling themselves that they are “saving the planet”, plus the loss of face they would get if they admit that they have been wrong all along, against this “request”.

    Seems like an easy choice to me.

  82. Let him retire, no.He has enough clear cut ethical violations, confilcts of intrest and arrests, he should have been fired with cause a long time ago.

  83. As a retired NASA Project Manager/Project Scientist, I agree with the letter.

    FWIW, my field was multi-disciplinary Engineering Science. My career involved extensive research projects on Earth, on the Shuttle, and on Space Station. This has been a good fit for understanding the issues related to testing the AGW hypothesis/hypothesized effects — and understanding how NASA culture might impact its findings.

  84. Hansen
    Mann

    Keep hitting at the weak points

    oh.. dont forget
    Gleik
    Trenberth
    Gore
    Lonnie

    Wait…
    Schmitd
    Jones
    Viner

    damn. so many weak points, so little time

  85. John Bills says:
    April 10, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    (Gavin) Schmidt responds: [...Gavin's tiresome, grandstanding comments follow, which need not be repeated...]

    OK – an analogy. Let’s suppose there was an employee of a big agricultural company that did corn seed and farming research. They did their job reasonably competently. But they also used their position in seed research to coauthor journal articles on how corn farming is actually really bad for the environment, that agra-business leaders who advocated corn farming were corrupt and should be tried for “crimes against humanity,” and that people should really stop eating corn products altogether. They even collaborated with like-minded researchers from other countries under the UN funded group Intergovernmental Panel on Corn Cultivation (IPCC), releasing several scathing reports for policy makers detailing the scientific “proof” of the evils of corn farming. Eventually, they went as far as to say that future generations would be irrevocably harmed if corn farming wasn’t banned NOW, and participated in marches, protests, and political events (sometimes even being arrested for their actions). All of these activities, by the way, were done “as a private citizen not representing their employer” – and of course, we all enjoy our free speech rights in this country (except if you’re trying to submit a scientific article to the corn journals, which are overrun by anti-corn zealots who will squash any dissent from the party line).

    Now, a large group of corn farmers, who know that corn farming is safe because they’ve been doing it for ages, write a letter to the company asking for the rogue employee to be fired (or at least retired). How should the company respond?

  86. Theme Song of the 6th Weather Radar Conference, MIT, March, 1957

    More data, more data
    Right now and not later
    Our storms are distressing
    Our problems are pressing
    We can brook no delay
    For theorists to play.
    Let us repair
    To the principle sublime
    Measure everything, everywhere
    All the time

    For data are solid,
    Though dull and though stolid,
    Consider their aptness
    Their matter-of-factness
    Theory is confusion
    A snare and delusion,
    A dastardly dare,
    A culpable crime.
    Measure everything, everywhere,
    All the time.

    No need to be weary
    Of the mysteries of theory.
    We only must look
    At the data we took.
    Immediately inspired,
    Grasp the answers required.
    What are so rare,
    As reason and rhyme?
    Measure everything, everywhere,
    All the time.

    More data, more data,
    From pole to equator;
    We’ll gain our salvation
    Through mass mensuration.
    Thence flows our might,
    Our sweetness, our light.
    Our spirits full fair, our souls sublime:
    Measure everything, everywhere,
    All the time.

    L’Envoi
    It shall come to pass, even in our days,
    That ignorance shall vanish and doubt disappear.
    Then shall men survey with tranquil gaze
    The ordered elements shorn of all fear.

    Thus to omniscience shall we climb,
    Measuring everything, everywhere, all the time.

    http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/~jdduda/portfolio/HistoryPPT.pdf

  87. I voted for sending him out the door. However, seeing that this is NASA we are talking about, there should be a follow up question on what altitude to put him out the door at. I vote for 422400 feet.

  88. I thank the authors of the letter for their weighty votes for realignment of GISS with objective science. Hansen is an escalating liability for the failing pseudo-scientific ideology of CAGWists.

    John

  89. See a major effort by Google to snuffle this one.

    REPLY: Slashdot has already deleted the story I submitted to them, never had that happen before. – Anthony

  90. I am disappointed that Gene Kranz’s name is not among the forty nine signers. He has just as much weight as Kraft, IMO.

  91. First up – WOW! Sat down this morning with my cup of coffee and time at WUWT. A few shouts for joy later, an almost spilled coffee (it’s alright, I caught it) and one moggy that’s looking at me strangely, I have settled down and can reread and reread. And reread.

    This is WONDERFUL!

    Next… Sorry, Anthony, I am not happy with your poll. All the options are too nice. Where’s the option for an arrest? Where’s the option for making this guy go back and do his homework properly and bring out a nice big fat apology. There’s not even an option for kicking him out without the gold watch. Give us some meat, would you? Please?

    :)

  92. Still waiting for the ‘thousands of years of empirical data’ that shows C02 doesn’t have the effect we know it does, and the list of ‘hundreds of well-known climate scientists’ who don’t believe in AGW.

    Looks like I might have a long wait!

  93. Isn’t it time that NASA stopped moonlighting in the murkey politics of climate “science” and went back to their day job of exploring space?

  94. You missed another option in the poll:
    4. Sack him without notice or compensation, then sue him for bringing the organisation into disrepute and abuse of his position amounting to Gross Misconduct.

  95. Wonder if UniverseToday will carry this? Since some of the authors there are regular users of the “denier” word, I doubt it.

  96. @Monty: Sorry I see that my previous one-sentence reply was unclear. Try reading articles on this and other sites regarding the issue. For example, ice cores have shown that CO2 lags temperature. A recent study purports to overthrow this long-standing result, and this site, among others, has at least one article on the topic, wherein you can find the kind of data you seek.

    If you’re trolling for a soundbite reply, you won’t get it.

  97. Our CSIRO needs a similar letter to alter their charter from being a Government (tax) propaganda machine and back to making a contribution to science.

  98. Meanwhile, in the middle of solar maximum, the sun is having a virtually spot free day…

  99. @EO Peter
    “Why not also “escalate” the subject to Buzz Aldrin? I’m quite confident his arguments on the matter still has a lot of punch.”

    I wondered what Buzz Aldrin thought following your comment:

    And from wikipedia: “In 2009, Aldrin said he did not believe humans were causing current climate change: “I think the climate has been changing for billions of years. If it’s warming now, it may cool off later. I’m not in favor of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today.”

    I wonder how many of the signatories to the letter read WUWT? Hanson and others are causing NASA to be ridiculed. The wonderful success, intelligence and bravery of the signatories and others who worked so hard and took such risks to gave NASA its reputation for excellence in space is slowly being diminished by the politically driven obsession with CAGW. The men and women who signed this letter can’t be easily ignored.

  100. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”

    Um… it’s a bit late for that now. Someone’s going to have to work out how to dig NASA, the EPA, the Royal Society, the UK Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor, UEA CRU, the APS and Wikipedia out of the mess they’re in. For a start……

  101. @Monty
    You still don’t get it, do you?
    Do you understand ‘lost’. As in ‘lose’ and ‘losing’.
    Listen to your High Priest.

  102. You can tell how big a story is by the determination of the trolls to try to shoot it down with their smug bologna. Anthony, don’t believe for a second that you didn’t play a huge roll in this tide turning development.

  103. I’ve said this before, but I really wish someone would ask Hansen this question “If your models were being used to design and control space ships, would you, hand on heart, go up in one?”

    I’ve heard appeals to authority. These guys, I accept their authority. these guys have DONE stuff.
    Hansen needs to resign. He would be much happier as a full-time campaigner. As it is, I wonder when he actually WORKS, what does he actually DO?

  104. Looks like a who’s who list of my friend’s dads growing up. Too bad my dad isn’t still alive to add his name to that list.

  105. Monty you write:
    “Still waiting for the ‘thousands of years of empirical data’ that shows C02 doesn’t have the effect we know it does..”

    Freely RE-WRITTEN:

    “Still waiting for the ‘thousands of years of empirical data’ that shows that my GOD cant exist even though I know he does..”

    My point: You dont make science by demanding counter-evidence..!

    Is it fair to demand CO2 backup evidence? Yes!
    Because the heat-effect demanded from CO2 is so massive that it should be able to take temperatures on Earth to a level not seen in millions of years. That is, CO2 MUST have the ability to dominate all other climate effects.
    IF CO2 had this effect, obviously we would have seen this in real evidence from ice cores etc long ago.

    The fact that real evidence of CO2 mediated massive warming is not found is indeed evidence that CO2 cannot be the warming agent needed for a dangerous warming as claimed.
    The alarmists has an overwhelming problem not finding any evidence for such a massive effect.
    Hope you understands this, its not for fun etc. that sceptics demands evidence.

  106. As engineer (still) working (a t high level) on the Ariane 5 program, for both French and European Agencies, I have the greatest respect for NASA’s achievements (especially for bringing Man to the Moon) and for all those guys here above (engineers, scientists and astronauts…) who made these achievements possible. But I also have to admit that NASA/GISS unbridled advocacy of AGW dogma, without the slightest evidence to support such a claim, has brought the whole NASA institution into disrepute.

    NASA has achieved the highest standards in terms of models’ verification & validation.
    Indeed it is just ridiculous to observe that GISS’ climate modelers have been unable to apply their own standards and that they still base their claim, about a so called catastrophic manmade global warming, on models that have never been formally validated. But the very inconvenient truth is that none of these nice climate models would be able to pass any V&V process since there outputs are daily rebutted by comparison to observed climate data.

    Sincerely from France.

    Eric

  107. Sad that this had to happen, seeing the signatures of so many 40+ Year Nasa-Veterans calling to order their “Heimat”, the source of (their) pride and great scientific advances.
    The squandering of Standing and Reputation of the Nasa is nothing to celebrate for.

  108. Jud,

    “How did they ever let this happen?”

    Let me try to explain from some history. Some of you might have more info than I do on what I’m going to talk about – so feel free to call BS on me if your facts trump my understanding. This in no way is intended as a slam against the 99% at NASA who put man on the moon, Voyager in deep space, and Spirit and Opportunity on Mars. Those are steely eyed rocket mechanics! This is intended at the 1% who value politics and activism over the science they are paid to do and manage.

    NASA has four major accidents in it’s past. Apollo 1, Apollo 13, Challenger, and Columbia.

    Apollo 1 killed three astronauts in a capsule fire on the pad. An oxygen atmosphere intensified the fire. There was no escape. But let’s call that a learning moment – no sarcasm here. NASA recoiled and did the math (on slipsticks for the most part) and fixed the issues. Space is a risky business. Fire on a capsule, well, those astronauts knew the risks.

    While the Apollo missions all tested the limits of man and machine, 13 was the one that carried double from the explosion to the landing. I think, for the general public, the movie about the events is probably some of the best factual theather Hollywood has done, bar none. Once again, an engineering watershed that changed how space was done.

    Challenger – the beginning of the rot. I’m inclined to think that the leaders of the time couldn’t possibly believe people they trusted for cold, hard decisions based on nothing but evidence would make a decision for a purely political reason. It just wasn’t NASA. Even so, with the O rings at the point of no-go from prior evidence, the Challenger was cleared to fly. A blowtorch on a support, the support fails, the SRB pivots and breaches the Aux tank, explosion. A moment etched into the sky. A part failure? No a person failure. One lone voice saying NOOOOOOO!

    The shuttle, proven in thick and thin flys again. Problems with the Aux tank foam. Columbia is holed. It makes it to space. Return is authorized. At 100,00 feet, the beams burn through, and the rest is a firery signature in the sky. Brave people die. A management and engineering error.

    The rot was there then, and it is there now. The rot will continue to exist at NASA despite the best efforts of all of us. The career cost of bucking the majority, and engineering axiom, is just too high. People will make the political decision. Who in Hanson’s group will oppose him an survive at NASA. Communication is not an option. It is death.

  109. Astronaut AGW skeptcism in poster format:

    I posted this below dozens of online newspaper AGW articles per day for about nine months based mostly on Tom Nelson’s news feed (http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/) but also Google news searches for clone articles, worldwide. A lot of laypersons have thus seen it! What a skeptical PR coup this opportunity was compared to the old days when real PR firms targeted small newspapers nationwide with letter writing and press release campaigns. Where’s my oil money check? When it didn’t arrive, I had to get back to work. When 50% instead of 0% of political candidates suddenly adopted AGW skepticism, my work was done, though I still gain great thrill from the clean up operations being reported here.

  110. Folks here at WUWT don’t seem to understand that James Hansen and his colleagues at NASA incur a risk of being fired if-and-only-if if they see a safety concern and DON’T speak up.

    To see this, just visit the web page NASA Lessons Learned, which is operated by NASA’s Chief Engineer.

    This lessons-learned page reflects harsh lessons-learned for NASA:

    • “There’s no scientific PROOF that cold o-rings are a risk. And the launch schedule is at-risk. So Challenger is approved for launch.

    • “There’s no scientific PROOF that oxygen is a fire risk. And the launch schedule is at-risk. So Apollo 1 gantry testing is approved.

    Hundreds more examples can be cited. That’s the common-sense reason why only a very tiny fraction of NASA’s astronauts and engineers signed that petition… knowing that past attempts by NASA administrators to muzzle scientists and engineers have ended in disaster.

  111. Frankly, I think a fraud, waste and abuse investigation into Hansen’s activities is in order. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has been active in making sure that IG investigators and wistleblowers are severely inconvenienced. Probably the reason why current NASA employees aren’t saying anything – they’ll get their throats metaphorically cut.

  112. From Monty on April 10, 2012 at 2:11 pm:

    Still waiting for the ‘thousands of years of empirical data’ that shows C02 doesn’t have the effect we know it does, and the list of ‘hundreds of well-known climate scientists’ who don’t believe in AGW.

    Looks like I might have a long wait!

    Even longer since you mangled what the letter actually said into a misrepresentation:

    With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

    It seems you accidentally dropped the all-important “catastrophic” qualifier from your comment.

    Now if you wish to argue that CO₂, at current and reasonably-expected future atmospheric concentrations, does have the catastrophic effect “we know it does”, feel free. Be prepared to supply references.

  113. Apparently it is the so called rocket scientists who have not assessed all the available data before putting out wild accusations in press releases.

    To claim that the prediction models are inadequate is false. The models have correctly predicted temperatures since 1900.

    Myth no. 6: “Climate models are unreliable ”

    [Please, no free advertising. Readers can easily find that unreliable blog if they want to. ~dbs, mod.]

  114. Dodgy Geezer says:
    April 10, 2012 at 2:36 pm
    “Um… it’s a bit late for that now. Someone’s going to have to work out how to dig NASA, the EPA, the Royal Society, the UK Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor, UEA CRU, the APS and Wikipedia out of the mess they’re in. For a start……”

    wikipedia will just rewrite history to whatever the next version of the NPOV will demand.
    If necessary, they will delete entire articles and create new ones to get rid of the editing history.
    Easy.

  115. Good on you ‘NASA’s – 49er’s’, thank you and well said.

    Meanwhile………………………..”Yeah, but I thought Jim had fixed this?!”

  116. Monty says:
    ”What thousands of years of empirical data are these?”

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf

    ” Which ‘hundreds of well-known climate scientists’ are these?

    JohnWho says:
    April 10, 2012 at 12:26 pm
    John West says:
    April 10, 2012 at 12:12 pm
    Phil C says:
    “Who?”

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12

    And a lot of Meteorologists:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/

    ” Otherwise I don’t think they exist.
    Is that skepticism?
    What would happen if you turned that skepticism toward the following?
    Evidence for high sensitivity to 2xCO2.
    Evidence for catastrophe without global carbon dioxide emission reductions.
    Evidence for absence of catastrophe with global carbon dioxide emission reduction.
    Evidence for “unprecedented” climate.
    Evidence for MWP & LIA regional instead of global.
    Evidence that mitigation would be more economical than adaptation.
    Evidence that geo-engineering isn’t a more practical strategy than global emission reductions.

  117. i guess the astronauts and engineers were living in a cave for the past decade or something?
    nasa has a new reputation as moslem outreach and occasional autoshop for japanese cars.
    anyway, nor all their untimely piety nor wit can cancel half a line of what’s been writ.
    it underscores the depravity, if anything, for they are soooo too little and soooo too late.
    that, is in itself, a defining act as well.

  118. The letter was short, modest and cogent. It will be ignored by politicos within and without NASA, but, if it gets wide distribution, will have great impact.

  119. @NikFromNYC
    Posting skepticism from astronauts is like using the Pope to counter anti-religion arguments.

    Celebrity worship can sway the uneducated, but not scientists. The evidence is all that matters.

  120. NikFromNYC says:
    April 10, 2012 at 3:15 pm
    “Astronaut AGW skeptcism in poster format:


    Great work!

  121. I have been flabbergasted about how once respected institutions have thrown their reputations out of the window by producing all those alarmist bogus reports.

    The latest comes from MIT which is recycling the long debunked “end of the world” alarmism that the Club of Rome into basket case of super nerds.
    The MIT report predicts the culling of 5 billion people due to a global depression that will hit by 2030. Of course Global Governance will be our only way out.
    And yes, the predictions are based on MIT models which is why we have to take this report extremely seriously.

    http://www.activistpost.com/2012/04/global-great-depression-and-population.html

    No longer send your kids to MIT for an education.
    They are now the New Club of Rome.

  122. Geo, you mean a climate scientist that counts tree rings might not be as smart as rocket scientists that can land men on the moon and return them safely to earth?

  123. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”
    ———-
    What about the concern that if CO IS a major cause of climate change and NASA does nothing then there will be the public ridicule and distrust.

  124. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/22/jim-hansen-calls-for-energy-company-execs-to-be-jailed/

    =======================================

    John from CA says:
    April 10, 2012 at 12:12 pm
    Its about time!!!

    NASA has made teaching materials available for quite some time. They must present a balanced and scientific viewpoint.

    They’ve been teaching the ridiculous AGWScienceFiction that shortwave (visible light) heats Earth’s land and oceans and claiming the real direct heat from the Sun which is physically capable of doing this, thermal infrared longwave, doesn’t reach the surface; there’s a lot to put right..

    It isn’t just that they’re pushing an ideology as if it’s science by corrupting data, they’ve corrupted the basics of traditional science – deliberately dumbing down science education for children.

    Here’s where I discovered their gross malfeasance: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/spencer-and-braswell-on-slashdot/#comment-711886

    And as Jud said above, not just NASA, the Royal Society too.

    The two greatest science institutions have made themselves a laughing stock in science, but I think it could still be put right, if enough of those who work there or are members spoke out now…

    ..what isn’t a solution is to let it slide and hope that it will all be put right in a few decades – they should take the lead in putting it right.

  125. DBCooper says:
    “Would that we could get a comment from Richard Feynman.”

    He would probably throw some cold water on NASA’s climate models and demonstrate their lack of resilence.

  126. Harrison Schmitt who the letter defers to on the science is a former Republican senator and long time anti-environmentalist activists. He says it is all a communist plot: “I think the whole trend really began with the fall of the Soviet Union. Because the great champion of the opponents of liberty, namely communism, had to find some other place to go and they basically went into the environmental movement.” See Wikipedia.

  127. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_COAL_SURGING_EXPORTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-04-10-14-27-17

    Apr 10, 5:49 PM EDT

    Coal exports surge to highest level since 1991

    By MATTHEW BROWN
    Associated Press

    BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — U.S. coal exports reached their highest level in two decades last year as strong demand from Asia and Europe offered an outlet for a fuel that is falling from favor at home.

    U.S. Department of Energy data analyzed by The Associated Press reveal that coal exports topped 107 million tons of fuel worth almost $16 billion in 2011. That’s the highest level since 1991, and more than double the export volume from 2006.

    Much of the increase went to slake the thirst of power-hungry markets in Asia, where rapid development has sparked what mining company Peabody Energy calls a “global coal super cycle” that heralds renewed interest in the fuel.

    Maybe “death trains of coal” Hansen will blow a gasket over this report and render these complaints moot. Looks like the rest of the world, including Europe, doesn’t want to play his games with him anymore.

  128. Walter Cunningham is with the Heartland Institute. Sorry this letter has no scientific credibility.

    REPLY: Oh, please. Pieter Tans, keeper of the CO2 records for Mauna Loa, is a declared 911 Truther, you don’t see us dismissing the entire CO2 record because he has an “association” do you? Here’s a letter to the editor he co-signed:

    World has lost a true, humble friend

    The world has lost a true friend in Gilbert White, winner of the 2000 National Medal of Science, natural resource adviser to FDR, ecologist before the word existed, president of Haverford College, social scientist and much else he was too humble to mention.

    Gil was a fearless thinker who supported ideas that were before their time, such as the project at Vote.org and ideas that many ridicule or fear, such as evidence that a few people in our government allowed or caused the 9/11 attacks. He’s the eldest in the Oct. 21, 2004, Boulder Weekly photo with us, attending a 9/11 Truth event, although we weren’t identified — see Boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html. At lunch afterward, he expressed surprise and frustration that the media simply refused to make this an issue in the coming presidential election.

    Gil was pretty sure that 9/11 was treason partly because, when he was working in the FDR White House, he witnessed the congratulatory atmosphere there the day of Pearl Harbor. He believed the government had invited the attack to get people’s support to enter World War II, and that something similar happened to get Congress’ (not the people’s) support for the Bush wars.

    Gilbert could have been a member of almost any elite, but he preferred non-elitists. He believed in giving power to the people rather than keeping it in the hands of any elite. He hoped that when people learned that the government was complicit in 9/11 that they’d demand the kind of participatory government you can help realize at Vote.org. That’s why we risk accusations of sullying the dead by writing this.

    Steven Jones, BYU Physics professor suspended for his work with Physics911.net, and Kevin Ryan, fired from Underwriters Laboratories for speaking out, will speak Oct. 29 from 2 to 6 p.m. in CU’s Math 100, along with the founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, Kevin Barrett, Ph.D.

    EVAN RAVITZ, ROBERT McFARLAND,
    PIETER TANS and MARTIN WALTER
    Boulder

    Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20061023020522/http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/letters_to_editor/article/0,1713,BDC_2491_5065789,00.html

    And here he is in a photo, he’s the one in the middle holding the banner:

    http://archive.boulderweekly.com/102104/coverstory.html

    Here’s his NOAA page: http://cires.colorado.edu/people/tans/

    -Anthony

  129. Michael,

    Your history is good. The Navy had similar problems with submarines. They fixed it with a Quality Control Program that included (among many other things) a system of EXTERNAL audits. NASA institututed many parts of the Navy program, but not the audits. Having someone outside of your depatrment looking at your work can imporove the overall product, especially when lives are on the line. And yes, people have been sent to jail based on things found during audits.

  130. From the astronauts’ letter: “The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.” I totally agree. There is much evidence to support the stand these courageous men have taken. Global warming fanatics are pushing the myth that carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is warming up the world and will cause Armageddon if we don’t stop using fossil fuels. They also control publication of scientific articles and are blocking any contrary reports from being published as Climategate proved. Proof that their claim is false comes from Ferenc Miskolczi, a Hungarian scientist who used to work for NASA. Using NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948 he was able to show that the transmittance of the atmosphere in the infrared where carbon dioxide absorbs has been constant for 61 years. At the same time the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increased by 21.6 percent (E&E 21(4):243-262, 2010). This means that the addition of all this carbon dioxide to air had no effect on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. This is an empirical observation, not derived from any theory, and overrides any theoretical predictions that do not agree with it. Specifically, it overrides any climate models that use the greenhouse effect to predict warming. These are the ones NASA GISS and its director James Hansen have been citing as their authority that warming is happening. There is actually no greenhouse warming now and there has not been any for the last 100 years. The first part of twentieth century warming started in 1910 and stopped in 1940. There was no corresponding increase of carbon dioxide at its beginning and that rules out carbon dioxide as its cause. Bjørn Lomborg attributes it to solar influence and I agree with him. There was no warming in the fifties, sixties, and seventies while carbon dioxide kept increasing. There is no satisfactory explanation for this lack of warming. Suggestions that aerosols cooled the earth for these thirty years have been shown to be wrong. And there was no warming in the eighties and nineties either according to satellite temperature measurements. There was a short spurt of warming between 1998 and 2002 but it was caused by the warm water the super El Nino of 1998 carried across the ocean and not by any greenhouse effect. And there was no warming from that point to the present. That is all in accordance with the Miskolczi theory. And if you think that Arctic warming is a loophole, think again. Arctic warming is not greenhouse warming but is caused by warm Gulf Stream water that Atlantic currents are carrying into the Arctic Ocean (E&E 22(8):1067-1083, 2011). These are the facts about global warming that fully justify the letter written by the 50 astronauts to Charles Bolden.

  131. Yep, NASA needs to switch focus to its new Mission — Muslim Outreach. That’ll work!

    The fish rots from the head.

  132. Regarding the Hansen poll: what I want to see is an honest review of his work, and in particular his outside activities, for the past decade.

    If such an appraisal shows that he has not violated the terms of his employment, then it’s here’s-your-hat-what’s-your-hurry. Buh-bye Jim, enjoy your retirement.

    But I’d really like to know why we should be on the hook for his pension if he’s been out buccaneering as much as it seems he has.

  133. This is great news. I wish only that some more active members in the NASA community will follow suit and pile on. I know a lot of them agree with the general content of this letter.

  134. Monty-
    you need to catch up in your reading. Begin with the 40 or so eminent scientists profiled in environmentalist Lawrence Solomon’s book “The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud.”

  135. From where I sit, it appears to me that in space exploration people’s safety and missions can at times depend on the skill and judgement of a single individual. NASA cannot afford to keep just one individual with such impaired scientific judgement. After so many years, how many others have they let in and allowed them to promote one another. Hansen makes me look at NASA’s occasional “accidents” in a whole new light. If they do not get rid of people like this they have no future.

  136. Hansen is trading on the NASA name, one the signers created. In an academic setting – he’d be little more than a garden-variety nutcase. But at NASA he is automatically accorded a reputation and prominance without having to demonstrate on his own.

    They say that Hansen makes these pronouncements on his own dime (declared or not) – but show me an article or press clipping where he ISN’T described as Jim Hansen of NASA. A huge conflict of interest.

    He ought to be fired for cause. NASA mgmt is negligent in its duties. If it goes to court, so be it.

  137. Perfect timing from the guys with the “right stuff” from NASA.
    Hansen has just finished getting his “medal” in Edinburgh.
    Now he knows where to stick it.

  138. Michael J. Bentley:

    A couple of additional comments: NASA management knew a pure oxygen atmosphere was dangerous. Too much time and money to fix. Until after.
    Apollo 13 resulted from bad communication: The pad complex changed voltage and the supplier for the O2 tank heater didn’t get the info, or ignored it. So a switch failed. The NASA science & engineering staff figured out how to bring ‘em back alive. That confirmed my decision to go into engineering. (was already doing that, felt much better about it.)
    Challenger and Columbia were indeed bad management. They had partial o-ring failures and ignored them. The non-CFC foam on the main tank had problems, they ignored them. But no managers got the boot in either case.
    One more failure, Hubble. Two primary mirrors were built, one by Kodak, one by the “other guys.” Kodak provided test data, even though not in the contract. The other guys did not. But, they were in a state with a Powerfun Senator, so management decided to use the other guys mirror. It only cost a couple billion to fix.

    I rather doubt much will change because of this letter. Maybe a tiny chink in the armor.

  139. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    ■“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
    ■“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
    ■“We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”

  140. This letter is just another appeal to authority. There is nothing new in what is written but it is suppose to hold sway because of those writing it.

    REPLY: But at least, unlike you, they have the courage and integrity to put their name to their words. Compared by that alone, your opinion isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit – Anthony

  141. Aren’t these the same gentlemen that understood you couldn’t land on the moon using the black body calculations. My hat is off to you. Thanks for speaking up.

  142. From my experience in Australia, a letter of this importance should be directed towards the politicians who decide. Otherwise public servants file away to oblivion.

  143. Mike says:
    April 10, 2012 at 4:27 pm
    “Walter Cunningham is with the Heartland Institute. Sorry this letter has no scientific credibility.”

    Warmists… razor-sharp intellects…

  144. MwahahaaAAAA!

    I bet old James ‘Handcuffs’ Hansen is apoplectic with rage (with his silly hat on), and Gavin Schmidt will be leaping up and down with a face like a slapped arse.

    I get the feeling that ‘banjo time’ for all these arch-warmingists is nigh, and it’ll soon be the moment to stock up on popcorn.

    {:o)

  145. [snip - just not interested since you failed to take my advice for a timeout in the other thread - Anthony]

  146. sceptical says:
    April 10, 2012 at 5:28 pm
    “This letter is just another appeal to authority. There is nothing new in what is written but it is suppose to hold sway because of those writing it.”

    What they write does not have to be new; it only has to be true. The fact that Hansen et.al. have placed model output above evidence is not new; is that a reason to stop protesting it? The fact that the versions of GISS temperature record show a rather strange behaviour under Hansen is not new, is that a reason to accept Hansen’s manipulations as gospel? Do falsities become true by getting used to them?
    Blink comparator of USA GISS temperatures pre 2000 vs. latest:

    http://www.real-science.com/hansens-y2k-dilemma

  147. They may though be pissing into the wind. “He who pays the piper calls the tune” and I am afraid that the paymaster wants AGW, not science.

  148. Obviously I’m speaking to people who have already made up their minds, but I’ve read many, many reports in which the climate models don’t accord with the observed results… because the observed results are worse. Many reports in which climatologists– you know, the ones who’ve made a career of studying climate– say that what they’re seeing is what was predicted for five, ten, or twenty years from now, but it’s happening already.

    I truly hope you people are right, and climate change isn’t serious. But the evidence is against you.

    If meteorologists said that there was a 90% chance of a class-4 hurricane striking your city in the next three days, would you sit there and say there was no point in doing anything until they were 100% sure it was coming within the hour?

    Climate is like an ocean liner– you have to start turning a long way before you need to be turned, or you’re going to hit the berg. I don’t think our grandchildren are going to forgive us for the delay.

  149. @Anthony, April 10, 2012 at 4:27 pm, Reply

    Tans 9/11 nuttiness is a non sequitur. We don’t seriously doubt the CO2 readings because they are easily confirmed. But this letter relies for its scientific basis on two people who have long been active in the political campaign against mainstream climate science and neither are experts in climatology. I do not agree with some of Hansen’s political views and activities, but his scientific papers are very well done. He is a climate scientist.

  150. [snip. This article is not about other WUWT commentators. Take your hate elsewhere. ~dbs, mod.]

  151. You guys in the states have the same problem as we have in Europe. AGW is now the largest and fastest growing sector of government expenditure. It is going to take more than one letter to put an end to it.
    Not forgetting that green taxation is the governmental cash cow of our age.

  152. It is mostly politics. So long as there is no new leadership at NASA, there will be no change in the endless advocacy for specific policy positions. Different politics, different focus. Vote in November; that is the only way to change NASA GISS.

  153. Obviously I’m speaking to people who have already made up their minds, but I’ve read many, many reports in which the climate models don’t accord with the observed results… because the observed results are worse. Many reports in which climatologists– you know, the ones who’ve made a career of studying climate– say that what they’re seeing is what was predicted for five, ten, or twenty years from now, but it’s happening already.

    Can you link to some of these reports? I’d like to read them.

  154. @ Michael J. Bentley

    That Sir, was an exceptional analisys of how NASA has become mired in mediocraty. I believe that there are many many fine engineers and scientists within NASA right now who long to do great things, and they are looking around and realizing that their dreams on working on cutting edge projects have been sold out by managerial turf wars, homage to the status quo, and massive subcontractor perks.

    To all those who dream of being part of something great, I suggest that it won’t happen in NASA anytime soon (other than JPL, and even that’s questionable at this point).

    Go NewSpace!

  155. I worked with a guy in 2005-2006, “Charlie the Tuna”…who had been a machinist working for Control Data. They made the computer on board the lunar lander. I asked him one time about the “core memory” for the lander. It was made of 1 kilobit blocks. He said he’d forgotten. THEN a week later he walked up to me and said, “I remembered! Each lunar lander had a 40 block assembly. They cost $2000 each.” (Or $80,000 in 1966-68 money or about $800,000 now!)

    Now these guys WENT TO THE MOON AND BACK with computers so basic, the PC I’m working on now makes them look NO BETTER THAN AN ABACUS.

    Here’s the problem…”temporal provincialism”. I.e., “We are at the PEAK of our powers/intellect/progress RIGHT NOW, and everything is going to go downhill (i.e., Hansen and company, “The world is going to hell…..woe are WE…”,) and everyone before us were a bunch of primatives, and can be ignored.

    Truth is, the guys that WENT TO THE MOON WITH AN ABACUS, and also (another example), designed, built and flew the P-51 in 187 days…just may, JUST MAY, on a “bad day” be 10 to 100x’s the “man” you are Dr. Hansen. Dismissing them because of their age and being “out of their time”, is done completely at your peril. (“Study the past, those who do NOT are doomed to repeat it..” – Aristotle.)

  156. rhea3 says:
    April 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm

    “If meteorologists said that there was a 90% chance of a class-4 hurricane striking your city in the next three days, would you sit there and say there was no point in doing anything until they were 100% sure it was coming within the hour?”

    Afetr 15 years plus of this…you bet I’m staying put.

  157. rhea3 says:
    April 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm
    “because the observed results are worse. Many reports in which climatologists– you know, the ones who’ve made a career of studying climate– say that what they’re seeing is what was predicted for five, ten, or twenty years from now, but it’s happening already.”

    You mean like the melting of the sea ice?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

    (In case you’re not capable of reading the graphs – it’s above average globally.)

    “Climate is like an ocean liner– you have to start turning a long way before you need to be turned, or you’re going to hit the berg. I don’t think our grandchildren are going to forgive us for the delay.”

    You must think you’re mighty important if you think our grandchildren will still worry about the greatest scientific hoax of all times.

  158. Eek, the trolls have been mobilised. Notice how not one of them addresses the points raised by the letter? The playbook instruction on this one is fairly easy, even for them – do a few ad homs, say something, anything outrageous, just get the bloody discussion off the damage that a letter signed by NASA royalty is doing to the cause.

    Of course, for Hansen at al, the problem is that so many of the signatories on this letter are “connected” people and for an organization like NASA, which lives or dies at the whim of politicial largesse, these people definitely have to be listened to, especially in a year when there’s going to be a change in which party will be running the country at year’s end. Ain’t democracy wonderful?

    Tough times to be a troll.

    Pointman

  159. rhea3 says:
    April 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm
    “…”
    _______________
    Rhea, where to begin…

    “Obviously I’m speaking to people who have already made up their minds…”
    ________________
    The very nature of scientific skepticism is to not approach issues/problems with preconceived notions. You’ve “obviously” misinterpreted what you see here.

    “I’ve read many, many reports in which the climate models don’t accord with the observed results… because the observed results are worse.”
    ______________
    You have that exactly backwards… real world results invariably refute the models predictions.
    Feel free to post any data to support your assertion, otherwise, you’re just blowing smoke.

    Many reports in which climatologists– you know, the ones who’ve made a career of studying climate– say that what they’re seeing is what was predicted for five, ten, or twenty years from
    now, but it’s happening already.”

    _______________
    I’m not sure where you came up with that, but again, <i.post data/studies supporting your claim here and prove it, otherwise, you will be viewed as just another proselyte without a clue, or worse, a propagandist.

  160. rhea3: “many reports in which the climate models don’t accord with the observed results… because the observed results are worse.”

    Not one single model predicted the no warming of the last 15 years. So your statement is not based on facts. BTW, what is the forcing that caused the cooling of the last 15 years if it was able to completely negate the warming caused by humans? CO2 is going up, but not temperatures. How can there be warming without warming?

    “I truly hope you people are right, and climate change isn’t serious. But the evidence is against you.”

    What evidence is that? If you have evidence, share it.

    And your analogy is flawed. You immediately assume that everyone needs someone else to be told what to believe. There are brilliant minds on the skeptics side that ARE climate scientists. There are also people who have higher education and can look at the data on their own. This is why it’s the people with MORE education that are against AGW.

  161. According to its website, “The JSC civil service workforce consists of about 3,000 employees, the majority of whom are professional engineers and scientists” (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/about/jobs.html). So I am not sure why we are supposed to be so excited that 49 former such employees, whose expertise to comment on climate science has not been elaborated upon in any way, signed onto this letter.

    True skeptics would be asking to find out more about their qualifications…and also asking how many others were contacted who decided not to sign or were purposely not contacted because they were known not to be of the correct political ideology to make it likely that they would want to sign.

  162. Hansen needs a cell padded or otherwise.

    And a heart felt thank you to the signers of this letter.

  163. Pointman says: “Eek, the trolls have been mobilised. Notice how not one of them addresses the points raised by the letter?”

    There are no real points raised in the letter, just a few vague assertions that amount to unsubstantiated opinions. What is it exactly that we are supposed to respond to?

  164. There goes Joel Shore again with another “ideology” comment. And he still doesn’t understand that “true” skeptics is redundant: either someone is a skeptic, or a True Believer. As a charter member of the planet’s idiocracy, Joel Shore is in the latter category.

  165. What they are basically saying is that when the predictions from a idea disagree with measurements from nature then the idea is wrong; and that NASA should alter their communications to underscore this fact; and spend at least as much time pointing out where the idea is in conflict with measurements from nature as they spend pointing out the consequences of the idea as if idea were not in conflict with the measurements from nature.

    Who says it is irrelevant. It is what science is.

  166. rhea3 says:
    April 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm

    “Many reports in which climatologists– you know, the ones who’ve made a career of studying climate– say that what they’re seeing is what was predicted for five, ten, or twenty years from now, but it’s happening already.

    I truly hope you people are right, and climate change isn’t serious. But the evidence is against you.

    If meteorologists said that there was a 90% chance of a class-4 hurricane striking your city in the next three days, would you sit there and say there was no point in doing anything until they were 100% sure it was coming within the hour?”

    The only looming catastrophes in our future are the ones that will result if the climate alarmists are able to implement more of their pernicious plans to futilely try to influence the climate with their useless carbon restriction policies. Nothing that has been attempted or proposed in that regard has the slightest chance of accomplishing anything meaningful to change our future climate, but from biofuels to wind turbines to solar panels, to shutting down existing electrical generation we have already paid a heavier price in human misery and environmental harm than could be levied by the worst case scenario of climate catastrophe you might select. The probability of that worst case is nowhere near 90%, but is closer to your getting struck by lightning or maybe to winning the lottery. There has indeed been a flood of alarmist “science” in recent years but is all generally as convincing as someone suggesting I really should be People magazine’s next selection for “Sexiest Man Alive’.

  167. joeldshore says:
    April 10, 2012 at 6:54 pm
    “There are no real points raised in the letter, just a few vague assertions that amount to unsubstantiated opinions. What is it exactly that we are supposed to respond to?”

    For a letter with no substance that is quite a herd of trolls. It hurts, doesn’t it? Hope you all get defunded.

  168. I have to admit, I like it when a troll calls out to me. It’s perverse I know, but ignoring them is such a sweet pleasure, as the Bard would say. It’s best to think of them in a conceptual troll cage, howling at you ever louder for attention. They so desperately wish to engage your attention, it’s almost touching but not quite.

    Never mind, there are so many better things to do with one’s time than responding to their calls for recognition.

    Pointman

  169. Given the choices I voted to fire him and give him a gold watch, but my real choice would be to fire him and give him a kick in the butt.

  170. Let me tell you how this is going to go from here to the end of the global warming movement. This is going to mirror the end of the McCarthy era. The warmists are going to come out in full strength against these scientists and astronauts – who are heroes to the American public – and that will be their final mistake. Like McCarthy, whose arrogance made him believe he could smear the Army – the heroes of World War II and Korea – the warmists are going to try to smear these NASA heroes. You will see op-eds in the New York Times – especially Krugman – condemning these men and women, and with that public opinion will permanently shift against the warmists. They’re about to be left in the dustbin of history.

  171. Pointman says:
    April 10, 2012 at 7:12 pm
    “Never mind, there are so many better things to do with one’s time than responding to their calls for recognition.”

    Pointman, I like to answer them, not because I can persuade them of anything but because other readers might get something useful out of my answer. Just a good opportunity to throw some links around.

    The trolls are probably in their majority in one way or another rent-seekers of the global AGW industry; a postdoc here, a renewables industries lobbyist there, and would like to keep their cosy do-nothing jobs. Boys, you will all lose it and you better get ready for jumping ship, but I guess you all know that already…

  172. These fine engineers and scientists are going to be writing letters for a very long time if they wish to address the scientific institutions, societies, unions and associations which have been commandeered by AGW advocacy masquerading as science.

    May I suggest landing a live astronaut on Venus instead? The mission should have the finest scientific payload for observation of Venus’ abundant lightning and 900F terrain, and of course, the astronaut should come home safely – not fried, poisoned, squashed or corroded. It might be a much easier task for them.

  173. This will go nowhere. Saw one meteorologist, lots of engineers (not scientists), some directors and astronauts. At least some lists put out in the past had actual scientists in them, even if they weren’t climate scientists.

  174. rhea3 says:
    “I’ve read many, many reports in which the climate models don’t accord with the observed results… because the observed results are worse. Many reports in which climatologists– you know, the ones who’ve made a career of studying climate– say that what they’re seeing is what was predicted for five, ten, or twenty years from now, but it’s happening already. I truly hope you people are right, and climate change isn’t serious. But the evidence is against you.”

    Rhea, you haven’t actually been following any of this, because the data has made it clear that the alarmists’ predictions have not been coming true. There is no proof whatsoever that manmade climate change is occurring. I’m not condemning you, however. I understand it must be difficult coming to terms with the fact that your religion has just been made up by people trying to tax the hell out of you.

  175. “If meteorologists said that there was a 90% chance of a class-4 hurricane striking your city in the next three days, would you sit there and say there was no point in doing anything until they were 100% sure it was coming within the hour?” The logical fallacy in such statements are so blatantly obvious it’s a wonder such people can hold down a job. If this is the logic of “climate science,” count me out.

  176. NASA’s decline which Michael J. Bentley outlined was punctuated by the Challenger disaster. Richard Feynman was part of the investigative team brought in from outside of NASA and his comments were relegated to an appendix for political reasons.

    Feyman’s closing sentence:

    For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

  177. AGW Isn’t true yet. It might be but we don’t care. Because at his point in time it most certainly is not. NASA does have credibility which can dissappear once it becomes a cover for abuse. We’ve been abused and the architects of the climate of suppresion should go. Science has no place for such……Um….Goebells, Goering: quickly, what’s the bloody word i’m trying to think of here???

  178. Dave Wendt says:
    April 10, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    rhea3 says:
    April 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm

    “Many reports in which climatologists– you know, the ones who’ve made a career of studying climate– say that what they’re seeing is what was predicted for five, ten, or twenty years from now, but it’s happening already.

    I truly hope you people are right, and climate change isn’t serious. But the evidence is against you.

    If meteorologists said that there was a 90% chance of a class-4 hurricane striking your city in the next three days, would you sit there and say there was no point in doing anything until they were 100% sure it was coming within the hour?”
    ______________________________________________________________________________
    If some moron with no track record of being right, and no scientific bases to say that, like the idiot who said twice that the world would end last year, said that a cat 4 hurricane was coming, no I would not listen to him. Hansen has no scientific bases for saying the things he does. Nor did I listen to the morons who said that Y2K would be a big deal. Hansen is alarmist, he is no where near being a meteorologist. Meteorologists use science, not voodoo.

    We have a great advantage in predicting hurricanes. We have satellites, some of which were launched by some of the same people who signed the letter. We can see in real time where the hurricanes are. All we have with the like of Hansen are computer models. Models that don’t reflect the known reality. It is as if meteorologists had to rely on satellite photos that showed hurricanes being thousands of miles from where they really were. Would you believe them, just because they were “experts.” I hope not.

  179. Gail Combs says:
    April 10, 2012 at 6:45 pm
    Hansen needs a cell padded or otherwise.

    And a heart felt thank you to the signers of this letter.
    —————————————————————–
    Yes Gail. Well said. Imagine how betrayed they feel. How the Amateurs have destroyed their legacy. What a shame it has to come to this but kudos to them!!

  180. So Lazyteenager, what you are saying is, based on the evidence, that increasing CO2 is the cause of NO increase in hurricanes, NO increase in tornadoes, NO increase in temps over the past decade, NO increase in extreme weather events, and more. Right?

  181. @rhea3
    Even if this CO2 thing were to be true, do you honestly believe we can do anything about it?
    I strongly doubt chocking to death human society for an unproven theory is very rational.

    Are you aware that poverty, desease & hunger are a cause to revolution, war… And I’m quite sure this is not just a theory!

    Also have you heard that it is possible that a very big meteorite can fall out of the sky & create such a catastrophe that the CO2 thing is nothing to compare? Still we do not put immense ressource at solving the meteorite problem. Here againt this is not just a theory but a question of when it will happen.

    In fact there are multitudes of cataclysmic events that can happen, do we need to run like headless chicken? The Earth has seen many events & will see many others…

    Don’t you believe there exist temperature regulation mechanisms within Earth’s atmosphere based on the water cycle. If the Earth system were such an unstable system how can it resist a multitude of perturbations & keep climate “compatible” w/t human life? How can minuscules human contribution of CO2 vs major natural source can impact to cataclysmic proportion a system w/t such robustness? What to do w/t the next glaciation? They are cyclic you know & we’re due for the next one. Ice age are good exemple of a nasty hysteresis effect, it push the regulation system at its limit then bang. Does CO2 push us away or closer to the limit of regulation?

    You are right to care for the future, but please consider the whole problem & don’t just take for granted speculation coming from peoples that ask for tax money, but will refuse to show the details of their calculations & data, use deception & lie to validate their dogma. Remember that their version change constantly to fit the theory: Hotter than normal = CO2, its colder than normal = CO2 again…

    On a more speculative level, do you think humans were created to “serve” planet Earth or in fact the planet’s goal was to give birth to humanity, like if the universe was striving to make itself conscious thru us? Very weird question indeed.

  182. When I was a graduate student at Columbia University in the ear4ly 1970’s an article was published in Science (July 1971, 138-141) whose title was “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols:.Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate” which calculated the effect of CO2 and
    aerisols on global temperature. The conclusion was that we were probably heading for an ice age. Although he was not an author on the paper, the person who performed many of the calculations was none other than James Hansen. (Ref. 16. J. E. Hansen, personal communication. We are indebted to Dr. Hansen for making these Mie scattering calculations for us),

  183. rhea3 says: April 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm
    “I truly hope you people are right, and climate change isn’t serious. But the evidence is against you”

    Evidence would be measured data from nature.
    Computer model output is not measured data from nature.
    Show me the data from nature that falsifies the null hypothesis on climate changes.
    OR
    Show me any directly measured data from nature that supports the conjecture that carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming.

    I know that there is lots of actual data that specifically contradicts the predictions of the conjecture that carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming.

    Got any supporting data?

  184. You realize, of course, that whatever you do to him will cause him to be declared a martyr (both by himself and his followers). The last time he was told to follow proper procedures for a federal employee speaking in public he immediately responded by traveling around the world declaring he was being repressed. Sort of like the peasants in the Monty Python sketch.

  185. Gee, what to do?

    1- FIre him.
    2- Destroy his hat.
    3- Prescribe him a high colonic hourly for a month–he’s so full of it, he needs thorough cleansing.
    4- Remove his ill-gained profits, as it is immoral to gain from lying.
    5- Have him apologize and explain the real science publicly, three times a day—once each on TV, radio and newspaper—UNTIL the EPA reverses its ruling against CO2
    6- Finally, let him keep whatever is left and retire.

  186. Maybe the poll at the end of this story can be amended with an additional answer:

    Arrest James Hansen for fraud and misappropriation of public funds.

  187. joeldshore says: April 10, 2012 at 6:41 pm
    “True skeptics would be asking to find out more about their qualifications”

    Written like a true warmist:
    “Thar she blows, Man the wiki, Ready the Ad hominem, Fire at Willis”…

    Actually we don’t care who says:
    “If the measurements from nature conflict with the prediction made by the idea then the idea is wrong”

    We just would like more people to say it.

  188. Richard says:
    “This will go nowhere. Saw one meteorologist, lots of engineers (not scientists), some directors and astronauts. At least some lists put out in the past had actual scientists in them, even if they weren’t climate scientists.”

    Um, Richard, I hate to break this to you, but… an engineer is a scientist. Most astronauts and the directors had advanced engineering degrees, making them scientists as well. They do not need to be climate scientists to know that climatologists have not been honest.

  189. The seriously wonderful thing about this letter is that people in the right places are standing up and saying “Enough is enough.” This is a letter to NASA. It’s not a letter to the world (although I’m sure it will become one) and it’s not trying to stop all of the nonsense out there with an instant fix.

    It’s a piece in place, an important piece in place. As more and more people come forward, more and more again will come forward. These wonderful people don’t have to bring the glabal warming scam to an instant halt for this letter to be a success. It is a success in its own right, right now.

    I do expect more and more organizations to follow this example, not overnight but it will come. The disatisfaction is already out there behind closed doors. These people are saying “No, we will not be put forward as part of your consensus. We will not put up with this nonsense any longer.”

    I might just open a bottle of champagne tonight. No. Make that two. :)

  190. Pamela Gray says:
    “So Lazyteenager, what you are saying is, based on the evidence, that increasing CO2 is the cause of NO increase in hurricanes, NO increase in tornadoes, NO increase in temps over the past decade, NO increase in extreme weather events, and more. Right?”

    Lazyteenager would be correct. The most severe storms of the century were in the ’30s and ’40s, when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was a lot less than it is today. Therefore, there is no known correlation between CO2 and severe storms. In addition, the total power output of the human race is 16TW a year. The minimum strength of a hurricane is about 50TW. It would require four straight years of all the energy production created by mankind, concentrated in a single locale and with none being radiated into space or contributed to any other storm, to produce a single hurricane. Based on that alone it shouldn’t be hard to figure out that unless CO2 is a miraculous perpetual motion machine, it has had zero effect on our climate.

  191. Hansen has never formally debated any skeptic in front of an audience. He needs to cease his stupid public relations appearances at protests and debate someone of substance like Lindzen or Monckton.

    Unfortunately, there’s one thing that prevents him from doing that: He’s an intellectual coward.

  192. This is my favorite Alarmist prediction:

    “The frightening models we didn’t even dare to talk about before are now proving to be true,” Fortier told CanWest News Service, referring to computer models that take into account the thinning of the sea ice and the warming from the albedo effect – the Earth is absorbing more energy as the sea ice melts.

    According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.

    “And it’s probably going to happen even faster than that,” said Fortier, who leads an international team of researchers in the Arctic looking for clues to climate change.

    The Arctic, considered to be the barometer of global climate change, is warming faster than expected and this could cause global average temperatures to rise still more.

    Fortier stressed that 90,000 square metres of sea ice melted in 2007, a spectacular figure that was expected to be seen in only 15 to 20 years.

    “The most unbelievable thing is the total absence of ice in straits where you never thought you would ever be able to navigate. The changes are not progressive anymore, they are dramatic,” he said.

    The great melting, uncovering vast stretches of the Arctic Ocean, will open up the Northwest Passage as a shortcut to Asia, something explorers have been dreaming about since Christopher Columbus reached America.

    “In the near future, the Arctic (Ocean) will play … the same role the Mediterranean Sea played in the antiquity. So it’s very important that Canada gains control on this huge region,” he added.

    http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=c76d05dd-2864-43b2-a2e3-82e0a8ca05d5&k=53683

  193. Zeke says:
    April 10, 2012 at 7:23 pm
    “May I suggest landing a live astronaut on Venus instead? The mission should have the finest scientific payload for observation of Venus’ abundant lightning and 900F terrain, and of course, the astronaut should come home safely – not fried, poisoned, squashed or corroded. It might be a much easier task for them.”

    There goes the old Venus canard again, Zeke, one would have expected better from you. Venus has no hydrological cycle, a much thicker atmosphere and more insolation… Please explain why Mars is so cold. It has 95% CO2 in the atmosphere.

  194. anotherfred says:
    April 10, 2012 at 8:07 pm
    This is my favorite Alarmist prediction:

    Fortier stressed that 90,000 square metres of sea ice melted in 2007, a spectacular figure that was expected to be seen in only 15 to 20 years.

    Yes! A spectacular figure! But the alarmist author should try converting 90,000 square meters into square kilometers to see how very insignificant the result really is.

  195. 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

    And this “empirical evidence that calls the theory into question” is getting stronger with each passing month. Today the RSS numbers for March came out. The anomaly was 0.075. When combined with the numbers from January and February, -0.058 and -0.120, the average is -0.034. Naturally it will not stay this low, but if it did, then 2012 would rank 26th warmest. (2011 was 12th warmest on RSS at 0.147.)

    See the graph below and note the following:
    1. This last La Nina is NOT the warmest La Nina in the last 16 years.
    2. The flat line (slope = -0.000125181 per year) extends for a period of 15 years and 5 months since November 1996.
    3. The flat line starts and ends with a La Nina so there was no cherry picking here.
    4. CO2 went up steadily while the temperatures stayed flat.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.83/normalise

  196. DirkH:
    There is more lightning on Venus than on earth. “The confirming measurements of the electrical discharges were made with data obtained by the Venus Express magnetometer instrument provided by the Space Research Institute in Graz, Austria. The measurements were taken once a day for two minutes, during a period when the spacecraft was closest to Venus.”

    It is the equivalent of finding lightning in smog. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-137

    And with the tenuous atmosphere on Mars, here is some interesting weather:
    12-Mile-High Martian Dust Devil Caught In Act
    “A Martian dust devil roughly 12 miles high (20 kilometers) was captured whirling its way along the Amazonis Planitia region of Northern Mars on March 14. It was imaged by the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) camera on NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Despite its height, the plume is little more than three-quarters of a football field wide (70 yards, or 70 meters).” A12 mile high twister is not bad for 1% of earth’s atmosphere to produce. Unfortunately NASA hasn’t been interested in what power input could be responsible for this powerful weather on the closest rocky bodies – and what the implications for our own weather are. Instead it has been carefully ignored and we’re stuck with ignorance and Hansen’s AGW.

  197. RE: the poll
    Methinks that keeping Hansen on would be the best plan, but cut his funding and move GISS to NOAA (but not Hansen as I wouldn’t wish him on anyone). Firing him would make him a martyr – rarely a good thing unless the martyr gets eaten by lions and canonized. I would rather see him fade into obscurity.

  198. Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
    – Sir Winston Churchill, November 1942

    For myself I am an optimist – it does not seem to be much use being anything else.
    – Sir Winston Churchill, November 9, 1954

  199. NASA offered us all a story of settled science but now their own seasoned veterans have declined!

    When I add up the signatories’ tree rings I find this letter has 1124 years of NASA experience behind it.

    Try hiding that decline!

  200. Zeke says:
    April 10, 2012 at 9:18 pm
    “Unfortunately NASA hasn’t been interested in what power input could be responsible for this powerful weather on the closest rocky bodies – and what the implications for our own weather are. Instead it has been carefully ignored and we’re stuck with ignorance and Hansen’s AGW.”

    Ok… I misunderstood you. I thought you wanted to imply that Venus’ hot atmosphere were proof of CO2 induced warming…

  201. Richard says:
    April 10, 2012 at 7:23 pm
    This will go nowhere. Saw one meteorologist, lots of engineers (not scientists), some directors and astronauts. At least some lists put out in the past had actual scientists in them, even if they weren’t climate scientists.

    To mangle an aphorism: “The scientist proposes, the engineer disposes.”

    Or as I view it, scientists think they know what makes the world tick, engineers build the watch.

  202. Maybe this group can convince NASA to disband their group of NASA-fools
    that are spending our taxes to spew this global warming garbage to grade school kids in all 57 states.

  203. “I’ve read many, many reports in which the climate models don’t accord with the observed results… because the observed results are worse.”
    I don’t know what to make of this. The climate models are wrong, so we are all DOOMED?
    A simple mathematical model
    2+2=?
    2+2=3 A skeptic would say the model is WRONG. A warmist would say that the extra number is hiding in the deep ocean,or it is due to phase change, etc,.
    2+2=5 A skeptic would say the model is WRONG. A warmist would say that we are all DOOMED and it is worse than we thought , our children will hate us and our grandchildren will die. Going past 4 will be the end of the world.
    I might be totally off base here, but then again I am not a climate scientist.

  204. Translation into All-American English:

    Dear Charlie

    You lot still at NASA are behaving like a bunch of hug-a-polar-bear Greenpeace wussies imbued with religious fanaticism and totally rejecting skeptical scientific procedures.

    If you’d behaved like this on the Apollo missions, Russia would have got to the moon first and all our astronauts would be dead.

    Yours Respectfully

    XXXXX

  205. Well quite fantastic.
    What these scientists, engineers and support staff achieved was superb. They and their colleagues in other space agencies have expanded our knowledge of space and the results of their endeavours have positive practical applications in our lives. Which I am just about to prove.
    Please receive this message sent from my mobile phone which will travel to you via satellite at the speed of light.
    Who would anyone believe out of Professor Hansen and our Gav,I’d go with the professionals.
    It’s on its way and by the time I turn my phone of you got it:-)

  206. “An embarrassing image for NASA”?

    You should replace NASA with USA, look at the condition of the Cop…can’t seem to find anything right in that photo.

  207. Nah. The letter doesn’t mean a thing. Those guys all spent way too much time counting backwards to zero.

    /sarc

  208. Earlier I asked about the “thousands of years of empirical data” that showed C02 does not cause climate change. I haven’t received a reply. All I got was a paleo record which showed that it does!

    I also asked for the names of the “hundreds of well-known climate scientists” who don’t believe in AGW. I haven’t received this either. Maybe they don’t exist!!

  209. I have been looking for a text of the letter rather than have to cut and paste.

    Can anyone point me to a link please/

  210. Was it yesterday that hansen said that the skeptics are winning? Was he already privy to this letter?

  211. LazyTeenager says:
    April 10, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    What about the concern that if CO IS a major cause of climate change and NASA does nothing then there will be the public ridicule and distrust.

    last I checked, no one was debating what CO was doing to the environment, as it is a very toxic gas. Perhaps you misplaced your comment as this may belong on a hysteria site like Schmidt’s.

  212. Bob Gaddrod says:
    April 10, 2012 at 3:24 pm

    Folks here at WUWT don’t seem to understand that James Hansen and his colleagues at NASA incur a risk of being fired if-and-only-if if they see a safety concern and DON’T speak up.

    Actually that is false. Research Maxime Faget. Find out what NASA does to REAL scientists who speak out.

  213. Phil C, Monty,
    You’re on the Internet. When someone makes a claim you haven’t heard before, you should at least try to look for the answer before exposing your ignorance. Here’s a few links to help you out:

    http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    Of course, much depends on your definition of ‘climate scientist’. Do you want to include railroad
    engineer Pachuri? What about that PhD in Environmental Science, Phil Jones?
    Personally I accept that Climate Science is a multidisciplinary field, involving geologists, statisticians, meteorologists, computer scientists, physicists and others. And I accept that when people in these fields comment on the errors of the climate modellers, then the commentators are acting as climate scientists. I further accept that they are generally more expert in these fields than the soi-disant ‘climate scientists’.

  214. Hi Anthony, It would be fantastic if this post could be sent to the organisers of the Edinburgh Science Festival in Edinburgh, Scotland, where this charlatan is going to be presented with the ‘Edinburgh Medal’ for his ‘outstanding’ work on the environment!

  215. Monty … go back up … http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/#comment-952284

    And check out http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore … be sure to click the link to the full PDF report at the end.

    They’re tellin’ me the world is warmin’ up
    And my minivan’s part of the cause
    And the science is settled so it’s time for big change
    To our economy and our laws

    Well if the science is settled then tell me why their
    Computer models can’t agree
    And why the world’s cooled down for the past several years
    While they’re hidin’ their data from me

    Despite their erudition
    And academic pedigree
    The Best and the Brightest look instead
    Like a box of dim bulbs to me

    They’d put us in the soup lines over
    Parts-per-billion probabilities
    The Best and the Brightest look instead
    Like a box of dim bulbs to me …
    … Like a box of dim bulbs to me

    (Link to MP3 … http://dl.dropbox.com/u/66454848/Dim%20Bulbs.mp3 )

  216. Leo Morgan says:
    April 11, 2012 at 4:51 am

    Leo – the way is works in science today is that you “become” a “climate scientist” as soon as the first grant money checks clear. It doesn’t matter what you were doing before – if NSF, DOE, NASA, NOAA et al. say you are a “climate scientist,” and all of your IPCC buddies say you are a “climate scientist,” heck you ARE one. You can probably even get a nice certificate somewhere online saying you are an “official climate scientist”!!

  217. When someone makes a claim you haven’t heard before, you should at least try to look for the answer before exposing your ignorance.

    My ignorance? I was taught that when someone makes an assertion, it’s that person’s responsibility to back it up with evidence. Does that rule not apply at this website? I take offense at your statement that I am exposing my “ignorance,” and thought that this website frowned upon such ad hominem attacks. I’m simply asking for evidence. If you have information that the authors of the letter are referring to the information others provided in links which were cited in response to my original post, please provide it (I have a long familiarity with the source documentation provided in response to my original post and have many problems with them, but that’s a different subject). I want to know if anyone has direct knowledge of who the signatories to this letter are refrrring to when they made their assertion “hundreds of well-known climate scientists …declaring their disbelief… .” That is all.

  218. Don’t expect even to see a news ticker story on this one.. It’s too big and too obvious that NASA has become another arm of the propoganda machine for the government.

    Ironic due to the government practically neutering NASA over the last three years…

  219. LOL, that photo of Jim Hansen getting himself arrested at the White House protesting an oil pipeline says it ALL….. He is a fanatical left-wing political activist, period. He learned early to dress up his political agitprop with a pseudo-scientific veneer, but the reason his output is so constantly flawed is that it is all designed to serve his political goals.

  220. He doesn’t have to worry about China bringing the US economy to its knees. Obama and his cronies are doing a very good job of that already.

  221. The crux of the matter is that NASA, and GISS, needs the business of climate change. Their space exploration budget has been slashed. Satelites of all kinds have been deployed and many more are to come, to monitor various aspects of our climate, ice sheets, sea levels, etc. NASA must position itself well within the funding stream created by the global warming scare. NASA can’t afford to lose a fund raiser like Fudger Hansen. Until that global warming fundiing spigot is turned off, NASA will gladly wallow in climate hysteria.

  222. Monty says:
    April 11, 2012 at 7:20 am
    “Where are these climate scientists who disagree with the consensus?”

    Science does not advance by consensus.
    Data does not have an opinion.
    Computer model output is not measured data from nature.

    Show me the data from nature that falsifies the null hypothesis on climate changes.
    OR
    Show me any directly measured data from nature that supports the conjecture that carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming.

    I know that there is lots of actual data that specifically contradicts the predictions of the conjecture that carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming.

    Got any supporting data?

  223. Monty says: April 11, 2012 at 7:20 am

    “It’s a bit like me (not a geologist) arguing against the consensus position re plate tectonics.”

    More like: “It’s a bit like me (not a geologist) arguing against the consensus position of stable continents up until the 1950’s and suggesting something like plate tectonics”

    The Consensus was Stable Continents. The Consensus was wrong.

    Science does not advance by consensus.
    Data does not have an opinion.

    Idea: The cotenants are moving apart in the Atlantic.
    Skeptic: Where is the measured data from nature?
    Proponent: I have measured the mid-Atlantic rift and it is spreading; The Atlantic is getting wider and the Pacific is getting narrower.
    Skeptic: OK.

    Idea: Rising carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming.
    Skeptic: Where is the measured data from nature?
    Proponent: It has been hiding in the deep ocean for 15 years and I can not find it.
    Skeptic: Where is the measured data from nature?

  224. Esteban says:
    April 10, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    See a major effort by Google to snuffle this one.

    REPLY: Slashdot has already deleted the story I submitted to them, never had that happen before. – Anthony
    ____________________________________
    Well that settle the question on whether or not there is censorship in the internet media, doesn’t it?

  225. Why is it so difficult for you lot to find the names of the “hundreds of well-known climate scientists” who disagree with the consensus. It’s beginning to sound like these people don’t exist!

  226. Monty says:
    April 10, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    Still waiting for the ‘thousands of years of empirical data’ that shows C02 doesn’t have the effect we know it does…
    ________________________________
    Just start reading WUWT. You can start here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/08/did-shakun-et-al-really-prove-that-co2-precede-late-glacial-warming-part-1/

    and here:
    Potential Climatic Variables Page: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/potential-climatic-variables/

    Greenhouse Effect
    CO2 heats the atmosphere by Tom Vonk, physicist: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/

    “The Greenhouse Effect” by Ben Herman and Roger Pielke Sr. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/the-greenhouse-effect-by-ben-herman-and-roger-pielke-sr/
    “The Greenhouse Effect – Part II” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/28/“the-greenhouse-effect-–-part-ii”/

    Or why “Climate Scientists” are interested in the “CAUSE” and not in science:
    Over 250 noteworthy Climategate 2.0 emails: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/06/250-plus-noteworthy-climategate-2-0-emails/

  227. Well these scientists and engineers do speak for me. I had a 40 year career as an Air Force officer assigned to NASA centers, Houston and Huntsville. Then with Aerospace contractors located at all three major NASA centers, including Cape Canaveral.
    I have always believed in global warming; just as I have always believed that Gore invented the internet! LOL
    For those who still believe that CO2 is a concern for our environment, plant a tree, a bush or a flower. Then lean over and breath the pure O2 that they are producing from that bad CO2. It will clear your head of the cobwebs created there by faulty thinking.
    And NO! We will not read about any of this in the Lamestream Media!
    Mike

  228. It only takes one climate scientist and/or person in another discipline to expose the charade Monty. No need for hundreds. There are a number of them already smoking out the deceits as we type, so don’t worry too much about semantics at this point. Lastly, I am reminded that people like you dismissed people like us from afar for many years as crackpots not worthy of engaging. Now you post on sites like this with strident tones trying to derail discussion with side issues. I bet I could produce a good proxy and model of public opinion based on how many Monty’s there are nowadays.

  229. Hi Tucker
    You miss my point. The NASA letter talks about “hundreds of well-known climate scientists”, yet nobody has been able to tell me who they are. As a climate scientist myself, I’m intrigued. Can you tell me? Otherwise I think this is just another made-up skeptic statistic.
    Thanks.

  230. azyTeenager says:
    April 10, 2012 at 4:04 pm
    … What about the concern that if CO IS a major cause of climate change and NASA does nothing then there will be the public ridicule and distrust….
    _____________________________________
    You would need scientific evidence that that was the case. The science says CO2 is a minor bit player. WATER is the major Greenhouse gas and water is about 4% of the atmosphere and varies all over the place.

    Graph of cosmic ray flux variation and cloud cover variation 1980 to 2003 from Dr. Nir J. Shaviv Cloud cover changes the albedo and therefore the solar insolation.

    The case for Cosmic Ray influence on clouds is gaining weight in laboratory experiments too. Henrik Svensmark: The Cosmic-Ray/Cloud Seeding Hypothesis Is Converging With Reality: http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3779-henrik-svensmark-the-cosmic-raycloud-seeding-hypothesis-is-converging-with-reality.html

    The CAGW take is that CO2 acts to control water. The above shows that Cosmic Rays have a much better link to clouds than CO2 does since the CO2 link was hand wavy based on global climate models that is a computer program and not real science. NASA ~ Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth’s Temperature

    If you want to talk Methane a much more “potent” green house gas then you had better talk about filling in swamps again. Swamps and marshes emit significant amounts of the greenhouse gas methane. Although less prevalent than carbon dioxide, methane traps 25 times more infrared radiation per molecule.

    1972 is when the UN’s first Earth Summit occurred and the push to protect wetlands around the world happened. Prior to this time period people were filling in swamps and killing off the beaver who dammed up streams to form ponds and swamps. The history of draining and development of swampland dates back to the 1800′s. The city of Boston was built on swamp and coastal land that was filled in for example. Part of the zeal to fill in swamps was to destroy wetlands harboring disease-carrying mosquitoes. In the late 1800s, landowners were encouraged to drain or fill “water-logged” lands by the government.

    If you look at the Global Temperature Graph you can see the filling in of wetlands from the late 1800s until the 1970s caused the temperature to start plummeting by 1945 and by protecting wetlands the temperature immediately started rising again in the 1970s. Now that we are back in a “natural balance” again the rise in temperature has stopped.

    So you can certainly make the case that not continuing to fill in swamps and kill beaver is the cause of the present “Global Warming”

  231. @Monty:

    The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

    That statement was co-signed by more than 31,000 scientists and engineers, including more than 9,000 PhD’s.

    The list of co-signers is here, in alphabetical order. Feel free to pick out the hundreds of names working in the climate field, because I’m not taking your homework assignments.

  232. From Monty on April 11, 2012 at 7:20 am:

    Still waiting for the “hundreds of well-known climate scientists” who don’t accept the consensus AGW position. All the links have sent me to denier sites listing a few engineers, geologists and physicists, none of whom (AFAIK) work in climate science.

    Come on deniers! You can do better than this! Where are these climate scientists who disagree with the consensus?

    Ah Monty, posting in flagrant disregard of site policy. I shall assume the moderators are letting your comments through due to the humor value.

    You were already given the link to the Global Warming Petition Project here, which states on the front page:

    31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
    including 9,029 with PhDs

    The text of the Petition is quite clear:

    We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

    So the “catastrophic” part is soundly rejected.

    You can review their qualifications easily. It’s a US-circulated petition, there are tabs to the lists of signers by state and by name.

    There is also a 12-page review article, Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research, using 132 references. That should get you started.

    But then you already loudly declared, which would include the Global Warming Petition Project in your screech (bold added):

    All the links have sent me to denier sites listing a few engineers, geologists and physicists, none of whom (AFAIK) work in climate science.

    Only takes a brief look at the Qualifications and how they directly and indirectly relate to climate science, and how there’s far many more than “a few”, to see who’s really doing the denying here.

    Ah Monty, there’s hope for you yet. Just keep ignoring the Inconvenient Truths like Hansen and cronies, show your dedication to The Cause and your absolute willingness to stick to the narrative, and maybe someday somewhere some small college will reward you by naming a Hall in your honor.

  233. Arno Arrak says: @ April 10, 2012 at 4:31 pm

    …They also control publication of scientific articles and are blocking any contrary reports from being published as Climategate proved. Proof that their claim is false comes from Ferenc Miskolczi, a Hungarian scientist who used to work for NASA. Using NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948 he was able to show that the transmittance of the atmosphere in the infrared where carbon dioxide absorbs has been constant for 61 years. At the same time the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increased by 21.6 percent (E&E 21(4):243-262, 2010)….
    ________________________
    For those interested in following up on that point.
    Ferenc M. Miskolczi, “The stable stationary value of the earth’s global averageatmospheric Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thickness,” Energy & Environment, 21(4):243-262 (2010) @ http://miskolczi.webs.com/

    Blog with explanation of Mikskolczi’s theory: http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1244

  234. None of the signatories are climate scientists. They are just repeating right-wing talking points based on industry demands.

  235. Monty says:
    April 10, 2012 at 2:11 pm
    “Still waiting for the “hundreds of well-known climate scientists” who don’t accept the consensus AGW position. ”

    As typical of trolls, you misquoted the authors of the letter in order to create a strawman out of nothing. Now you explain to the other posters where the letter states that there are “hundreds of climate scientists who don’t accept the consensus AGW position?”

    Let me help you out. The actual words are “hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts,”

    In other words, the actual letter (not the one that exits in your imagination) describes scientists declaring their disbelief in “catastrophic forecasts.” There are only a few scientists holding these extreme beliefs – Hansen, Schmidt, Santer, Jones, Mann and other members of the “team”. Therefore, by elimination, the majority of climate scientists must hold the altogether more moderate view that CO2 will lead to some warming, but not catastrophic warming.

    That’s all the authors are saying. As some posters have pointed out – a letter of the blindlingly obvious.

  236. Larry says:
    April 11, 2012 at 10:29 am

    None of the signatories are climate scientists. They are just repeating right-wing talking points based on industry demands.

    I suggest you make a list of all the ones that are NOT climate scientists. Tnen make a list (it does not have to be comprehensive) of who you consider to be climate science.

    If you would like to save some time, just list those with a doctorate in Climate Science.

  237. Hi Vince
    Tell me what are ‘catastrophic forecasts’. Does 4C warming by 2100 count? Or 1-2m sea level rise? Just because lots of people (whose qualifications can’t be ascertained) have signed a letter proves nothing. Remember the Oregon Petition? Also a load of rubbish. When we have bona fide climate scientists (you know…with PhDs in a relevant science, peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals) saying that AGW isn’t happening then I might take a bit of notice. All you have here is a bunch of right-wingers pretending that there are “hundreds of well-known climate scientists” who disagree with the consensus. There aren’t.

    There are some obscure scientists writing rubbish in obscure journals (Energy and Environment etc) and a few crackpot physicists trying to make names for themselves….but that’s about it.

  238. Johnnythelowery says:
    April 10, 2012 at 7:30 pm

    AGW Isn’t true yet. It might be but we don’t care. Because at his point in time it most certainly is not. NASA does have credibility which can dissappear once it becomes a cover for abuse. We’ve been abused and the architects of the climate of suppresion should go. Science has no place for such……Um….Goebells, Goering: quickly, what’s the bloody word i’m trying to think of here???
    __________________
    Lysenkoism Trofim Denisovich Lysenko [1898-1976]

  239. Monty says:
    April 11, 2012 at 9:57 am

    Hi Tucker
    You miss my point. The NASA letter talks about “hundreds of well-known climate scientists”, yet nobody has been able to tell me who they are.As a climate scientist myself, I’m intrigued. Can you tell me? Otherwise I think this is just another made-up skeptic statistic.
    Thanks.
    _______________
    Ah, Monty…
    So , you’re a “climate scientist”?
    Perhaps you can tell us exactly what a climate scientist is, since there seems to be some confusion about that point.

    How about these well- known team players from the your alarmist world, are they “climate scientists”, too?
    Here’s your list:
    Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, Peter Gleick, James Hansen…

    Oh, by the way, your posts in this thread are a what’s what of logical fallacies. Just thought you might like to know that we’re on to such blatant attempts to twist the truth.

    Awaiting your response…
    Regards,
    L.

  240. Hi Luther
    Oh you can do this……a climate scientist is someone who studies the climate. Simple isn’t it!

    There are no alarmists….just scientists who accept that climate sensitivity is around 2-4C and that 2100 temperatures will be around 3-4C higher than now. As a climate scientist that seems pretty alarming to me….is this being alarmist?

    What a group of NASA engineers do or do not think about the climate is irrelevant until they start publishing relevant science in serious journals. Then they should be taken seriously.

  241. Mike says:
    “Harrison Schmitt who the letter defers to on the science is a former Republican senator and long time anti-environmentalist activists. He says it is all a communist plot: “I think the whole trend really began with the fall of the Soviet Union. Because the great champion of the opponents of liberty, namely communism, had to find some other place to go and they basically went into the environmental movement.” See Wikipedia.”

    You forget to mention that Dr. Schmitt has a Ph.D from Harvard in Geology and taught as a university professor. Given that Wikipedia is noted as biased, it neglects to mention that the comments regarding communism were mainly regarding John Holdren. Along with Paul Ehrlich (who has never been right about just about anything) Holdren wrote such statements as:

    • Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
    • The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
    • Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
    • People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility”
    • A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives

    These don’t seem like the writings of someone who believes in Democracy. They seem rather, shall we say, communistic?

  242. Leo Morgan says:
    April 11, 2012 at 4:51 am
    Of course, much depends on your definition of ‘climate scientist’. Do you want to include railroad
    engineer Pachuri? What about that PhD in Environmental Science, Phil Jones?
    Personally I accept that Climate Science is a multidisciplinary field, involving geologists, statisticians, meteorologists, computer scientists, physicists and others. And I accept that when people in these fields comment on the errors of the climate modellers, then the commentators are acting as climate scientists. I further accept that they are generally more expert in these fields than the soi-disant ‘climate scientists’.
    _________________________
    Do not forget the guy before Pachuri, Robert Watson ( PhD in Chemistry) who was also the head of IPCC. He worked for the World Bank at the same time. Remember the World Bank?

    Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak
    ….The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as “the circle of commitment” – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week….

    The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank…

    Money talks especially when it is the World Bank.

  243. Monty says:
    April 11, 2012 at 9:12 am

    Why is it so difficult for you lot to find the names of the “hundreds of well-known climate scientists” who disagree with the consensus. It’s beginning to sound like these people don’t exist!
    ___________________________
    And it seems you can not read.

    Go back and look for the answer to your trolling in the already posted comments. I can not bother to.

  244. Troll Monty,

    Here is a list of 579 Atmospheric scientists, including 343 in Meteorology and 39 in Climatology. They are all climate scientists, no? Because they are paid to study the climate. Certainly they are climate scientists compared with corrupt grant sucking stooges like Michael Mann, Peter Gleick and Phil Jones.

    Here are a hundred more. And here are 400 more from around the world. They are all on record as rejecting your catastrophic AGW nonsense.

    Now that your bluff has been called, I challenge you to produce a list of hundreds of alarmist scientists who are on record as believing the CAGW nonsense you’re posting. Ball’s in your court, bub. Put up or shut up.

  245. Hi Smokey
    So how credible are these lists? Anyone doing any checking? Maybe it’s a job for Steve McIntyre. The NASA letter said there were ‘hundreds of well-known’ climate scientists. Provide me with a list of ‘hundreds of well-known’ climate scientists (ie all with PhDs in relevant subjects and all with credible publication records).

    You can’t can you….despite all your bluster.

  246. Monty- By your definition of a ‘climate scientist”, then I am a climate scientist, also.
    Your posts aren’t convincing anyone of anything.

  247. Monty says:
    April 11, 2012 at 11:55 am

    Hi Smokey
    So how credible are these lists? Anyone doing any checking? Maybe it’s a job for Steve McIntyre. The NASA letter said there were ‘hundreds of well-known’ climate scientists. Provide me with a list of ‘hundreds of well-known’ climate scientists (ie all with PhDs in relevant subjects and all with credible publication records).

    You can’t can you….despite all your bluster.
    _________________________________
    If you are so darn interested I am sure Dr Robinson can provide you with the information if you pay him for his time. You can write him at:

    Dr Robinson
    Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine,
    2251 Dick George Road,
    Cave Junction, Oregon 97523

    However I doubt if you really care or are willing to pay to get the information.

  248. rhea3 says:
    April 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm
    “If meteorologists said that there was a 90% chance of a class-4 hurricane striking your city in the next three days, would you sit there and say there was no point in doing anything until they were 100% sure it was coming within the hour?”

    When the 90% chance is based solely on100% inaccurate computer model predictions?
    Want to invest in some great beach front property in Arizona? Call 1-800-TOO-WARM

  249. Troll Monty,

    It’s bluster if I couldn’t produce names. But I did, and more than you asked for.

    Speaking of bluster, I challenged you to produce a list of scientists who are on record as believing in your catastrophic AGW nonsense. You can’t produce it, can you, blusterboi?

    And of course the lists I provided are credible. The 400 names were read into the official Minutes of the U.S. Senate. The jerkwad alarmist contingent scrutinized those names very closely, hoping to find someone, anyone, who didn’t qualify. But they came up empty-handed. And the OISM Petition Project has been gone over with a fine toothed comb. Every one of the 31,000+ names now on it are legitimate and verified. Furthermore, those scientists could not just email in their co-signed petition. They had to print it out and send it by U.S. mail, with their original signature and contact information. The signers were then verified.

    The fact is that the great majority of scientists know that the CAGW nonsense is completely grant driven. Nothing unusual is happening. If you disagree, and you believe that the majority of scientists buy into the same nonsense you believe, then it should be very easy to put together a list of names verifying that. But you can’t, can you?

    At this point, nothing except a verifiable list of CAGW true believers along with their credentials will make your comments credible. So put up or shut up. Anything else is impotent bluster.

  250. [snip. You're saying the same thing over and over; threadbombing. I suggest you read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

  251. Monty says:
    April 11, 2012 at 11:15 am

    Hi Luther
    Oh you can do this……a climate scientist is someone who studies the climate. Simple isn’t it!

    Then you have already lost unless you can prove that each and every one of those 31k people have never studied climate. We await your proof they never have.

  252. For my Ph.D. dissertation research, which involved air pollution modeling, I had to learn enough micro- and mesoscale meteorology and atmospheric chemistry to fully understand what I was doing. That being said, I would never critique an experienced, qualified, and credentialed climate scientist’s work. That work is done at the macro scale, both spatially and temporally, and I simply don’t know enough about it to offer meaningful and valid criticism.

    I’d be even more reticent to critique the work astronauts, mission controllers, and spacecraft engineers; all areas where I have no expertise.

    The signatories of this letter know no more about climatology than I do, and probably less. Even the guy who calls himself a meteorologist is not, in fact, a meteorologist. He has an undergraduate degree in sociology and political science from NYU, where he dabbled in meteorology.

    This is yet another example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. These people have embarrassed themselves, not the Agency.

    A current Civil Service NASA scientist
    (but not a climatologist)

    “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’” Isaac Asimov

  253. DirkH says: “I thought you wanted to imply that Venus’ hot atmosphere were proof of CO2 induced warming…”

    I wouldn never do that, because the albido of Venusian clouds is so great that the reflected sunlight on that planet make it the third brightest object in the sky much of the time, after the sun and moon (at apparent mag ~4, if I recall). That does not leave a lot of sunlight to melt lead at the surface of Venus, no matter how much co2 you add. Not in my view.

  254. Nate says:

    “The signatories of this letter know no more about climatology than I do, and probably less.”

    Nate knows no more about climatology than the average long-term reader of this site, and probably less.

  255. Nate signs himself as: A current Civil Service NASA scientist

    Isn’t it nice to know that NASA personnel are free to read blogs and post comments during their work day? As a taxpayer that sends a little tingle up my leg. How wonderful for Nate that he gets to screw off on my dime.

    [/sarc]

  256. Odd, none of those 50 former NASA employees have any expertise in climate science. Oh well, that’s irrelevant.

  257. Key says:

    “Odd, none of those 50 former NASA employees have any expertise in climate science.”

    And how, exactly, would you know that?

  258. Are any of the people who signed this thing under the age of 75?
    Certainly none of the astronauts here has been on a space mission since Skylab.. four decades ago! This list doesn’t exactly ring of sharp young engineering minds. It sounds like Mr. H. Leighton Steward found these guys drooling in their retirement homes.

  259. I’d rather he be fired with prejudice. I’m certain all his speaking engagements will finance his retirement just fine, I’d rather not see him collect a pension while I will never see a dime of social security.

  260. Peter, Peter peter…

    You and Nate are young guns – full of yourselves. Take a hint. Some of us old farts still have some brains – ya might want to quit talking and listen occasionally.

    AOL has picked up the story and has it on line – haven’t looked at the comments, but will report back.

    Also thanks to those who responded to my history – glad I gave you a foundation to work from.

    Mike Bentley

  261. Peter vomited: April 11, 2012 at 1:17 pm
    “It sounds like Mr. H. Leighton Steward found these guys drooling in their retirement homes”

    Peter, this is the style of non-fact that forms the foundation of all the computer models that support the conjecture that carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming.

    What you need to do is write a computer program that outputs your statement and then ask 89 other climate scientists what the program has produced as output. If 87 of them can read then you will get a 98% consensus.

    “Thar she blows, Man the wiki, Ready the Ad hominem, Fire at will”

  262. From Peter on April 11, 2012 at 1:17 pm:

    (…) It sounds like Mr. H. Leighton Steward found these guys drooling in their retirement homes.

    How wonderful! You just accused someone of going around and getting signatures on an important document from old likely-senile people. Your mother would be so proud of you! Shall you now speculate on how many life insurance proceeds and estates Mr. Steward got signed over to himself at the same time?

  263. Nate, any Dunning-Kreuger tendencies on the part of these guys are far overshadowed by the confirmation bias of the Climate Change Cult, and those who bankroll them with our tax dollars …

    … being that this “climate crises” gives the bankrollers great emotional cover for remaking our society, to reflect their disdain for private enterprise and their desire to jam their socio-economic morality down all our throats …

    … as if they are experts in every area of the lives of 300 million individual Americans.

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that even one contradictory point of evidence denies a theory the status of “fact” … and the evidence of human-induced climate change that has been presented to date is chock-full of contradictions and ambiguities that irritate the common sense of those who will have to LIVE with the impositions upon their liberty that the alarmists seek to implement.

    And also keep in mind that all the money and attention the Climate Change Cult soaks up, might be better used elsewhere to interdict PROVEN environmental threats … not to mention that the economic impacts of implementing the alarmist agenda can easily have a net negative effect upon the environment, as people’s attention becomes more acutely focused on their economic well-being.

    Our prosperity frees us to think environmentally … OTOH, when people are wondering where their next meal is coming from, they are more likely to fillet Willy, than free him.

  264. Nate says:
    “The signatories of this letter know no more about climatology than I do, and probably less.”
    Key says:
    “Odd, none of those 50 former NASA employees have any expertise in climate science.”

    Both of these statements seem to suggest that climate science doesn’t include paleoclimatology and that paleoclimatology isn’t part of geology.

  265. Peter, I’d enjoy seeing you say that to an astronaut’s face.

    Buzz Aldrin at 70. Noah Webster and many others did their best work after their seventh decade.

  266. Smokey-
    Nate gets to take lunch and coffee breaks during the day. That’s the only time the drum stops, the whip is lowered and we get to release our oars. During said breaks Nate and other civil servants sometimes surf the Web. Nate’s home now. Hope that makes you tinkle, too.

    Nate

  267. Many believe that, if an endeavor has “non-profit” status, those involved are inherently more trustworthy and noble than those whose publicly-stated intention is to make a profit.

    Greed and self-service, however, do not require the filing of a 1040 Schedule C or a NYSE listing as prerequisites … all it requires is for one to be dependent upon funding from those who have an agenda to push.

    So alarmists, spare us the “industry spokesmen” canards … I’d say the gentlemen who signed this letter are less susceptible to the corrosive effects of greed, than those whose meal tickets are derived from global-warming “research” funding that will dry up unless it feeds the confirmation bias of those writing the checks.

    And one other thing … spare us the appeals to “expert” authority.

    One of the most corrosive influences upon what has made Western civilization work to date is, over the last century or so, the replacement of a healthy respect for the work of experts as we manage our own lives, testing expert opinion against common sense and making the decisions ourselves …

    … with the blind worship of, and subordination to, those who possess expert credentials as if they are so omniscient and infallible that they are capable of managing our lives by remote control in excruciating detail.

    Keep in mind, that we’re talking about managing 300 MILLION American lives. Compared to that, going to the moon was a mere exercise in LEGO(TM) building.

    The biggest problem, IMO, we face as a nation is the continued outsourcing of individual decision-making authority, personal responsibility, and resources to a relative few who … merely because they possess certain credentials … are not only considered beyond challenge, but are now trusted to solve even the most individual-specific of problems FOR us from the top down.

    As if they could. As if we had a government that was structurally capable of doing so.

    Everything else … the economy, the debt, the spending, the health care mess … are all symptoms of this.

    The alarmists need to fully understand Callahan’s Principle of Leadership …

    … a man’s got to know his limitations.

  268. joeldshore says:
    April 10, 2012 at 6:54 pm
    Pointman says: “Eek, the trolls have been mobilised. Notice how not one of them addresses the points raised by the letter?” …There are no real points raised in the letter, just a few vague assertions that amount to unsubstantiated opinions. What is it exactly that we are supposed to respond to?
    ———————————-

    Not getting any of this, are you, joel? The real point of the letter is that it’s Alarmism that’s nothing more than a “few vague assertions that amount to unsubstantiated opinions” and that NASA’s cowtowing to this pseudoscientific sham is destroying whatever reputation it still has. You may not like the message, but it’s quite clear and lest you’ve forgotten, it’s still up to you, theWarmie muppets, to present at least one sound piece of evidence.

  269. Nate says:
    April 11, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    “Nate gets to take lunch and coffee breaks during the day.”

    In that case, remind your GISS co-workers that they’re gtiving you a bad name: Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann are constantly posting on their RealClimatePropaganda blog 24/7. And of course, the execrable self-serving climate charlatan James Hansen is making NASA look like a lunatic asylum.

    Who in their right mind would want to be associated with such thoroughly corrupt individuals? If you don’t think they’re making the rest of you look bad, then you’ve got your blinkers on.

  270. This brings to my mind a fundamental issue I have with all the US Government Warmista nonsense:

    Isn’t the proper agency to be concerned about “climate change” AKA GLOBAL WARMING, NOAA, not NASA?

    Isn’t the proper agency to be concerned about rocketry development NASA’s GODDARD Institute, GISS, named after the famous EXPERIMENTOR?

    But NOOOOOO … NASA is now all about Muslim accomadation, and nothing about space exploration.

  271. Problem is, if NASA finally gets the message, when funding stops, but not with this government, then Hansen is out and GAVIN will likely replace him. The only way to avoid this political problem is to close down GISS and open up the Goddard Institute of Space Rocketry….. and do something useful.

  272. DirkH says:
    April 10, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    Please explain why Mars is so cold. It has 95% CO2 in the atmosphere.

    What killed all the dinosaurs that created such an outpouring of the dreaded CO2?

  273. Hi Smokey.

    I perused your list of ‘650 international scientists’ who disagree with the concensus, courtesy of Mike Morano. Seems a small number in the scheme of things. And I came across the name of Alan Titchmarsh (Morano mis-spells Alan’s surname). Now you may not know the name over there, however Alan is a thoroughly decent human being and something of a national treasure in the UK, his main claim to prominence being his stint as the presenter of the BBC’s weekly ‘Gardener’s World’ slot. When he is not advising on getting your early potatoes in, Alan writes popular novels and memoirs (E.g. ‘Trowel and Error’ geddit?) and lately his career has blossomed into the daytime TV chat space.

    Alan has several honorary degrees however I was previously was unaware of his contributions or publications in the field of climate science. Can you enlighten us?

    http://www.alantitchmarsh.com/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Titchmarsh

    Have I made an error? Is there another Alan Titchmarsh who is actually an ‘international scientist’? Or is Morano equating celebrity TV gardeners with scientists in his desperation?

    Wise up, dude. You’ve been had.

  274. From Nate on April 11, 2012 at 3:55 pm:

    Smokey-
    (…) Nate’s home now. Hope that makes you tinkle, too.

    Uh-oh! Sounds like someone has a crush on Smokey! That is soooo cute!

    I hope Nate is not embarrassed by Nate’s affection being revealed. Nate’s pretending that Nate is upset with Smokey is so precious, I hope Nate keeps up Nate’s playful banter. Nate should realize how cute Nate’s pretend anger is to watch, Nate should be proud of Nate for Nate’s clever wordplay!

  275. And the collective number of peer reviewed science articles on climate from these guys is……still waiting?

  276. I personally know a couple of the guys who signed this letter, and I appreciate their effort to send this letter.

  277. Smokey sez-
    Nate says:
    April 11, 2012 at 3:55 pm
    “Nate gets to take lunch and coffee breaks during the day.”
    In that case, remind your GISS co-workers that they’re gtiving you a bad name: Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann are constantly posting on their RealClimatePropaganda blog 24/7. And of course, the execrable self-serving climate charlatan James Hansen is making NASA look like a lunatic asylum.
    Who in their right mind would want to be associated with such thoroughly corrupt individuals? If you don’t think they’re making the rest of you look bad, then you’ve got your blinkers on.

    Smokey-

    Scientific discourse does not usually involve a lot of hatred. Controversy and debate, sure, but out-and-out loathing occurs only rarely. Out of the exactly two GISS staff members that I’ve met and talked to over the years, the emotionally laden adjectives “execrable,” “self-serving,” “lunatic,” and “corrupt” did not cross my mind. Nor have they since. In fact, both were quite personable and polite, as well as professional and very knowledgeable. Both were engaging to converse with, and one in particular was actually rather humorous at times. Both were fun and interesting people to talk to. In summary- No, they don’t make me, or any of us at NASA look bad.

    As for my blinkers being on, even though I’m a pot-bellied, graying, fifty-something, I still don’t drive down the freeway with my turn signals flashing interminably. I’m not that old yet. At least I have something to look forward to.

    Nate

    BTW, you may want to have a gander at NASA Chief Scientist Dr. Abdalti’s response to the subject at hand. It’s located here- http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=36679 . It’s both restrained and logical.

  278. Nate says:

    “Scientific discourse does not usually involve a lot of hatred. Controversy and debate, sure, but out-and-out loathing occurs only rarely.”

    Apparently you have never read the Climategate I and Climategate II emails. Because they are jam-packed with hatred, loathing, animosity and revulsion coming from the alarmist clique and directed at scientific skeptics, who have the temerity to say, “Show us your data, methods, metadata and methodologies.”

    Read the emails, at least what you can stomach of them. From Hansen on down they are pseudo-scientific climate charlatans, bewildered by the fact that the planet is falsifying their belief system. So they direct their hatred and anger at skeptics, who are at most guilty of simply saying, “Show us.”

    Wake me the day they stop ignoring the scientific method.

  279. Phil Clarke says:

    “I perused your list of ’650 [sic] international scientists’ who disagree with the concensus [sic], courtesy of Mike Morano.” Wrong, Phil. Check your reading comprehension. I got my links from the source, not from Morano. And of course you’re referring to the smaller Senate list, with several hundred scientists. The OISM co-signers are in the tens of thousands. Your side has tried repeatedly to get counter-OISM petitions signed, and you have failed miserably. The ‘consensus’ fact [for what it's worth] is that skeptical scientists are in the great majority, and the alarmist clique is really a small minority riding the grant gravy train.

    And you say:

    “Have I made an error? Is there another Alan Titchmarsh who is actually an ‘international scientist’? Or is Morano equating celebrity TV gardeners with scientists in his desperation?”

    You are asking me if I know one of the 31,000+ OISM scientists? Or everyone on the Senate list? FYI, I never heard of that particular talking head before today. And you’re asking me about Morano, someone whose name you brought up?? Why don’t you go ask him what he thinks? I’m not his mind-reader.

    In any case, if one out of 31,000+ is the best you can do [or even one out of hundreds], you’ve been had. You don’t really know what you’re talking about, do you? It’s time you wised up: you lost this particular debate a long time ago. And work on that reading comprehension, ‘K? Thx, bye.

  280. Nate says:

    “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’” Isaac Asimov

    What a wonderful and incredibly apt quote. Asimov was a wise man.

  281. If Isaac Asimov was here today there is no doubt he would apply his quote directly to the climate alarmist contingent, which has no intellect, but only fact-free gut feelings and grant hunger. He would be referring, of course, to the anti-intellectual climate idiocracy that demonizes “carbon” [by which they ignorantly refer to CO2, a trace gas].

  282. “Key says:
    April 11, 2012 at 1:11 pm
    Odd, none of those 50 former NASA employees have any expertise in climate science. Oh well, that’s irrelevant.”

    Now that’s funny. Those 50 NASA employees figured out you couldn’t use black body calculation to calculate the surface temperature of the moon. If they had they would have been off by some 20%. Co2 dives the climate hypotheses is based on black body calculation. Do you think it to could be off by some 20% from the get go? How about the fact there is no “hot spot” and the “extra heat” in the oceans is still missing. Lets not forget that cloud/water vapor “positive feedback” only lives inside a computer. And you still belive co2 drives the climate.

  283. Smokey says:
    April 11, 2012 at 7:56 pm

    I’m sure he’d be pleased with the warmistas’ steadfast refusal to release their data, too.

    /sarc. (roll eyes!)

  284. Michael Creighten’s ”State of Fear” novel in ’04 or so makes a fictional/prophetic interpretation of the desperate mindset of the greenies + climate changers, with a lot of solid research and footnotes. Comics are going to try to boil this down to a Dan Quail ‘potato’ personal destruction moment for these outstanding and brave heroes. Their other tool in this arsenal is to spike this story,…= ignore it to death. Let’s keep it alive!

  285. These scientist types need a descent hearing , and maybe a big name type spokesperson to bring in some attention. Too bad Hollywood has been bought + sold like some brainwashed lemmings.

  286. Thank you guys in doing this! This is the NASA which allow us to walk on the Moon! Science not bullshits

  287. According to bestplacestowork.org, the number of employyes working for NASA in 2006 was 17, 059. The URL to this information is : http://www.bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/agency.php?code=NN00&q=scores_large
    That is the latest information I could find. some of those guys are in their 90’s, my Dad is 94 and will sign anything you put in front of him… they only got 50 signatures out of 50-60k… wow that seems low…

    [REPLY: Your first comment here and the best you can do is denigrate a group of American heroes on the basis of their age from the safety of your anonymity. That is real class. -REP]

  288. As Nate, Phil Clarke and others have so ably shown here, the idea that there are thousands of scientists disagreeing with the consensus is wrong. I don’t know how to build a rocket, and the NASA engineers don’t know much about climate change. Seems like WUWT will grasp at any old straw as long as it’s peddling the same anti-AGW message. That’s why the term ‘skeptic’ doesn’t quite describe you all!

  289. Smokey – the list most certainly was collated by Morano, who has to re-classify film-makers, Celebrity TV Gardeners and the like as ‘scientists’ to get his numbers up (if you read the quote from Titchmarsh, it is clear that he is not actually ‘sceptical’, either). A single example – and there are many more – is sufficient to show dishonesty.

    Similarly the ‘Petition Project’ includes medical doctors, nurses, chiropracters and vetinarians and the like in its ‘tens of thousands’. Most have a degree in some branch of engineering rather than a hard science. And more dishonesty – the petition included a fake ‘scientific paper’ in the mailshot.

    As with the NASA letter the number of people who signed is a lot less than 1% of those eligible to do so. Hardly convincing.

    Contrast this with, say, IPCC WG1, the Physical Science basis, which is the work of over 700 practicising climatologists, or the fact that every professional association of scientists on the planet, including the National Academies of Science endorses the IPCC statements, and it is clear that your idealogy has quite a mountain to scale in the area of scientific opinion.

  290. As Nate, Phil Clarke and others have so ably shown here, the idea that there are thousands of scientists disagreeing with the consensus is wrong means nothing to the true believers of the Climate Change Cult, intellectual honesty be damned. I don’t know how to build a rocket or how to exercise common sense in evaluating the assertions of :”scientists” that may have a vested interest in promoting a certain agenda, and the NASA engineers don’t support my preconceptions and biases, so as an expert in those preconceptions and biases I must conclude that they don’t know much about climate change. Seems like WUWT will grasp at any old straw as long as it’s peddling I have to strain at every gnat to shill for the same anti-AGW-alarmist, anti-free-enterprise, pro-nanny-state message. That’s why the term ‘skeptic’ “reasonable” doesn’t quite describe you all!me and the other true believers in the Climate Change Cult.

    Edited for accuracy. Straining at gnats to justify appeals to authority is a characteristic of sheep.

    Strain strain strain … strain those gnats!
    Then fling ‘em out, see if they’ll stick
    From wherever you’re at …
    As you swallow camels of dysfunction
    ‘Till your belly’s fat …
    Strain strain strain … strain those gnats!

  291. Phil Clarke says:
    April 12, 2012 at 1:46 am

    Hey, Phil! How’s it goin’, bud? Two questions for ya: First, Why is Mars so cold, and secondly, where are all the SUVs that produced all the CO2? LOL! Have fun!

  292. Looks like the “strike” tags don’t work here … here is how my “edit” should be read:

    As Nate, Phil Clarke and others have so ably shown here, the idea that there are thousands of scientists disagreeing with the consensus means nothing to the true believers of the Climate Change Cult, intellectual honesty be damned. I don’t know how to build a rocket or how to exercise common sense in evaluating the assertions of ”scientists” that may have a vested interest in promoting a certain agenda, and the NASA engineers don’t support my preconceptions and biases, so as an expert in those preconceptions and biases I must conclude that they don’t know much about climate change. Seems like I have to strain at every gnat to shill for the same anti-AGW-alarmist, anti-free-enterprise, pro-nanny-state message. That’s why the term “reasonable” doesn’t quite describe me and the other true believers in the Climate Change Cult.

    Never forget, that earlier in history the expert authorities promoted the idea that the earth was flat, and expressed alarm about those who might sail too far and fall off the edge …

  293. Like wild animals backed in a corner, the apologists are panicking. Gnashing of teeth, grasping at any thread to discredit in any way ( not using any science of course ). It gives me no joy to see them slip beneath the waves of a shifting paradigm and the public understanding of the unsubstantiated claims of predicted doom. If only we could get back the wasted time and money.

  294. Perhaps I am making an “ad hominem” argument. Regardless, I don’t think the quasi-scientific musings of a group of 80-year old men merits serious consideration, particularly when said group of 80-year old men has no particular expertise, recent research experience or recent education in this area of study.

    [Reply: "Perhaps I am making an 'ad hominem' argument." You are. Eighty is the new 60, and American astronauts are true heroes. Smearing them reflects only on the commentator. If Peter's argument is the best argument he can make, it explains why the warmist crowd is on the ropes. -mod.]

  295. @ Nate says:
    >>That being said, I would never critique an experienced, qualified, and credentialed climate scientist’s work.

    Nate;
    You should re-read the letter. The letter does not “critique” the work of anyone. All it says is that the science remains unproven, which is true. As such, it is not appropriate for NASA (a science agency) to be taking an advocacy position.

  296. Phil Clarke,

    Thanx for your unsupported belief system. Did you make that up yourself, or did you get help from Monty [or should I say Richard?]. Or Maybe from Nate, the NASA tax sponge who posts throughout the workday?

    . . .

    @Peter:

    You are a moron. Your pals know that, but we didn’t… until you commented.

  297. Over on RC:
    [Response: Love the way that 49 retired astronauts and administrators (and one meteorologist) suddenly become some all-encompassing 'NASA scientists'. Especially since they haven't actually provided any specific example of what they are complaining about, and despite the fact they are calling for the bureaucracy to censor the ability of real NASA scientists to talk about their work. This is ably dissected here. - gavin]
    Gavin’s ”here” links to:
    “Ah yes, the ever-more-popular goalpost shift of “catastrophic climate change”. The letter of course provides no examples of NASA GISS public releases or websites claiming that CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change” – Dana Nuccitelli, Guardian

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/12/attacks-climate-science-nasa-staff

    Ok, so, they’re advocating global carbon dioxide emissions reductions to avoid beneficial climate change or possibly inconvenient climate change. No, NASA GISS makes it clear they believe climate change is human induced and catastrophic.
    “The paleoclimate record makes it clear that a target to keep human made global warming less than 2°C, as proposed in some international discussions, is not sufficient — it is a prescription for disaster.”
    By James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato — July 2011

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/

    ”More Floods Ahead: Adapting to Sea Level Rise in New York City”
    By Cynthia Rosenzweig, Vivien Gornitz, Radley Horton, Daniel Bader, and Richard Goldberg — April 2011

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rosenzweig_03/

    “Our planet is heating up, largely due to atmospheric build-up of greenhouse gases since the onset of the Industrial Revolution. As mountain glaciers melt, ice sheets thin, and oceans warm, sea level rise is accelerating. As sea level rises, urban areas near the coast like New York City will undergo more frequent and intense episodic flooding following major storms, as well as permanent inundation of some low-lying areas. “

    ”Warming Climate is Changing Life on Global Scale”
    By Cynthia Rosenzweig — December 2008

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rosenzweig_02/

    “A vast array of physical and biological systems across the Earth are being affected by warming temperatures caused by human activity. These impacts include earlier leafing of trees and plants over many regions; movements of species to higher latitudes and altitudes in the Northern Hemisphere; changes in bird migrations in Europe, North America and Australia; and shifting of the oceans’ plankton and fish from cold- to warm-adapted communities.”

  298. Phil Clarke,

    “Contrast this with, say, IPCC WG1, the Physical Science basis, which is the work of over 700 practicising climatologists, ”

    Yes and no. Sure, WG1 references the work of scientific papers which have over 700 contributing authors among them. But no, they don’t actually write the words that go into the IPCC document known as WG1, much less the summary for policy makers. Chapter nine, for example, has about 20 authors, and I think about 5 or 6 lead authors. The authors write the early drafts, and the lead authors revise and edit them.

    The best way to think of the project is like a student who writes an essay referencing a bunch of scientific literature. The student can say pretty much what he wants to, so long as he can cite the evidence, and a good writer can support opposite conclusions on a single topic. Nobody would claim that the students essay was written by a hundred scientists just because that was the sum total of the authors of the cited material – would they? Well, only if they were propagandists.

    If you actually look closely at the names in that oh-so-famous-700-list, you find something interesting too. Names like Richard Lindzen and John Christy, Akasofu and many other skeptics pop up. So the idea that there are 700 climate scientists all agreeing on catastrophic global warming is wrong on just so many levels, it never ceases to amaze how many people fall for it – especially those who have been regular visitors at WUWT. There’s really no excuse, is there?

  299. Monty says:
    April 11, 2012 at 10:53 am

    “Hi Vince
    Tell me what are ‘catastrophic forecasts’. Does 4C warming by 2100 count? Or 1-2m sea level rise?”

    Catastrophic forecasts are those that warn of catastrophe. What does that mean? Some examples include Hansens warning that NY will be under water by the year 2000, and forecasting of Sea Level rises of tens of metres by 2100. Other’s include the destruction of the Amazon rain forests, a sixth great extinction, billions of climate refugees, the turning of the American mid west to desert, human extinction.

    “Just because lots of people (whose qualifications can’t be ascertained) have signed a letter proves nothing. ”

    If NASA is pushing catastrophic global warming (they are) which is unsupported by scientific data (it is) then the veracity of the authors petition stands. Remember, most of the evidence for catastrophe, if you can use the word “evidence”, comes from non peer reviewed literature in the IPCC, most of it written by enviromental lobby groups. and the remainder comes from a few outlying scientists such as Hansen. Surely you know that. Your citation of 4C is a red herring, a number plucked at random from a bunch of computer models. And 1-2m sea level rise. Where does that come from? Not from science – the IPCC upper limit is 59cm.

    “Remember the Oregon Petition? Also a load of rubbish. When we have bona fide climate scientists (you know…with PhDs in a relevant science, peer-reviewed publications in ”

    Bona fide like Richard Lindzen, you mean? Or Akasofu, Pielke sr, Christy, Spencer, Loehle, Tisdale, Scafetta, Douglass, Choi,

  300. [Snip. Labeling all commenters with a different scientific point of view as "deniers" violates site Policy. You are no one special. Please review this site's Policy and abide by it, or post your personal attacks elsewhere. ~dbs, mod.]

  301. Vince – a couple of corrections. Firstly the number of contributing authors to WG1 was 619. I misremembered the total including reviewers. Apologies. Secondly, these are NOT just authors and co authors of the souce papers (that number would likely be a lot higher), they prepare the
    text, data and graphics that make up the IPCC report itself. It seems unlikely that they dissent in any large number or degree from the conclusions. Jim Prall has collated a chart of the most-cited climatologists, including the 619.

    http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html

    Concensus is a slippery thing – how many Biologists feel the need to proclaim the consensus on evolution? However Roger Pielke Snr produced a survey which found:-

    1. The largest group of respondents (45-50%) concur with the IPCC perspective as given in the 2007 Report.
    2. A significant minority (15-20%), however, conclude that the IPCC understated the seriousness of the threat from human additions of CO2.
    3. A significant minority (15-20%), in contrast, conclude that the IPCC overstated the role of human additions of CO2 relative to other climate forcings.
    4. Almost all respondents (at least 97%) conclude that the human addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is an important component of the climate system and has contributed to some extent in recent observed global average warming.

    That 97% again ……

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/is-there-agreement-amongst-climate-scientists-on-the-ipcc-ar4-wg1-by-brown-et-al-2008/

  302. A Lacis says:
    April 12, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…………………

    Evidence?

  303. There might be a test here to be made.

    If one infer that the climate doodeling super computer by Hansen et al functions like a space flight and navigation computer system (they do try so hard to steer where future funding goes after all) one could ask how many astronauts, cosmonauts and taikonauts, would want their space vehicle software to be recoded by GISS-Guys and an essay as to why…not?

  304. Bart,
    I’m a woodworker by trade and this is my first post here. Please excuse my layman-ship. As a former believer in climate warming/change I must say to Phil, Monty, Nate et al. At some point you
    have to show me some “bodies”. In the beginning “bodies” were strewn all over the place, Mt. Kilamanjaro pics, polar bears and all sorts of believable data/predictions about rising sea levels and temperartures. You had me! But then Gores movie came out and upon further review hmmm…. well maybe it’s not so clear. Well there would have to be some “bodies” turning up soon with all of the scientific community behind climate warming/change. Yet no “bodies”, the Maldives
    ,Vanatu, Bangladesh are still above sea level. Polar bears still intact. Tornado’s/hurricanes at or below recorded historical/recorded levels. Not one direct weather/climate event can/has been directly related to mans influence in almost 40yrs of climate scientists sounding the alarm. So in the end counselor’s if we are going to proceed with case I will need the prosecution to produce a body.

    Cheers
    Bart

  305. Babsy, you write:

    “A Lacis says:

    April 12, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…………………

    Evidence?”

    If you are interested in the scientific evidence, what about you start with reading A. Lacis’s peer reviewed papers, he has published in the field of climate science?

  306. Jan P. Perlwitz says:
    April 12, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    How about you show us how you added CO2 to a volume of air and increased its temperature. That is your premise, isn’t it?

  307. Bart Denson says:

    “Where are the bodies?”

    Where are the bodies, indeed. The entire climate scare is an international head-fake, built on always-inaccurate models but with no empirical, testable evidence to support it. It is a monster fed by federal grants totaling around $100 billion so far. That is 100 billion motives to spread climate false alarmism.

    Tax sponges like Mr Lacis would have to get honest jobs if the funding for the Big Lie were cut off, and false alarm spreaders like Phil Clarke would have to find another baseless fairy tale to believe in.

    All the evidence points to the same fact: at current and projected levels, CO2 is completely harmless. Where is there any global harm from CO2? Answer: there is none. And of course, CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere, as the OISM Petition makes clear.

    Folks, the CAGW crowd is lying to you through their teeth. CAGW is a scam. That’s why there are no bodies.

  308. For those of you who don’t want to read through this very long thread, allow me to offer a précis.

    Phil: Who?

    Monty: What Phil said. I want a list! Oh, and what empirical data? I’ve never seen anything that doesn’t confirm conclusively that CO2 has a large impact on the climate system.

    Others: These people.

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/

    http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    and, also try Lawrence Solomon’s book “The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud.”

    Monty: I’m still waiting.

    Others: Here ya go, Monte.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf

    Monty: I’m still waiting.

    Phil: I know about these people but I see no evidence that the signatories to this letter are similarly informed. Please confirm through first-hand knowledge that the letter writers are referring to these people. Oh, and I want credentials.

    Others: Credentials are here:

    http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

    Phil: Ok looked at a list. Seems small to me. There’s a spelling error, which once corrected, is a celebrity gardener. You fools!

    Joel: There should be more signatures on this letter. Who didn’t sign it and why didn’t the people who didn’t sign it not sign it? Oh, and the people who signed it are not really saying anything anyway.

    Monty: I’m still waiting. I am a climate scientist so I know a climate scientist when I see one and I don’t see anybody on these lists that I know, i.e. people with PhDs in a relevant science, peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals. No, wait (yikes, maybe that means I’m not a climate scientist) – “A climate scientist is someone who studies the climate.”

    Others: Hurray! We are all climate scientists.

    Monty: Your lists are rubbish. Steve McIntyre hasn’t audited them.

    Nate: I have a PhD. I know something about climate science. I don’t know enough. I do know that because I don’t know enough, neither do any of these people. You are all a bunch of anti-intellectuals. Isaac Azimov says so. (Aside: I’ll see your Isaac Azimov and raise you one Bertrand Russell. “One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision”. PS – The Dunning-Kreuger door swings both ways, Nate.)

    Peter: These guys are old. Old people aren’t young. I am young. Only young people know anything.

    Monty: I’m still waiting. What Nate and Phil said. I can’t build a rocket, ergo these guys know nothing about climate science.

    Joel: Good quote, Nate. Azimov is was wise. So are you for posting it.

    Monty: I’m still waiting.

  309. Amen Bart Denson & Smokey.
    Here is a copy of a letter I sent to my local paper.
    Assume Monty, Phil, Nate, etc. are the recipients:

    Harvey Ginsburg suggests that scientists, and folks like me, who are skeptical of human induced global warming are lying. I noticed Mr. Ginsburg used a lot of words like deceive, lies, debunked, false, and distort, but no facts. This is pretty typical of what the end of the Global Warming Scam looks like – name calling and hysterics. Like linking someone to Exxon/Mobile as if that proves someone is lying. What difference does it make who someone works for? Show me where their science is wrong, not where they work. And so what if it is warmer now. Would you rather it be cold? Good luck with that. There is no evidence that current warming is abnormal or that it is being caused by humans. None. The only evidence warmists possess are their computer models that predict runaway global warming from increasing man-made C02 emissions. Warming pretty much stopped 15 years ago. Seems a little awkward to keep screaming the sky is falling when everyone can see it isn’t. http://www.nipccreport.com
    More than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). http://www.realeenvironmentalnews.com
    James Hansen, the “father of global warming” predicted temperatures would soar by 2000. Oops! Perhaps one of the enlightened scientists out there can tell us what the “correct” temperature of the Earth should be, how much will it cost to correct it, and how long will it take to change it.

  310. Jan,

    Good job and accurate. People like Monty, Joel, Phil and others of their ilk do not want to read information that contradicts their narrative. It causes massive cognitive dissonance, and it could possibly make their heads explode. So instead, they fall back on their usual, time-tested tactic.

  311. Babsy, you wrote:

    “How about you show us how you added CO2 to a volume of air and increased its
    temperature.That is your premise, isn’t it?”

    What are you asking? That I prove to you the validity of a scientific theory in the comment section of an opinion blog like this one here?

    You asked A. Lacis to provide evidence for what he said. Do you even know who you are asking? As if he hadn’t already delivered his share of evidence in his publications.

    If you want to know the scientific evidence for a scientific theory (do you really?) then you will have to rely on the peer reviewed scientific literature. That’s the place where the evidence is provided and where the scientific debate takes place. Not in opinion blogs like this one here, not in Forbes, WSJ, or opinion letters authored by former NASA astronauts and program analysts. Or an alleged meteorologist who apparently hasn’t published anything in climate science. Or in any field of science, for the matter of fact. At least I haven’t found anything by him indexed in Thomson Reuter’s Web of Knowledge. So, in addition to that the letter is just opinion disseminated by laymen (whose education may be above average and who have expertise in their fields, but they are still laymen in the special field about which they are talking in the letter), the press statement which is quoted in the posting above is also based on deception of the public, since it is sold as a letter by people who allegedly have expertise, although there is none on their side in the field of climate science.

  312. Jan P. Perlwitz says:
    April 12, 2012 at 6:06 pm

    I know what your premise is. Your premise is that increasing levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is causing said atmosphere to warm up. I say show me the mechanism that produces this phenomena. And you cannot.

  313. Jan Perlwitz says:

    “What are you asking? That I prove to you the validity of a scientific theory in the comment section of an opinion blog like this one here?”

    1) We are not discussing a scientific “theory”. This article is about corruption surrounding the catastrophic AGW conjecture. Proper terminology is important at the internet’s Best Science site, so kindly get educated. Words matter.

    2) Your appeal to authority ["You asked A. Lacis to provide evidence for what he said. Do you even know who you are asking?"] is ridiculous. Lacis is just another tax sponge IMO, nothing more. And:

    3) The onus is on the one proposing a theory conjecture or hypothesis. The fact that you’re being an apologist for someone who will not show valid support for his paper is typical of the tap dancing that the alarmist crowd is constantly engaged in. They have lost all credibility, and they still hide out from open debate. They’re not stupid, they know they get slaughtered in scientific debates, where facts rule. So they hide out.

    Finally, when you were asked, “How about you show us how you added CO2 to a volume of air and increased its temperature. That is your premise, isn’t it?” …you set up your strawman arguments and appeals to authority. Because if you tried to answer that question, you would be in way over your head in short order.

  314. Babsy, you wrote:

    “I know what your premise is…”

    Are you psychic?

    …”Your premise is that increasing levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is causing said atmosphere to warm up. I say show me the mechanism that produces this phenomena. And you cannot.”

    Of course, I can’t show that here. How could this be shown in the comment section of an opinion blog? I only can disseminate opinion here, like you, Anthony Watts and everyone else.

  315. April 12, 2012 at 1:46 am

    Smokey – the list most certainly was collated by Morano, who has to re-classify …

    Similarly the ‘Petition Project’ includes medical doctors, nurses, chiropracters and vetinarians and the like in its ‘tens of thousands’….

    Contrast this with, say, IPCC …
    ________________________________________
    Yes Lets bring in the IPCC and their reliance on gray literature from WWF and the Climatologists doing anything to keep out “skeptic” papers.

    UN’s Climate Bible Gets 21 ‘F’s on Report Card
    all 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined
    5,587 are not peer-reviewed

    Climatologists on “skeptic” papers – in their own words.
    Michael Mann e-mail on what “the community” should do to punish a journal that dared to print dissenting views on climate
    Michael Mann email to Phil Jones: “I have a top lawyer already representing me…Wei Chyung needs to sue them, or at the least threaten a lawsuit…The threat of a lawsuit alone my prevent them from publishing this paper, so time is of the essence”

    Oh and these e-mails are real beauts (From WUWT 250 noteworthy Climategate e-mails)

    Don’t miss this devastating criticism of the IPCC from a guy who contributed to all five IPCC Assessment Reports: “I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions)…I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes”

    Michael Mann on keeping up with the scientific literature: “I don’t read E&E, gives me indigestion”

    It’s about Politics not Science
    Mike Hulme agrees that “the debate around climate change is fundamentally about power and politics rather than the environment…There are not that many “facts” about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal”

    von Storch: “We should explain why we don’t think the information robust yet. Climate research has become a postnormal science, with the intrusion of political demands and significant influence by activists driven by ideological (well meant) concerns.”

    And To push the politics they make up numbers
    <a href="http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/phil-jones-much-of-sh-between-40-and.html"Phil Jones: “For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there”

    Ray Bradley: “I am as guilty as the rest–I made up something from a corner of my brain on p.33 of my paleoclimatology book!”

    Sorry dude I prefer people with REAL scientific training like “.. medical doctors, nurses, chiropractors and veternarians”ians…”

  316. Smokey, you wrote:

    “1) We are not discussing a scientific “theory”. This article is about corruption surrounding the catastrophic AGW conjecture.”

    You are not entitled to impose on me what I’m discussing. I discuss what I find appropriate. I replied to the request directed at A. Lacis to provide evidence for the statements on the physics behind the role of CO2 in the climate system.

    “Proper terminology is important at the internet’s Best Science site,”

    And what makes this the “Best Science” site? I ask this because you seem to believe this is of some importance for what is said here, or why are you pointing to this? Majority opinion of some anonymous voters? It’s still just an opinion blog, and not a science site. And you yourself just negated one sentence before that this was about science here.

    And where you see an article and discussion about “corruption” and “conjecture” I see name calling, smearing, inciting, hateful statements, and fantasies of punishment and violence against climate scientists in an opinion blog from people who don’t have the arguments on their side to refute findings of science on scientific grounds.

    “2) Your appeal to authority ["You asked A. Lacis to provide evidence for what he said. Do you even know who you are asking?"] is ridiculous.”

    I point to the fact that A. Lacis has published many peer reviewed articles in the field. Thus, the suggestion that he first would have to provide evidence for his statements is baseless, since he has already provided his share. What does this have to do with “appeal to authority”? Nothing. Instead it’s an appeal to get informed.

    If you want to read a quote where appeal to authority is used, here is one:

    “Some very prominent NASA voices speak out in a scathing letter to current NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr.. When Chris Kraft, the man who presided over NASA’s finest hour, and the engineering miracle of saving Apollo 13 speaks, people listen.” (Anthony Watts)

    “Lacis is just another tax sponge IMO, nothing more.”

    Well, at least you are aware that this is just an opinion, not a factual statement, nothing more.

    “The onus is on the one proposing a conjecture or hypothesis. The fact that you’re being an apologist for someone who will not show valid support for his paper”…

    “His paper”? To what paper of the many do you refer here? And your claim that his papers are not based on “valid support” is based on what, except on your wishful thinking grounded in your preconceived views? If you have more to offer than your scientifically irrelevant assertions just point me to your scientific publications where you have refuted on scientific grounds the findings A. Lacis has presented in his scientific papers.

    I also don’t know what “apologist” is supposed to mean in the context here.

    …”is typical of the tap dancing that the alarmist crowd is constantly engaged in.”

    As I said. Just point me to your scientific publications where you have refuted A. Lacis’s papers, so you can back up your bold claims, you expert. Or are you just pounding the table?

    “They have lost all credibility, and they still hide out from open debate. They’re not stupid, they know they get slaughtered in scientific debates, where facts rule. So they hide out.”

    That must be it. That is why they are published in the specialist journals where the scientific debate takes place, whereas you mostly have to resort to opinion blogs like this one.

    Do you know what the difference is between this blog here, or any opinion blog, and a peer reviewed scientific publication in a specialist journal?

    “Finally, when you were asked, “How about you show us how you added CO2 to a volume of air and increased its temperature. That is your premise, isn’t it?” …you set up your strawman arguments and appeals to authority. Because if you tried to answer that question, you would be in way over your head in short order.”

    If it makes yourself feel better to believe that. And now it’s about science after all? So what is it? How it is convenient for you at the moment? Even if you contradict yourself in one and the same comment?

  317. Gail Combs,

    FYI, Morano may have collated the list, but my link was from years ago. I almost never click on Climate Depot; this was the first week in at least a year that I visited their site.

    Mr Clarke was making baseless assumptions, as usual.

  318. @Jan Perlwitz:

    “I discuss what I find appropriate.” …The use the correct scientific terminology is appropriate, if you don’t mind. Here, this may help you. And Lacis is still a tax sponge. You, too. If you had a real job, you would have to produce, no?

    You ask: “And what makes this the “Best Science” site?”

    I already gave you the answer, Grasshopper. But maybe you’re hoping RealClimate will rise in the ratings? Heh.

    And it’s fun to deconstruct your comments: “How about you show us how you added CO2 to a volume of air and increased its temperature. That is your premise, isn’t it? “…you set up your strawman arguments and your appeals to authority. Because if you tried to answer that question, you would be in way over your head in short order.”

    YOU never answer the question, do you? As a tax sponge/modeler, how do YOU justify feeding at the grant gravy train? Just wondering.

  319. Smokey,

    You obviously don’t know the difference between deconstructing and mere assertion.

    You obviously don’t know the difference between opinion and science.

    Of course, you don’t have to offer anything that could refute A. Lacis’s findings from his scientific publications. I suspect you never have contributed anything to science. All you have to offer: Name calling, smearing, hatred toward him. And now toward me. Toward climate scientists, generally, who publish findings of their research you don’t like for whatever economical, political or ideological motivations you have. You use the cover of anonymity for this. (I’m waiting for the call to order by the moderation here toward you for doing so. I guess I can wait forever. Because here it goes against those evil climate scientists who want all that “power” and “budget”. Since everyone knows, the best way to become rich and get power in this society is going into academia). Since the scientific findings can’t be refuted on the grounds of science, the scientists are instead being attacked in opinion blogs like this one and the discussion forums of those blogs by people like you. Like it is the case with the fake skeptics, generally, whereever you go.

    BTW: RealClimate is an opinion blog too. A high quality one, maintained by climate scientists who know what they are talking about, but the scientific debate does not take place there, either. And nice to see how you use appeal to majority to score points.

  320. Jan P. Perlwitz says:
    April 12, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    I wrote:

    “Babsy says:
    April 12, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    Jan P. Perlwitz says:
    April 12, 2012 at 6:06 pm

    I know what your premise is. Your premise is that increasing levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is causing said atmosphere to warm up. I say show me the mechanism that produces this phenomena. And you cannot.”

    Gleick! Set! Match!

  321. Jan P. Perlwitz,

    RealClimatePropaganda is a thinly trafficked climate alarmist echo chamber with no credibility. It is owned by the mendacious Michael Mann and blogged by your juggler pal Gavin Schmidt on taxpayer time. The last 2 years it didn’t even make the final cut in the Weblog Awards. Pathetic, like all of you.

    And I note that you are still avoiding Babsy’s question. You know, if you and your tax sponge pals got real jobs instead of feeding at the public trough, it wouldn’t make a speck of difference to anyone or anything, except the hard-bitten, overtaxed public that pays for the alarmist propaganda emitted by you layabouts.

  322. Jan P. Perlwitz says:
    April 13, 2012 at 4:11 am
    BTW: RealClimate is an opinion blog too.

    Opinion is a matter of belief, it is not science.

    Thus, RC is not a science blog. It is a indoctrination site to build a political base of followers to aid in securing continued government funding for climate scientists. It exists to benefit the parasites that feed off public funding.

    RC employs cult indoctrination techniques (censorship, god-head) to identify and indoctrinate those that have been conditioned by their upbringing to follow authority, as a means to build a base of “believers” to lobby politicians.

    This has been well documented by others. Go to RC and question AGW with scientific facts – not opinion – scientific facts. Unless you fit the profile, you will be quickly censored and your posts removed retroactively. Lest your heresy contaminate the minds of the believers. Cultism 101.

  323. Smokey says:
    April 13, 2012 at 5:37 am

    Jan P. Perlwitz,

    And I note that you are still avoiding Babsy’s question.

    Smokey, he won’t answer me. There are only two possible scenarios here. The experiment has been run, or it has not. If the experiment hasn’t been run it begs the question of why not. If the experiment has been run, and the result was more CO2 in a given volume of air raises its temperature, the warmists would be screaming it from the bloody rooftops. That hasn’t happened.

  324. Jan P. Perlwitz says: @ April 13, 2012 at 4:11 am

    …You obviously don’t know the difference between deconstructing and mere assertion.

    You obviously don’t know the difference between opinion and science….
    _________________________________
    When a supposed scientist make a statement like the one below, I know he is blowing smoke. If CO2 was a “Control Knob” then it would be simple to predict the climate for next year and to “adjust” the climate. Since the predictions and adjustments are not forth coming, that is the applied science, then the guy is talking out his rear. And yes I have had forty years of watching theoretical PhDs make these types of pronouncements that fall flat on their face when scaled up into production. Forty years of cleaning up the messes while the PhDs are off on the next project and “Don’t have the time to talk” about their failures.

    The bottom line is that CO2 is absolutely, positively, and without question, the single most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It acts very much like a control knob that determines the overall strength of the Earth’s greenhouse effect. Failure to control atmospheric CO2 is a bad way to run a business, and a surefire ticket to climatic disaster.

    Dr. Andrew A. Lacis
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

    http://anunexpectederror.blogspot.com/2010/02/andrew-lacis-on-climate-science.html

    That was a statement for public consumption.

    This is more like reality.

    …. We’ll need to be careful not to imply that climate scientists know everything there is to know about the climate system, and about how technologies, say, would effect it. (This issue of how to communicate uncertainty to the public is a hot topic at the moment in science communication, especially in connection with climate change.)… [Victoria Carroll Curator Science Museum, London]

    Vicky,
    Your toolkit assumes there is a technological solution to mitigate climate change. By definition this assumes we fully understand the climate system, and I don’t think we do – in the sense that if we do something, we know what the effect will be… [Phil Jones]

    http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0101.txt

    To me this is the real killer when combined with the Australian temp record, New Zealand temp record, and of course the US temp record.

    …I’ve just come accross something interesting in my data – it looks like the land T and dewpoint T data is recorded only to whole numbers prior to 1982 too. I’ve only looked at a few stations so far but these have been in completely different countries but show the same thing I don’t think/hope this affects any results so far too much….. [Kate Willett MET office]

    http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/4299.txt

    To a chemist who has wrestled with mixing for forty years the CO2 record is even more laughable, especially when you are dealing with a system with large additions and removals and sporadic mixing from the wind. This statement from Mauna Loa kills any credibility of the recent record.

    “At Mauna Loa we use the following data selection criteria:

    4.In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general “outlier rejection” step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds. All hourly averages that are further than two standard deviations, calculated for every day, away from the fitted curve (“outliers”) are rejected. This step is iterated until no more rejections occur….. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

    The assumption is made that there is NO VARIABILITY and the data is adjusted to reflect that. This is the same assumption that is used to reject Ernest Beck’s work on historical CO2 measurement.

    So Lacis is basing his statement of fact on a dicey world temperature record, a dicey world CO2 record and fantasyland computer models with no real honest data or experimentation in sight that isn’t disputed.

  325. Babsy says: @ April 12, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    Jan P. Perlwitz says: @
    April 12, 2012 at 6:06 pm

    I know what your premise is. Your premise is that increasing levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is causing said atmosphere to warm up. I say show me the mechanism that produces this phenomena. And you cannot.
    _________________________________
    The real life experiment fails.

    The Experiment that Failed Berthold Klein P.E (January 15, 2012)
    Edited by John O’Sullivan, incorporating comments by Dr. Pierre Latour, Professor Nasif Nahle, Edward J. Haddad Jr. P.E, Ganesh Krish, and others.
    Dedication:
    To Professor Robert W. Wood (1909), the first scientist to demonstrate that the Hypothesis of the “Greenhouse effect in the atmosphere” was unscientific…

    Conclusion of test results: Based on the failure of all the previous portions of these tests which were done with very high concentrations of IRag’s to demonstrate the GHGE, it is valid to say that increasing CO2 or other IRag’s in the atmosphere will have NO temperature EFFECT…..

    Anthony shows Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment (Hilarious screw up of a simple science experiment)

    The experiment can be done at home: http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/archive/index.php/thread-1466.html

  326. I was taking a beating for not “believing” in the climate change model. This is such sweet vindication I must email it around.

  327. Gail Combs,

    “The assumption is made that there is NO VARIABILITY and the data is adjusted to reflect that.”

    I had no idea this was how they recorded CO2 levels. I wonder if there is any statistical justification for doing this?

  328. Gail Combs says:
    April 13, 2012 at 8:22 am

    Whaaaaaatttt????? How is this possible?! It is HERESY! CO2 *MUST* warm the atmosphere! It must, I tell you! Oh, the HUMANITY!!!!

    PS: Thanks, Gail Have a great weekend!

  329. I’ll listen to these engineers,scientists, and astronauts instead of various English, History, and other liberal arts professors who have signed petitions and letters over the years supporting the AGW premise.

  330. One of the main emperical evidence sources that could be used was destroyed….er….lost….by the ‘climate’ scientists when creating their models. The data was massaged, important conflicting pieces thrown out, and modified to fit their desired theory, which is the antithesis to the scientific process that has been in place for decades. The fact that these AGW alarmists had all the data, modified it to fit their theories, and then based their models off each each others results or theories without benefit of peer review is pretty much like giving the fox the keys to the hen house.

  331. Gail Combs says:
    April 13, 2012 at 8:22 am
    I would like to sincerely thank you, Gail Combs. I have no idea who you are but every post you make is concise, polite, accurate as far as I can tell and filled with relevant links for further reading. This is very helpful to those of us who are interested but have no horse in the race. I find the science of assertion without evidence as practised by some really frustrating.

  332. Jan P. Perlwitz:

    I have really enjoyed this thread because I have rarely laughed so much at a flock of trolls desperately trying to justify blatant nonsense. For example, at April 12, 2012 at 7:54 pm you provide a gem in response to Babsy saying to you;

    …”Your premise is that increasing levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is causing said atmosphere to warm up. I say show me the mechanism that produces this phenomena. And you cannot.”

    Your response is a classic example of assertion, evasion, straw man and blatant falsehood all included in only 33 words that say;

    “Of course, I can’t show that here. How could this be shown in the comment section of an opinion blog? I only can disseminate opinion here, like you, Anthony Watts and everyone else.”

    Your assertion says “Of course” you can’t explain the matter “here”. Of course you can’t? Really? Do you understand so very little of what you proclaim?

    You then evade the issue by asking a question which claims you do not know how to answer a simple scientific question.

    The straw man is your assertion that this is an “opinion blog” and not (as it is) a scientific blog.

    And you conclude with the blatant falsehood that you and everybody else can only provide “opinion” and not scientific argument here. That is so wrong that it is risible. For a recent example of a scientific argument supported by referenced data on this blog see my post of today at April 13, 2012 at 6:42 am in the thread at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/pat-michaels-on-the-death-of-credibility-in-the-journal-nature/

    That recent example enables others to challenge my evidence and my argument which is why I posted it. And I always like it when a challenge proves I am wrong because then I learn. However, I am a scientist and, therefore, I am not an advocate so I like to learn.

    Trolls are advocates. And that is why they assert and pretend that “Of course” they can’t justify their assertions.

    Richard

  333. Jan P. Perlwitz says:
    April 12, 2012 at 7:54 pm
    Babsy, you wrote:

    “I know what your premise is…”

    Are you psychic?

    …”Your premise is that increasing levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is causing said atmosphere to warm up. I say show me the mechanism that produces this phenomena. And you cannot.”

    Of course, I can’t show that here. How could this be shown in the comment section of an opinion blog? I only can disseminate opinion here, like you, Anthony Watts and everyone else.

    ========

    Don’t you know? Perhaps one of your colleagues might know? Surely, someone pushing this must know..?

    Please, ask around if you don’t know because this is your, generic AGWs, basic claim:

    ”Your premise is that increasing levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is causing said atmosphere to warm up. I say show me the mechanism that produces this phenomena. And you cannot.”

    Because until you do produce this, why should any of us take you seriously as a scientist?

  334. I can’t stand it. After reading the new Roy Spencer article on USHCN “adjustments”, it is clear that the climate charlatans are busy in every part of the federal government. Time to de-fund these deceivers!

    And it looks like Mr. Perlwitz has skedaddled back to his profession of being a tax sponge. We want scientific debate here, and welcome it from any point of view. But Mr. Perlwitz is clearly incapable of giving any reasonable explanations for his True Belief that he has some sort of climate “theory”. He has not been able to answer even one of the questions put to him, and has admitted as much. The only thing these pseudo-scientists are really good at is writing grant-generating papers that get hand-waved through Pal-Review so long as they support the climate alarmist narrative. Perlwitz will get respect here only if he engages in an honest, scientific, fact-based debate. But as we’ve seen, Perlwitz is incapable of defending even the simplest of his conjectures, and now he’s hightailed it out of Dodge.

    Apparently Perlwits is also ignorant of the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified, and which in turn falsifies his alternative CO2=CAGW conjecture. These overpaid charlatans actually take Lacis’ ridiculous position that CO2 is a control knob that runs the climate! Too bad the planet disagrees.

    Government propagandists like Lacis and Perlwitz hide out from any debate, and they’re hiding out now. In any open debate their runaway global warming nonsense would be promptly deconstructed. They’re too chicken to debate, but they keep both front feet in the taxpayer trough, incessantly “adjusting” the temperature record on land, sea and satellites.

    At least Hansen has the excuse of being a certifiable lunatic who has been consistently wrong for the past 30 years. But most of these other fakirs are simply self-serving tax sponges feeding at the public trough. And I, for one, am getting tired of being the meal ticket for these public servants swindlers riding the climate gravy train.

  335. Smokey says:
    April 13, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    Government propagandists like Lacis and Perlwitz hide out from any debate, and they’re hiding out now. In any open debate their runaway global warming nonsense would be promptly deconstructed. They’re too chicken to debate, but they keep both front feet in the taxpayer trough, incessantly “adjusting” the temperature record on land, sea and satellites.

    For me, there’s really nothing to deconstruct as they haven’t yet made any testable hypotheses.

  336. User “Babsy” wrote:

    “The experiment has been run, or it has not.”

    What “experiment”? It is the first time that you talk in the context here about an “experiment”. Before, you requested to provide “evidence” and “to show” here that CO2 warms the atmosphere. Wasn’t it your comrade “Smokey” who said words matter?

    Do you mean an experiment like this?

    http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/globalwarmingexperiment.html

    “…the warmists would be screaming it from the bloody rooftops.”

    The “warmist” are screaming from the rooftops about basic knowledge in physics like why CO2 in the atmosphere makes the surface temperature and the troposphere warmer as much as they are screaming about that the Earth isn’t flat.

  337. Robert E. Phelan wrote:

    “Jan … works as a modeler at GISS and has even been published…

    Seems to “know” everything about aerosols and nothing about science.”

    That is the funniest statement what I have read here so far, coming from the fake skeptic parallel universe where the facts that someone works in science and “has even been published” are criteria for being disqualified from knowing something about science. The utter absurdity of your “argument” is stunning.

  338. Gail Combs wrote:

    “When a supposed scientist make a statement like the one below, I know he is blowing smoke. If CO2 was a “Control Knob” then it would be simple to predict the climate for next year and to “adjust” the climate.”

    Apparently, you are under the delusion you can dismiss a scientific study just in a sentence after you have read something about it in second or third hand sources. I recommend to read the original paper instead, try to understand the content and to what the term “Control Knob” refers. Little hint: It does not refer to that CO2 was allegedly the only factor that determines the state of the Earth system on any time scale, and certainly not on short time scale like from year to year.

    When you have done this then it may be that you won’t draw such a nonsense conclusion like the one above, the next time. Maybe.

  339. Richard S Courtney wrote:

    “Your assertion says “Of course” you can’t explain the matter “here”.

    You should try to read carefully. You already have made your first mistake by asserting a claim I haven’t made. Nowhere did I say I couldn’t explain it here, couldn’t tell you what my understanding was how it it works. I said I can’t “show” it here after some other user requested “evidence”. Scientific proof is not possible in a comment section of opinion blogs. For anything. Scientific proof for scientific theories can only be found in the scientific literature. YOU do not produce science here. You ONLY produce OPINION. And when I write HERE, I also only produce opinion, perhaps in the field of climate science a better educated one than the average person has to offer, but still opinion, not science. I do science somewhere else, not here.

    “Do you understand so very little of what you proclaim?”

    I certainly do believe that I understand how the greenhouse effect of CO2 works, the reality of which is here clearly doubted. If you do not understand it, are you asking me to explain to you what is taught in High School today, some basics?

    The basic principle is really not as complicated. You can start with an atmosphere, which is transparent for solar and thermal radiation. The system is in radiative equilibrium with the surrounding space. Incoming solar radiation, which is absorbed by the surface equals outgoing longwave radiation, which is emitted from the surface. Then you introduce a greenhouse gas in an atmospheric layer above the surface, which absorbs and emits longwave radiation. It’s still transparent for the incoming solar radiation, but longwave radiation radiated from the surface upward is absorbed by the greenhouse gas. This diabatic heating source warms the atmospheric layer with the greenhouse gas. Longwave radiation is emitted from this layer in all directions, i.e., about 50% is emitted back toward Earth’s surface. Due to this there is a perturbation of the radiative equilibrium with the surrounding space. The system is in disequilibrium with the surrounding space now. Less energy leaves the system than comes in. The surface and the atmosphere warm due to the heating, which increases the outgoing longwave radiation, until radiative equilibribrium is restored once the system has adjusted. In reality, it’s a bit more complicated, since there are also turbulent, sensible and latent energy fluxes, and there is convection, there is a vertical lapse rate of the temperature, the atmosphere has different strata with different properties. But that’s the basic principle.

    “The straw man is your assertion that this is an “opinion blog” and not (as it is) a scientific blog.”

    So please explain to me what are the supposed criteria, which are allegedly fulfilled, that makes this blog a “scientific blog”? There are no valid scientific standards here. Anyone can assert anything and its opposite, w/o being mandated to back up assertions, to bring proof of source, or, generally, follow the rules of a real scientific publication. Nothing of what is here produced is put under real scientific scrutiny by scientists. How can this be a “scientific blog” then? It can’t.

    “And you conclude with the blatant falsehood that you and everybody else can only provide “opinion” and not scientific argument here.”

    You can try to approximate a scientific argument here, and base your arguments on results from real scientific studies. This make your argument a qualitatively better argument, but it doesn’t make your comments science. Or this blog a “scientific blog”. As I said. There are no valid scientific standards here, and nothing what is produced here is put under real scrutiny by scientists. And this is the difference between an opinion blog like this one here and the peer reviewed scientific literature.

    “That recent example enables others to challenge my evidence and my argument which is why I posted it. And I always like it when a challenge proves I am wrong because then I learn. However, I am a scientist and, therefore, I am not an advocate so I like to learn.”

    Good for you. And since you seem to make the assertion I was an “advocate” you certainly can tell here what I’m advocating and you certainly can back up your assertion. Otherwise, according to you, you are just a troll.

    Btw: Considering all the personal attacks against climate scientists here, the libeleous assertions, baseless accusations from the fake skeptic crowd, the blunt hatred, with which this forum is filled, your singling out of my comments for your ad hominem indicates a certain bias in your perception and opinion.

  340. Myrrh wrote:

    “Because until you do produce this, why should any of us take you seriously as a scientist?”

    If someone announces to me to not take me seriously, if I don’t help him/her with overcoming his/her lack of education with respect to basic physics of the workings of the climate system, which is nowadays already taught in school, is this supposed to bother me? You really can do what you want.

  341. Smokey wrote:

    “I can’t stand it. After reading the new Roy Spencer article on USHCN “adjustments, it is clear that the climate charlatans are busy in every part of the federal government. Time to de-fund these deceivers!”

    Roy Spencer? Isn’t this the guy who had distributed false temperature data derived from satellite measurements, using seriously flawed algorithms for years, until other scientists found out that those weren’t right?

    Just saying.

    “But Mr. Perlwitz is clearly incapable of giving any reasonable explanations for his True Belief that he has some sort of climate “theory”. He has not been able to answer even one of the questions put to him, and has admitted as much.”

    You seem to be hallucinating, if you have seen that I had “admitted” such a thing.

    “The only thing these pseudo-scientists are really good at is writing grant-generating papers that get hand-waved through Pal-Review so long as they support the climate alarmist narrative. ”

    An assertion without evidence like many others. According to Mr. Courtney, you are a troll.

    “Perlwitz will get respect here only if he engages in an honest, scientific, fact-based debate.”

    Says one of the biggest jokers here whose “arguments” against scientific findings published in peer reviewed journals have mostly consisted of personal attacks against the scientists, libelous smearing, hate mongering. What about you start with 1. posting under your real name; 2. disclose your credentials, before you talk about “honest debate”. This is very likely the last thing in which you are interested. I do not care about “respect” from the likes of you.

    “These overpaid charlatans actually take Lacis’ ridiculous position that CO2 is a control knob that runs the climate! Too bad the planet disagrees.”

    You obviously don’t have a clue what A. Lacis’s position is and to what this term “control knob” refers. You are not informed about the content of this publication, or about what the scientific arguments are. But you believe to know it is nonsense. You cluelessness can be seen from your belief that the graphic would contradict what A. Lacis says. Or that it generally would be in contradiction to the statement the CO2 increase in the atmosphere leads to global warming. It is not in contradiction. Not at all. You showing the graphic only demonstrates once more how fake skeptics resort to logical fallacy for their pseudo refutation of global warming and the anthropogenic causes for it. The “argument” is logically fallacious because 1. the time period is too short. The temperature variability is dominated by natural variability on such a short time scale, the largest contribution comes from the variability related to ENSO. 2. The start point is cherry picked. This is so typical. What Smokey others accuses of he himself practices. He conveniently chooses a start point so that it looks like there wasn’t a trend. It’s telling that the temperature time series in his plot starts at 1995, but he choose 1996.83 as start for the trend calculation. If he had chosen 1990 as start point for the temperature series and trend calculation, it already would have looked quite differently. Or for 1979 even more.

    Now a little exercise. Plot the data from 1980 to 1995.

    So much for “honest” debate from user “Smokey”.

    “but they keep both front feet in the taxpayer trough, incessantly “adjusting” the temperature record on land, sea and satellites. ”

    And more libelous smearing from user “Smokey”. Using cowardly the cover of anonymity for this.

  342. Oops, the last quote I commented wasn’t from anonymous user “Smokey”, it was from anonymous user “Babsy”. But since they are lookalikes, and “Smokey’s” comment does similar smearing, it doesn’t really matter.

  343. Rocket scientists are more familiar with thermodynamics than climate clairvoyants!

  344. Jan P. Perlwitz:

    Thankyou for your reply at April 14, 2012 at 12:49 am to my comment to you at April 13, 2012 at 2:34 pm. However, it is an understatement to say that I am underwhelmed by your reply.

    Taking your last point first, you say to me;
    “…your singling out of my comments for your ad hominem indicates a certain bias in your perception and opinion.”

    Say what!?
    I made no ad hominem; none, zilch, nada. Anybody can see that I deconstructed your comments.

    However, your unfounded suggestion that I have “bias” in my “perception and opinion” is an ad hominem. Indeed, it is an unjustified insult which tells much about its provider (i.e. you) and nothing about its target (i.e. me).

    You babble about the difference between the words “show” and “explain”. This is semantic obfuscation because I quoted you accurately and in full. Importantly, your semantic quibble has no meaning in the context of what I wrote.

    Then you assert;
    “Scientific proof is not possible in a comment section of opinion blogs.”

    Let us be clear. “Scientific proof” IS NOT POSSIBLE period.
    There is scientific evidence, scientific argument and scientific conclusion but “proof” is a mathematical concept and is NOT a scientific possibility.

    However, you assert;
    “Scientific proof for scientific theories can only be found in the scientific literature”.
    NO! It can not! Scientific “proof” does not exist and, therefore, cannot be “found” anywhere.

    If “scientific proof” were possible then an existing scientific understanding could not be overthrown.

    Your comments concerning “scientific proof” demonstrate that your understanding of the difference between science and pseudoscience is severely lacking (n.b. this is a factual statement and not an ad hominem).

    Science obtains as much evidence as possible and assesses it all in attempt to discern the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’.
    Pseudoscience assumes something is ‘true’ and seeks evidence to confirm (i.e. to prove) it.

    And your assertions that “science” is not conducted here but only “opinions” are expressed are further evidence that you have little if any understanding of how science is conducted (n.b. again, this is not an ad hominem).

    Science consists of assessing all available evidence in attempt to discern the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’. Your claim that consideration should only be afforded to information you like that is only available in or from sources you like is a proclamation of pure pseudoscience.

    And you say;
    “I do science somewhere else, not here.”
    Yes, I noticed that. Please stop presenting pseudoscience here and present science instead.

    Importantly, you were asked to “show” and you were not asked to “prove” your premise. And this distinction is NOT a semantic quibble. You were asked for an explanation and/or evidence (which is how something is shown scientifically) of your premise: you were NOT asked for “proof”.

    And your reply to me does attempt to explain your premise saying;
    “I certainly do believe that I understand how the greenhouse effect of CO2 works…” etc.

    Sorry, but you have failed the assignment. Few doubt the radiative properties of dipole molecules or the mechanism of the radiative greenhouse effect. But that is not an answer to Babsy who wrote;
    …”Your premise is that increasing levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is causing said atmosphere to warm up. I say show me the mechanism that produces this phenomena. And you cannot.”

    It is a fact that CO2 is a GHG so – all other things being equal – an increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration would increase radiative warming of the Earth’s surface. But so what? That is not what you were asked because all other things would NOT be equal if atmospheric CO2 were to increase. Indeed, you admit that all other things would not be equal when you write;
    “In reality, it’s a bit more complicated, since there are also turbulent, sensible and latent energy fluxes, and there is convection, there is a vertical lapse rate of the temperature, the atmosphere has different strata with different properties.”

    The “mechanism” you were asked to show was how the entire climate system would respond such as to cause the atmosphere to warm up. You have not done that, and so it seems Babsy was right to claim “you cannot”.

    Please note that the above three paragraphs are science and not merely opinion.

    And you ask me;
    “So please explain to me what are the supposed criteria, which are allegedly fulfilled, that makes this blog a “scientific blog”? There are no valid scientific standards here. Anyone can assert anything and its opposite, w/o being mandated to back up assertions, to bring proof of source, or, generally, follow the rules of a real scientific publication. Nothing of what is here produced is put under real scientific scrutiny by scientists. How can this be a “scientific blog” then? It can’t.”

    The criteria are that evidence is presented, challenged, debated and evaluated with a view to obtaining better understandings (i.e. knowledge). Incidentally, this IS conducted by “scientists” (your claim otherwise merely demonstrates that you have not read the blog). Simply, much science is conducted here which falsifies your assertion that science “can’t” be conducted here.

    And what “standards” are you asserting exist elsewhere. Do you want WUWT to devolve to the mendacious behaviour of ‘The Team’ as revealed by the ‘climategate’ emails? I and others would oppose the reduction of standards here to that level.

    Your claim of “rules of real scientific publication” is baloney. I give a few examples which show it is baloney.

    The Editor of Nature published two papers by third-rate patents clerk without putting those papers to peer review because he knew the reviews would be negative. But those papers (on what their author called relativity) revolutionised physics.

    Two bicycle salesmen published their seminal paper on aviation in a journal on bee-keeping because the ‘rules of scientific publication’ made it impossible for them to publish in more appropriate journals. And the existence of the aviation industry shows the value of that paper: where it was published, its lack of pre-publication peer review, and the credentials of its authors do not alter its value in any way.

    Similar examples are legion.

    I repeat, your claim that consideration should only be afforded to information you like that is only available in or from sources you like is a proclamation of pure pseudoscience.

    The remainder of your reply to me is merely ad hominem and so is not worth the bother of a response.

    Richard

  345. Jan P. Perlwitz says:
    April 14, 2012 at 1:01 am
    Myrrh wrote:

    “Because until you do produce this, why should any of us take you seriously as a scientist?”

    If someone announces to me to not take me seriously, if I don’t help him/her with overcoming his/her lack of education with respect to basic physics of the workings of the climate system, which is nowadays already taught in school, is this supposed to bother me? You really can do what you want.

    I was educated pre the AGWScienceFiction fisics being introduced into the education system, your claim so it should bother you, it would bother a real scientist. Go fetch, educate me – here, now on this blog for discussion on stuff scientific – show and tell the science claim you claiming to be a scientist are actively promoting as science fact. Until you do so, no one in their right mind could take you seriously as a scientist.

    Answer clearly Smokey’s succinct question or you prove him right, you cannot…

    ”Your premise is that increasing levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is causing said atmosphere to warm up. I say show me the mechanism that produces this phenomena. And you cannot.”

    You cannot because it doesn’t exist, you can’t find it to fetch and show and tell.

    ”Your premise is that increasing levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is causing said atmosphere to warm up. I say show me the mechanism that produces this phenomena.”

    Go fetch.

  346. Jan P. Perlwitz says:
    April 13, 2012 at 10:33 pm

    “Do you mean an experiment like this?”

    No. I meant a real experiment. And the Earth is flat. Thanks for playing!

  347. Perlwitz says:

    “The ‘warmist’ are screaming from the rooftops about basic knowledge in physics like why CO2 in the atmosphere makes the surface temperature and the troposphere warmer as much as they are screaming about that the Earth isn’t flat.”

    Wrong. The Tropospheric Hot Spot [the widely predicted "Fingerprint of Global Warming"] has been completely falsified. Too bad pseudo-scientist Perlwitz didn’t get the memo. Empirical evidence from thousands of accurate radiosonde balloons and satellite measurements has decisively falsified the “Hot Spot” prediction, but grant trolls like Perlwitz keep flogging that dead horse. Let’s be clear: the non-existent ‘tropospheric hot spot’ prediction has failed; it is one of numerous alarmist predictions that never happened. How many failures does it take to cut the wasted funding of this baseless climate scare?

    Richard Courtney has ably deconstructed Perlwitz. But to test Perlwitz’ putative intellectual ability, I propose a simple and testable hypothesis for falsification, if Perlwitz can handle the challenge:

    At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

    Any attempted falsification must be according to the Scientific Method — a concept foreign to the alarmist tax sponge cult. It must be testable, replicable, and based on empirical evidence [and note that computer models are not evidence].

    Perlwitz must show verifiable global harm due to the rise in beneficial CO2, or admit that the CO2=CAGW conjecture is simply a scam on the hard-bitten taxpaying public.

    Finally, I note that Perlwitz is still complaining about the fact that there are different opinions expressed here. That is in stark contrast to the outright censorship practiced by alarmist pseudo-science blogs like Mann’s RealClimate. Here, factual opinions are separated from garbage opinions like wheat from chaff; thus the truth is winnowed out, and readers can decide for themselves the value of each argument.

    Unlike RealClimatePropaganda, Skeptical Pseudo-Science, Closed Mind, and similar alarmist blogs, this Best Science site does not censor different points of view. That is why WUWT has well over 100 million unique hits, and more than 800,000 reader comments, while blogs like RC and sPs have very little traffic. That also explains Perlwitz’ and Lacis’ posting here, because they know they get a very wide readership.

    But their problem is obvious: they are desperately trying to support the false narrative that runaway global warming is happening. It isn’t, as millions of WUWT viewers know. Just read this thread to see how badly they have been b!tch slapped around the block regarding their falsified conjectures and their failed predictions.

    The falsified CO2=CAGW conjecture is simply a scare tactic based on federal grant money. It is past time to cut off that wasted funding, because it is based entirely on the repeatedly falsified, pseudo-scientific CAGW scam. Nothing unusual or unprecedented is happening with the climate, as the null hypothesis shows. The climate alarmist crowd is losing the argument for one reason: because the planet itself is contradicting their money-grubbing scare story. And what better authority is there than planet earth?

  348. Jan P. Perlwitz says: April 13, 2012 at 10:41 pm

    That is the funniest statement what I have read here so far, coming from the fake skeptic parallel universe where the facts that someone works in science and “has even been published” are criteria for being disqualified from knowing something about science. The utter absurdity of your “argument” is stunning.

    I see you have something of a comprehension problem as well. Nowhere did I write that working in science or publishing in scientific journals disqualified one from knowing something about science. Rather, I was lamenting the fact that there are some people who know nothing about science who are mistaken for scientists and actually get published in scientific journals. The fake universe is the one where computer simulations are mistaken for empirical evidence, the science is settled and scientific skepticism is a mental illness that needs to be treated.

    Dr. Perlwitz, your Ph.D. and your shabby little cubicle at GISS are not proof that you understand science. Your arrogance and mistaken notion that skeptics are ignorant mouth-breathers are not proof that you understand science. Many of the commenters here that you are deriding were doing science and engineering before you were born. It is people like you that have taken one of the most liberating institutions the world has known and turned it into a tool of oppression. When the peasants come for you with their pitchforks and torches, you will have brought it on yourselves.

  349. Yes!
    This is why I read WUWT.
    People like me who work too much, have big families and limited free time can come here and quickly absorb scientific concepts, arguments and data regarding the climate drama.
    About twice a month I get a gold nugget thread like this one where heavy hitters mix it up and a lot of digestible information is presented.
    Thanks to all you regulars who climb into the ring here. It has been a lot easier for me to learn from your sparring than from my reading of science papers.
    Best,
    RR

  350. Jan P. Perlwitz says:
    April 14, 2012 at 2:13 am
    “but they keep both front feet in the taxpayer trough, incessantly “adjusting” the temperature record on land, sea and satellites. ”
    And more libelous smearing from user “Smokey”. Using cowardly the cover of anonymity for this.

    So, which statement do you consider libelous, Doc — that NASA/GISS subsists on taxpayers’ money or that NASA/GISS keeps adjusting the temperature record?

  351. Jan P. Perlwitz says:
    April 14, 2012 at 2:13 am
    The “argument” is logically fallacious because 1. the time period is too short.
    It’s telling that the temperature time series in his plot starts at 1995, but he choose 1996.83 as start for the trend calculation.

    So 15 years and 5 months of no warming is “too short”? It just happens to be the length of time that RSS has no slope. But exactly how long is long enough for you to conclude something is very wrong with the theory of CAGW?

    Phil Jones, July 5, 2005:
    “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

    So for Phil Jones, even seven years of cooling appeared to be very troubling. Then when we had 10 years of no warming, we heard that it is possible in some of the models to have periods of 10 years where no warming occurs. However it is my understanding that virtually no models showed 15 years of no warming. And now that it has happened, you are saying the time is “too short”? Santer now says that 17 years is needed to really see what is going on.

    https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

    Do you agree with Santer? The 15 years and 5 months of no warming represents 185/204 = 90.7% of 17 years. So that flat slope line does not have to go much further to reach 17 years. But what would happen when it reaches that point? Will the goal posts be moved again?

  352. Werner Brozek says:

    “But what would happen when it reaches that point? Will the goal posts be moved again?”

    Of course. These people have no integrity. In addition to Hansen, Jones and Santer, that includes those posting here from NASA.

  353. Werner Brozek wrote:

    “So 15 years and 5 months of no warming is “too short”?”

    To answer your question with “Yes” or “No” would mean to accept the premise in your question. But your claim that there had been no warming for “15 years and 5 months” doesn’t have any scientific validity. Do you know anything about trend analysis? If you do then you should know that a trend analysis needs to be statistically robust to allow a scientifically valid conclusion about the absence or presence of a statistically significant trend. It is not robust, if the result sensitively depends on including or excluding individual data points, which is still the case for the time period of the last 15 years. The last 15 years include the year 1998 in the beginning, the year of a very strong El Nino. This phenomenon of natural variability strongly affects the outcome of the trend analysis, particularly since there was an extended and deeper solar minimum as well as La Nina towards the end of the trend analysis. Excluding the data point of 1998 gives a very different result of the trend analysis. That is, the trend analysis is not robust yet.

    I recommend once more to try an exercise. Draw the temperature record only from 1980 to 1995. It looks like there was “no warming” during this period. With the right choice of start and end year you can find other 15-year periods like the last ones with “no warming”. Nevertheless, the conclusion that there was no global warming during these periods is nonsense. The trend from the mid 1970s to today is statistically significant. But if you choose a too short time period the trend is masked by noise due to natural variability. This doesn’t mean the global warming trend isn’t there.

    “But exactly how long is long enough for you to conclude something is very wrong with the theory of CAGW?”

    How long? When a statistical trend analysis which is also robust gives results that are statistically significantly different to the results from the model projections. And if the difference couldn’t be explained by some other climate driver in the real world, which developed differently to the prescribed boundary conditions of the model projections, for which this hadn’t been taken into consideration. Then I would have to start to scratch my head about whether my understanding of the physics of climate had been wrong. In contrast, for instance, if suddenly a period of extremely intensive volcanism started on Earth, which filled the atmosphere with aerosols, having a strong cooling effect, this would probably throw off model projection that prescribed a different scenario in the boundary conditions. But that would not refute my understanding of the physics of climate, and the role of CO2 as greenhouse gas in it.

    However, I’m not aware of any empirical evidence nowadays that would point to the conclusion a substantial revision of my understanding of the workings of the Earth system and the role of humankind as a factor significantly influencing climate (e.g., by increasing the CO2 content in the atmosphere) was wanted.

    “Phil Jones, July 5, 2005:
    [...]”

    Quote without proof of source.

    “So for Phil Jones, even seven years of cooling appeared to be very troubling.”

    Is this what you read into this quote? Because in his alleged quote he says the “cooling” wasn’t statistically significant? Now that is a very free interpretation of what the quote says. Looks more like wishful thinking.

    “Then when we had 10 years of no warming, we heard that it is possible in some of the models to have periods of 10 years where no warming occurs.”

    Sources please for the alleged statements to which you are referring here. And which also show that what was said was a change in comparison to what had been said before. I do not discuss assertions that have the quality of mere rumors.

    “However it is my understanding that virtually no models showed 15 years of no warming. And now that it has happened, you are saying the time is “too short”?”

    I don’t know where you got your “understanding”, but if you assert there has appeared a contradiction between real world temperatures and model projections references for your assertions please. So far I don’t see any significant problems. So far the real world surface temperature record is well within the model variability. The comparison goes only until 2010, but 2011 doesn’t change this (2011 was the warmest La Nina year on record according to UK Met Office).

    And the model projections don’t even take into account the prolonged and deeper solar minimum that occured in the real world. (A proper comparison between model projections and real world data would have to adjust for the difference between external forcings prescribed as lower boundary conditions and real world development of the external climate drivers, if one wants to evaluate the skills of the models to reproduce real climate).

    “Santer now says that 17 years is needed to really see what is going on.
    https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

    The link to the paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016263

    You misrepresent what Santer says, if you assert that he made a normative statement with respect to that. It’s not a norm. It’s a conclusion he draws from analyzing the data. How long the data series needs to be “at least” before the signal emerges from the noise, and is not masked anymore.

    “Do you agree with Santer?”

    I haven’t done his analysis. So how am I supposed to decide whether I agree with the number of “17 years”? I only can register for me those results, and assume those are right until someone else publishes a paper that successfully refutes the results from Santer’s paper, or addition from new or revised data revises this number. I don’t see any obvious issues with his analysis, which would make me suspect there was something wrong with it.

    “But what would happen when it reaches that point? Will the goal posts be moved again?”

    It’s not a “goal post”, it’s not a norm that someone had arbitrarily decreed out of convenience. It’s what the statistical analysis Santer carried out has implied as conclusion. An analysis with the currently available data sets. Since those are limited, also this analysis has uncertainty. A change in the data sets on which Santer’s analysis was based may also change the outcome somewhat. And it’s certainly not a fixed point in time like exactly 17 years, 0 days, 0 hours, 0 minutes, and 1 second, and suddenly it was OK. It would be absurd to believe such a thing that it was like that.

    [RC advertising deleted. Readers can find their link on the sidebar. ~dbs, mod.]

  354. The last 15 years include the year 1998 in the beginning, the year of a very strong El Nino.

    Well, yes. And the two years immediately following was prolonged and powerful La Nina. So much so that if you exclude BOTH the 1998 El Nino AND the 1999 – 2000 La Nina, the trend is toward distinctly pronounced cooling, using HadCRUt3.

    This phenomenon of natural variability strongly affects the outcome of the trend analysis,

    Yes, almost (but not quite) as much as the 1999 – 2000 La Nina.

    particularly since there was an extended and deeper solar minimum as well as La Nina towards the end of the trend analysis.

    Yes, the 2008 la Nina. Short and sharp. Which was followed immediately by the prolonged and very powerful 2009 – 2010 El Nino, which came very close to breaking (and, according to some, actually broke) the observed surface record for 2010.

    Excluding the data point of 1998 gives a very different result of the trend analysis. That is, the trend analysis is not robust yet.

    Well, you weren’t thinking of EXcluding the 1998 El Nino and INcluding the 1999 – 2000 La Nina, were you?

    If you want to avoid the endpoint error, either start in 1997 (15 years ago, as it turns out) BEFORE the 1998 El Nino and include both El and La. Or else start in 2001, AFTER both El and La.

    BTW, if you start in 2001, you’ll find a cooler HadCRUt3 trend than if you start 15 years ago.

    Oh, yeah, and did anyone point out that 1979 to 2007 was a positive PDO, which includes a strong warming skew? So, yeah, the last 30 years of warming need to include a strong, entirely natural warming and subtract that from anything anthropogenic . . .

  355. 1997 – 2012, including both 1998 El Nino and 1999 – 2000 La Nina:

    2001 – 2012, excluding both 1998 El Nino and 1999 – 2000 La Nina:

    And this (2001 – 2011) excludes the current La Nina and includes both the 2008 La Nina and the 2009 – 2010 El Nino.

  356. In Jan’s defense, I would point out that one really needs 30 years to get out of the fuzz of the error bars — but one also has to beware overweighting periods of positive and negative PDO (et al.), which are also roughly 30 year half-cycles.

    Looking at the last 30 years, for example, includes 25 years of Positive PDO and five years of Neutral/Early Negative PDO. So there will be a strong natural warming bias that needs to be accounted for.

  357. Werner Brozek,

    That is some amazing tap dancing that Mr. Perlwitz is doing, no? So instead of these short term trends, let’s look at the long term natural warming trend since the LIA.

    No doubt Mr. perlwitz will start jumping up and down at this point, saying, “But… but… that’s just one temperature record!” OK then, here are seven more long term records showing the same natural warming trend.

    The long term trend since the LIA — one of the coldest episodes of the Holocene — has remained within the same parameters since CO2 was ≈285 ppmv. As we see, the rise in harmless, beneficial CO2 has had no measurable effect on the long term trend. The null hypothesis requires that the long term trend must break out of its upper band in order to falsify the null. That has not happened.

    The reason these climate charlatans use zero baseline charts is easy to understand: they create an artifact that looks deceptively like a hockey stick. Arbitrary baseline charts fool the eye. That is why for long term trends, a trend line must be used to avoid the zero baseline artefact. Using a trend line chart [the green line], we can now see that there is nothing unusual happening. There has been no acceleration of temperatures. The very same rises have happened repeatedly whether CO2 was low or high, as even Phil Jones was forced to acknowledge. Therefore, CO2 has little if any effect on temperature. QED

    These self-serving scientists have been trained with grant funds the way Pavlov’s dogs were trained with dog biscuits. The chicanery of using arbitrary baseline charts is done for only one reason: to alarm the public, and thus keep these charlatans’ tickets punched on their grant gravy train. It is the same chicanery used to color temperature maps bright red… when temperatures are only in the 70’s. This kind of corruption is now endemic to all government agencies. The motive is easy to understand; the dishonesty is not.

    And even the IPCC now admits that CO2=CAGW is a scam:

    “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
    ~ Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC Co-Chair, WG-3.

    That is a straight out admission of corruption. They use their climate alarmist cover story the same way that NASA does: to falsely alarm the public. Despicable.

  358. evanmjones, you wrote:

    “Well, yes. And the two years immediately following was prolonged and powerful La Nina. So

    much so that if you exclude BOTH the 1998 El Nino AND the 1999 – 2000 La Nina, the trend is toward distinctly pronounced cooling, using HadCRUt3.”

    Thank you for confirming my argument that a trend analysis on such short time scales is not statistically robust so that no scientifically valid conclusion about the absence of presence of a warming trend (or cooling trend for the matter of fact) can be drawn based on a trend analyses using such a limited data set.

    “Yes, the 2008 la Nina. Short and sharp. Which was followed immediately by the prolonged and very powerful 2009 – 2010 El Nino, which came very close to breaking (and, according to some, actually broke) the observed surface record for 2010.”

    And then the El Nino 2011 again, which lasted into 2012. But again, thank you for confirming here as well what I said.

    “Well, you weren’t thinking of EXcluding the 1998 El Nino and INcluding the 1999 – 2000 La Nina, were you?”

    Excluding/including it for what?

    “If you want to avoid the endpoint error, either start in 1997 (15 years ago, as it turns out) BEFORE the 1998 El Nino and include both El and La. Or else start in 2001 and start AFTER both El and La.”

    Neither of your propositions provides any statistically robust results from the trend analysis, as you yourself have confirmed above. Therefore, no scientifically valid conclusions about the trend could be drawn from such a trend analysis.

    “Oh, yeah, and did anyone point out that 1979 to 2007 was a positive PDO, which includes a strong warming skew? So, yeah, the last 30 years of warming need to include a strong, entirely natural warming and subtract that from anything anthropogenic . . .”

    Says who and where using what scientific evidence? And no, referencing yourself is not a valid answer, except you can reference a peer reviewed scientific publications that you wrote.

    Although the attribution question would not be relevant for diagnosing whether there was a warming.

  359. Thank you for confirming my argument that a trend analysis on such short time scales is not statistically robust so that no scientifically valid conclusion about the absence of presence of a warming trend (or cooling trend for the matter of fact) can be drawn based on a trend analyses using such a limited data set.

    Yes, I do confirm that.

    Yet one can minimize the effects by excluding anomalies or including counter-anomalies.

    For example, I would definitely conclude that 1983 to 1998 was a period of warming in spite of the fact that it is a mere 15-year period. (Albeit 100% during positive PDO.)

    Likewise, I would say that there was — probably — very little (if any) warming for the last 15 years. (10 years of Positive PDO, 5 years of Neutral/negative PDO.) While freely conceding that a 15-year interval is too short a time to speak with “robust” certainty.

  360. Jan P. Perlwitz says:
    April 14, 2012 at 2:18 am
    Oops, the last quote I commented wasn’t from anonymous user “Smokey”, it was from anonymous user “Babsy”. But since they are lookalikes, and “Smokey’s” comment does similar smearing, it doesn’t really matter.
    ===========
    Taking the high road, I see.

  361. Thank you very much for all comments from Jan P. Perlwitz, evanmjones and Smokey!
    I will try not to repeat anything that was said already, but I will comment on a few things.

    Jan says

    “Phil Jones, July 5, 2005:
    [...]”

    Quote without proof of source.

    I must confess to be a bit puzzled by this request as I thought it was a well known quote from the climategate emails. Normally I DO give the source but I double check things and this time my source gave an error message. So now I googled “The scientific community would come down” and the following came up first: http://mnichopolis.hubpages.com/hub/ClimateGate-The-Smoking-Gun-email

    As to why I thought he was troubled, he did say “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms….” But my interpretation is not relevant.

    “Then when we had 10 years of no warming, we heard that it is possible in some of the models to have periods of 10 years where no warming occurs.”

    Sources please for the alleged statements to which you are referring here.

    I am REALLY puzzled by this request for sources since you gave me the following source:
    The link to the paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016263
    And the first thing it says is:
    “Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale
    Key Points

    Models run with human forcing can produce 10-year periods with little warming”
    As far as I can see, this is what I said above unless there is some subtlety that I am missing.

    As for whether 15 or 17 or any other number of years is enough, I think it should be 60 years due to the well known 60 year cycle shown here:

    To me, the 15 years of no warming is just a confirmation that the 60 year cycle is still dominating things and not the CO2 increase. See

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1952/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1952/trend

    slope = 0.011725 per year

    So this turns out to be 1.175 per century. And assuming we have warmed 0.80 C so far and that we can go up 2 C before running into trouble, it would take another century before we hit an increase of 2 C. I do not believe a 2 C increase is that bad but that is another matter.

    From a different response:
    “Well, you weren’t thinking of EXcluding the 1998 El Nino and INcluding the 1999 – 2000 La Nina, were you?”

    Excluding/including it for what?

    See the following. A straight line appears with or without the El Nino due to the cancelling effects of La Nina(s):

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/trend

  362. “Well, you weren’t thinking of EXcluding the 1998 El Nino and INcluding the 1999 – 2000 La Nina, were you?”

    Excluding/including it for what?

    Meaning you can’t start in 1999 or 2000 without a serious endpoint error. You have to either include both the 1998 El Nino and the 2000 – 2001 La Nina or exclude both.

    “Oh, yeah, and did anyone point out that 1979 to 2007 was a positive PDO, which includes a strong warming skew? So, yeah, the last 30 years of warming need to include a strong, entirely natural warming and subtract that from anything anthropogenic . . .”

    Says who and where using what scientific evidence?

    Oh, dear. You don’t know the PDO is a strong natural warming interval and that it went positive in the mid-to-late late 1970s and is believed to have turned the corner in 2007?

    Well, that can be easily remedied. Just Google “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” and read up on it.

    And no, referencing yourself is not a valid answer, except you can reference a peer reviewed scientific publications that you wrote.

    *grin*

    There are more co-authors of peer reviewed papers here than you might suspect . . .

  363. Mr. Perlwitz, FYI most if not all the moderators know my identity. Therefore I don’t qualify as being anonymous. I’m only anonymous to you [and to Babsy, who I don't know either. But she doesn't mind, while you do]. Our site host knows my name, my address, and my phone number, and we’ve met several times over the past few years. But it tickles me that you’re so fixated on Smokey, rather than on Smokey’s arguments. If you qualified, you would know my identity too. Sadly, you don’t have a need to know.☹

    Now, about my testable, falsifiable hypothesis that you’re doing your best to ignore, and which is at the center of the entire debate. If you can’t falsify this hypothesis per the scientific method, then your CO2 argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy is deconstructed:

    At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

    Only testable, verifiable evidence of global harm due specifically to CO2, please; no computer models and no “what-if” conjectures. No circular arguments citing papers that cite other papers that cite the original authors’ cited opinions. If a paper uses a model to arrive at conclusions it is not evidence, it’s that simple. Verifiable raw data showing that rising, anthropogenic CO2 exclusively has caused global harm is necessary to falsify the hypothesis. Quantify how much damage was done, using verifiable, testable measurements. Full transparency of all methods, code, methodologies and metadata to be provided upon request. Otherwise the scientific method cannot be applied because the data and methods cannot be replicated. No Michael Mann obfuscation allowed.

    Climate ‘science’ as practiced by people who ignore the scientific method doesn’t fly here at the internet’s “Best Science” site, where the scientific method trumps opinions, models, and pal reviewed papers. So give it your best shot. And remember the adage: silence is concurrence.☺

  364. And then the El Nino 2011 again, which lasted into 2012. But again, thank you for confirming here as well what I said.

    I think you mean “La Nina”. But, yes, the final graph I posted above does indeed exclude the 2011 La Nina. Still no perceptible warming.

    And, yes, I certainly reconfirm that a 10-year period is not particularly robust.

    So, what we have is a 15-year period of non-robust indication of flatline and an 11-year non-robust indication of cooling at the same rate the 20th century is alleged to have warmed (i.e., using HadCRUt3 “adjusted” data).

  365. u.k.(us) says:
    April 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm
    Jan P. Perlwitz says:
    April 14, 2012 at 2:18 am
    Oops, the last quote I commented wasn’t from anonymous user “Smokey”, it was from anonymous user “Babsy”. But since they are lookalikes, and “Smokey’s” comment does similar smearing, it doesn’t really matter.
    ===========
    Taking the high road, I see.

    Helps him to duck the question of *which* of Babs’ statements he considered libelous — that NASA/GISS is taxpayer funded or that NASA/GISS keeps adjusting the temperature record…

  366. The article is clearly bogus. Has anyone contacted any of the “retired” signers of this supposed document?

  367. John:

    A NASA spokesman has replied to the “supposed document” so it is not “clearly bogus”.

    However, the same cannot be said of you.

    Richard

  368. evanmjones says:

    You made clear and accurate statements concerning the PDO to which Jan P. Perlwitz responded with the question;
    “Says who and where using what scientific evidence?”

    At April 14, 2012 at 8:21 pm you replied to that question saying;
    “Oh, dear. You don’t know the PDO is a strong natural warming interval and that it went positive in the mid-to-late late 1970s and is believed to have turned the corner in 2007?
    Well, that can be easily remedied. Just Google “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” and read up on it.”

    Allow me to explain the problem for you.

    You are using the pre-climate-science view that science is about understanding the natural world.
    Climate-science practitioners use the post-normal method of studying models which they construct from their opinions, beliefs and prejudices.

    The climate models do not emulate the PDO and, therefore, climate modellers don’t know of it or think it does not exist.

    I hope that you comprehend this because there are people in the post-modern world who assert that those of us who adhere to the pre-climate-science view should be subjected to ‘treatment’.

    Richard

  369. Odd.

    Google “jan perlwitz columbia giss nasa” for “Images” …

    You find 11 propaganda (er, ABCNNBCBS news) photo’s of Hansen. And not a single one of any Dr Perlwitz.

    Now, I admire this supposed scientist’s zeal and enthusiasm for promoting his/her job, livelihood, promotions, and so strongly her/his boss’s promotions and future employment and continued funding for their self-centered computers and programming budgets. (All must admit it is notable that it is only the government-funded and NGO (tax exempt) self-called “scientists” and “scientific agencies” who are most strongly demanding that so many million non-government taxpayers – who must actually produce a real product or service is actually “wanted” by the public – pay ever and ever more for the government’s self-interest and perpetual salaries increases and power.)

    Further, it is “interesting” to observe the fact that it is government employees who most strongly claim “evil oil” contributions or “profit-seeking” companies MUST be behind the mythical “conspiracy” to fight the (false) claims common in the CAGW dogma of catastrophic man-caused global warming.

    See, if what they claim is true – that oil money corrupts or sponsors the fight against “pure science” of the CAGW religion – then they must have some evidence of money corrupting science.

    So, if they have evidence of money corrupting “science”, then they must have seen money corrupt “science”, or have heard of cases of money and power and politics corrupting “science”.

    But, ALL OF THE MONEY IS FUNDING the CAGW MONOPOLY … A monopoly that dominates the universities, the Congress, the “science” organizations in London, Washington and Brussels, and ALL of the government agencies. And the so-called peer-reviewed journals.

    So therefore, by making their false claims about the corruption of “evil oil money”, they are proving their own corruption and their own dishonesty.

    Because 200 billion of corrupting government monies is their own money.
    1.3 trillion of power and corrupting new tax monies are their own money.
    Power.
    Influence.
    Religion.

  370. RACookPE1978,

    Great comment. The only [small] change I would make would be to reverse the order of:

    Power
    Influence
    Religion

    The demonization of harmless, beneficial CO2 is a main tenet of the alarmist religion. Every religion need a devil. The problem is that CO2 is not the climate’s “control knob”, as A. Lacis preposterously asserts. There is zero empirical evidence for that belief, yet Lacis expresses it as a given.

    And Richard Courtney hit the nail on the head with the distinction between normal science [based on the scientific method], and post-normal ‘science’, which is not science at all, but simply partisan advocacy which cannot withstand the scientific method, as we see from Perlwitz’ hiding out from the straightforward challenge to try and falsify the testable hypothesis that the rise in CO2 is both harmless and beneficial.

    When faced with the central global warming argument over “carbon”, the alarmist crowd, led by Lacis and Perlwitz, heads for the hills. That fact alone should make it clear that their religious belief in a CO2 ‘control knob’ is utter nonsense.

    But I thank Perlwitz and Lacis for adding to WUWT’s traffic numbers; 447 comments on this thread alone, and counting. Now if only they would try to defend their true belief in the demon ‘carbon’, readers could then decide for themselves the level of climate alarmist credibility. But the fact that they hide out from engaging shows that their religion pays homage to a false god. In other words: they’re in it for the money.

  371. RACookPE1978 says:
    April 15, 2012 at 12:35 am
    Odd.
    Google “jan perlwitz columbia giss nasa” for “Images” …
    You find 11 propaganda (er, ABCNNBCBS news) photo’s of Hansen. And not a single one of any Dr Perlwitz.

    Maybe he’s just shy. He has a lot of papers on his CV, though. Nineteen of ‘em — all based on modeling and simulations.

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/janperlwitz.html

    The perfessor inhabits an ivory tower and it has no windows — just computer screens…

  372. Richard S Courtney wrote April 15, 2012 at 12:03 am:

    “You made clear and accurate statements concerning the PDO to which Jan P. Perlwitz
    responded with the question;
    “Says who and where using what scientific evidence?”

    At April 14, 2012 at 8:21 pm you replied to that question saying;
    “Oh, dear. You don’t know the PDO is a strong natural warming interval and that it went positive in the mid-to-late late 1970s and is believed to have turned the corner in 2007?
    Well, that can be easily remedied. Just Google “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” and read up on it.”

    Allow me to explain the problem for you.”

    Ha ha, is this one of the alleged “scientific arguments” in this alleged “scientific blog”? When I ask for the scientific references where the scientific evidence can be found for the assertion that a large contribution of the warming since the mid 70ies or so comes from PDO as natural phenomenon, I am told to “Google”? Right.

    “You are using the pre-climate-science view that science is about understanding the natural world.
    Climate-science practitioners use the post-normal method of studying models which they construct from their opinions, beliefs and prejudices.”

    And this is another one of the alleged “scientific arguments”? It’s an opinion statement where you make an assertion about how I allegedly would view science and construct models. An ad hominem assertion that comes without evidence.

    Nice to see how you yourself expose your previous claims about how this was a “scientific blog” whith “scientific arguments” as nonsene with your own contributions. This is an opinion blog, not a science blog. There are no valid scientific standards here. Good job!

  373. Jan P. Perlwitz says:
    April 15, 2012 at 6:43 am

    Nice to see how you yourself expose your previous claims about how this was a “scientific blog” whith “scientific arguments” as nonsene with your own contributions. This is an opinion blog, not a science blog. There are no valid scientific standards here. Good job!

    If WUWT is such a piece of crap why are you here? To learn if

    E=MC2

    and

    dF= 5.35 X ln C/Co W m-2

    are laboratory testable hypotheses?

  374. When I ask for the scientific references where the scientific evidence can be found for the assertion that a large contribution of the warming since the mid 70ies or so comes from PDO as natural phenomenon, I am told to “Google”? Right.

    Well, for the esoteric stuff you need to go to the literature. For mainstream stuff like the PDO being a strong warming influence, Goog will do just fine. Or even beastly wiki . . .

    Also, as a lukewarmer, I have no doubt there has been some GHG influence on overall warming. But you’d have to factor out the PDO (plus whatever else) to determine it.

  375. evanmjones (and other lukewarmers) – do you agree with this statement from Steve Mosher “And as you all know the lukewarmer position ( sensitivity more more likely to be less than 3C than greater than 3C) is already the IPCC position ”

    http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2012/04/13/pay-no-mind-to-these-harassed-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-106354

    I’m just curious to know what sort of spread of sensitivity those that self define as lukewarm sign up to.

    REPLY – I’m a lot less warm than that! I define lukewarmers as (tentatively) buying into the basic forcing, but WITHOUT the positive feedbacks. ~ Evan

  376. Jan P. Perlwitz:

    At April 14, 2012 at 3:45 am I replied to your post at April 14, 2012 at 12:49 am and I then explained how your post clearly and unambiguously demonstrated you are a pseudoscientist.

    You have not replied (which is not surprising).

    This morning at April 15, 2012 at 12:03 am (before going to fulfil duties much more important than trying to educate a pseudoscientist), I presented a post that
    (a) pointed out the nature of your pseudoscience
    and
    (b) reminded of the threats made against adherents to science by supporters of your pseudoscience; see e.g.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/02/rewriting-history-treatment-of-sceptics-disappears-from-university-of-oregon-press-statement/

    And you have responded to that at April 15, 2012 at 6:43 am.

    I ask everybody to read that response although it is both fatuous and childish.

    For a start you say;
    “And this is another one of the alleged “scientific arguments”? It’s an opinion statement where you make an assertion about how I allegedly would view science and construct models. An ad hominem assertion that comes without evidence.”

    Firstly, of course I was making a comment and not a scientific argument. It was a comment ABOUT your science. Comments about science are normal in all scientific forums; e.g. the journals Nature and Science have editorial and comment sections.

    Secondly, it is an opinion about your science which is fully justified by evidence presented by me to you at April 13, 2012 at 2:34 pm in this thread where I wrote;
    “For a recent example of a scientific argument supported by referenced data on this blog see my post of today at April 13, 2012 at 6:42 am in the thread at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/pat-michaels-on-the-death-of-credibility-in-the-journal-nature/”

    Anybody who checks that reference can see I did NOT provide “An ad hominem assertion that comes without evidence.” I made a factual statement about your science (n.b. not an ad hominem) that was fully justified by evidence which I had already presented in this thread.

    So, either you did not check that reference or you have deliberately stated a falsehood by claiming I made “An ad hominem assertion that comes without evidence.”

    Personally, I think you failed to check the reference (because your arrogance is such that you are unwilling to learn anything from anybody) but I could be wrong about that so you may have lied.

    Then you say;
    “Nice to see how you yourself expose your previous claims about how this was a “scientific blog” whith “scientific arguments” as nonsene with your own contributions. This is an opinion blog, not a science blog. There are no valid scientific standards here. Good job!”

    Thankyou. I agree that I have done a “Good job!” in that I have pointed out
    (a) Your own words proclaim you are a pseudoscientist
    ( b You have failed to provide any alternative understanding of those (your own) words
    (c) You have demonstrated here that you are ignorant of science and how it is conducted
    (d) Your post-normal science is an attack on science
    And
    I have upheld valid scientific standards by assisting you to demonstrate all in points (a) to (d) for everyone to see.

    Standards are upheld by supporting the good and (especially important in this context) exposing the bad.

    Richard

  377. Perlwitz says:

    “This is an opinion blog, not a science blog.”

    Wrong. This is the internet’s “Best Science” site. It does not censor opposing views like the execrable RealClimate and other alarmist echo chambers do. For example Perlwitz, who gets his own model-based oipnion papers hand-waved through pal review is, of course, simply writing an opinion. Any conclusions based on computer models [which include all of Perlwitz' papers] are based on the GIGO principle: Gospel In, Garbage Out. Perlwitz wouldn’t know the Scientific Method if it bit him on the a… nkle. Models are not evidence.

    Given Perlwitz’ low opinion of this multiple award winning Best Science site, why does he continue to post here? As anyone can see, he is certainly geting no traction with his model-based beliefs. And he hides out from any attempt to falsify a scientific hypotheses [a necessary function of the Scientific Method]. He provides no verifiable facts to support his evidence-free belief that CO2 is the “control knob” for the climate. And he is finding out, like lots of other readers here, that his putative knowledge of the subject is shallower than many other commentators. He’s been winging it; he doesn’t even know the difference between an El Nino and a La Nina [April 14, 2012 at 8:42 pm].

    Perlwitz is finding out the hard way that far from being just an opinion site, WUWT is a rigorous scientific peer review site. Shoddy thinking, belief in models as opposed to testable evidence, and appeals to authorities that are as deficient as he is do not get a free pass here. We are more than willing to discuss scientific facts, data and evidence, but Perlwitz is not. He prefers to make derogatory comments about this Best Science and Technology winner. Wake me when Perlwitz tries to explain his CO2=CAGW belief system using verifiable facts, such as showing any global harm due to increased CO2. He will not accept the challenge because there is no evidence of global harm from that tiny trace gas — which even after a ≈40% rise, is still a tiny trace gas.

  378. [SNIP: Tell me, does anyone at Vanderbilt University understand the meaning of "ad hominem"? Anonymous cowards don't get to post comments like this. -REP]

  379. To a Lib, any statement he can’t refute is automatically an “ad hominem” attack. He has no idea what the term means, merely that it’s Latin, and thus gives his reply the aura of being authoritative.

    [REPLY: Sorry Bill, but he didn't use the term. His comment was an ad hominem. Cowardly, anonymous, first-time commenters don't get to do that. -REP]

  380. [REPLY – I’m a lot less warm than that! I define lukewarmers as (tentatively) buying into the basic forcing, but WITHOUT the positive feedbacks. ~ Evan]

    I’m a little cooler. From reading the data (as opposed to models) I calculate the 1st order forcing to be less than .6 C.

  381. I have come to learn that when an AGW True Believer uses the word ‘robust,’ it is time to look up some Real science on the matter in question.

  382. Smokey says:

    If Isaac Asimov was here today there is no doubt he would apply his quote directly to the climate alarmist contingent, which has no intellect, but only fact-free gut feelings and grant hunger. He would be referring, of course, to the anti-intellectual climate idiocracy that demonizes “carbon” [by which they ignorantly refer to CO2, a trace gas].

    Wow…How wrong could you possibly be?!? Asimov was already concerned about global warming in 1989 (and, according to his words, “for 20 years at least” before that)! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6tSYRY90PA

  383. I’m a little cooler. From reading the data (as opposed to models) I calculate the 1st order forcing to be less than .6 C.

    My recent research is causing me to seriously call into question the “official” amount of warming over the last century. I do not trust the adjustments (SHAP a positive trend adjustment? Say, what?!) and am inclining toward the position that even the raw data has a spurious warming signal that overmatches TOBS.

    I also don’t see CO2 doubling over the next century.

    It’s hard to know what to think. Except anyone who thinks anything about it is “settled” is too complaisant — or too chicken to take Leroy (2010) out for a test spin.

  384. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data.

    That is remarkable. It was said that only (unspecified) “alarmists” made such claims of “catastrophic” impacts without providing any evidence.

    But now even NASA retirees consider the NASA/GISS/IPCC projection of 1.5 – 4.5 C increase in global temperatures for a doubling of CO2 to be “catastrophic”.

    I would hope that someone could point out scientific evidence that climate sensitivity would be below that value.

  385. Rob Dekker says:

    “I would hope that someone could point out scientific evidence that climate sensitivity would be below that value.”

    No problem:

  386. Smokey, I asked for “scientific evidence”, not some graph that no one has verified.
    But even without that, it is easy to find some major flaws in your graph :

    For starters, you have completely ignored that this planet has oceans that absorb heat.
    You also ignored the influence of aerosols, and ignored solar influence altogether also.

    To avoid any more blunders in your argument, it would be nice if you would actually present a scientific publication instead of some representation of cherry-picked data.

  387. So who is this guy Leighton Steward, who apparently wrote this letter, without providing a single piece of scientific evidence in it’s support, and then got 50 retirees to sign it ? Sourcewatch reports :

    H. Leighton Steward is the spokesman for front group Plants Need CO2 (the 501(c)(3) backed by coal baron Corbin Robertson) and the registrant of its PlantsNeedCO2.org website. According to its corporate Certificate of Formation[1], Steward is also a director at oil and gas company EOG Resources, formerly known as Enron Oil and Gas Company, where he earned $617,151 in 2008. Steward also serves as an honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute.

    Ah That explains a lot.

  388. Rob Dekker:

    OK, I ‘get it’. You want reference to a peer reviewed paper that has methods and conclusions which have never been challenged in the peer reviewed literature and shows real-world climate sensitivit

    So, you need to read
    Idso SB ‘CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change’, Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1998.

    It can be read at

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf

    In the paper Dr. Sherwood Idso describes 8 natural experiments to determine climate sensitivity. His empirical (n.b. NOT model-derived) results are:

    1. Changes in atmospheric water vapour at Phoenix, Arizona 0.173 C/W/m2.
    2. Changes in atmospheric dust at Phoenix, Arizona 0.173 C/W/m2.
    3. Annual temperature change (land 0.171 coast 0.087) 0.113 C/W/m2.
    4. Earth total GH effect 0.097 C/W/m2.
    5. Equator to pole temperature gradient 0.103 C/W/m2.
    6. Venus – Mar extrapolated to Earth (0.4 C) 0.1 C/W/m2.
    7. Faint early Sun paradox (0.4 C) 0.1 C/W/m2.
    8. Tropical ocean water vapour (ocean 0.071 land 0.172) 0.101 C/W/m2.

    Best estimate 0.10 C/W/m2. The corresponds to a temperature increase of 0.37 Celsius for a doubling of CO2.

    The real world indicates that the high climate sensitivities in the models are way, way too high.

    But who cares about reality when we have dozens of models that each differs from every other model but each fails to emulate the real world?

    The models vary in climate sensitivity from each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^-2 to 2.02 W/m^-2
    (ref. Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007)

    In other words, the models use a vast range of climate sensitivities but the lowest of thiose values is 8x greater than is observed in the real world.

    Richard

    PS
    Thanks to Bill Illis, Kiehl’s Figure 2 can be seen at
    http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/8167/kiehl2007figure2.png ]

    Please note that the Figure is for 9 GCMs and 2 energy balance models, and its title is:
    ”Figure 2. Total anthropogenic forcing (Wm2) versus aerosol forcing (Wm2) from nine fully coupled climate models and two energy balance models used to simulate the 20th century.”

    It shows that
    (a) each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^-2 to 2.02 W/m^-2
    but
    (b) each model is forced to agree with the rate of past warming by using a different value for “Aerosol forcing” that is in the range -1.42 W/m^-2 to -0.60 W/m^-2.

    In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.

  389. From REP to me at April 16, 2012 at 9:32 am
    [REPLY: Sorry Bill, but he didn't use the term. His comment was an ad hominem.... -REP]

    I didn’t know if he did or not — my comment was just a general observation in reply to your question, “…does anyone at Vanderbilt University understand the meaning of ‘ad hominem’?”

    Oh, wait. It was rhetorical.

    Mea culpa.

  390. The “ad hominem” crowd is alive and well here!

    On April 11, 2012 at 1:00 pm, Nate said: “…The signatories of this letter know no more about climatology than I do, and probably less. Even the guy who calls himself a meteorologist is not, in fact, a meteorologist. He has an undergraduate degree in sociology and political science from NYU, where he dabbled in meteorology….”

    The following e-mail was sent to another blogger who spent as little time as Nate did on background checking. As before. the credibility of our NASA group was challenged by trying to single me out, and I guess I’m still somewhat pleased that I was the “excuse” for doing so.

    I tried to post the reply to the offending webpage, but the blogger cared not to post it. Here is the response, and it applies here as well:
    *****
    I’m flattered that you highlighted me from among the NASA Astronauts, Engineers, Scientists, and administrators who signed the letter to Administrator Bolden!

    My incredibly rewarding but brief NASA Career extended before, during, and after the Moon Landings. The Polynomial Regression mathematics, algorithms, or code I personally produced after leaving NASA finds use by every climate scientist on the planet, either embedded in their models, or used in their analysis (there may be exceptions; I’m aware of none!).

    After leaving the agency, the NASA management skills I learned, helped me turn around internal operations of one of the nation’s premier insurance companies, saving thousands of careers in the process.

    I’ve lectured on the meteorology of climate all over the world for over a decade. Millions follow my accurate meteorological forecasts annually. Both the heavy snows of 2010-2011, and the light snows of 2011-2012 were predicted before they happened, on America’s “Greenest” radio station, NYC’s WBAII 99.5, which covered not just the “What,” but also the “Why.” Listen to: http://archive.wbai.org/files/mp3/wbai_111213_200100ecologic.mp3, a NYC environmentally oriented radio broadcast where I make my “Annual” climate forecast.
    Looking for some more green? I’ll keynote the Earth Day event run by Volunteers for Peace in Ossining NY on April 21, http://www.vfp.org/contact-us/vfp.org-peace-action-conference, where I’ll cover positive effects of the relationship of CO2, Temperature, and Climate. Then I’ll return to NASA Houston for a presentation on the Mathematics of Sea-Level rise, similar to one delivered to over 100 people at Hofstra University a week ago.

    I’m honored to be among the current and ex-NASA group signing the letter to Administrator Bolden, that simply requests that the NASA’s name and reputation only be attached to claims supported by hard, verifiable, DATA. No censorship, “muzzling” or other nefarious behavior is intended; we’re just looking for accuracy and excellence when NASA’s reputation gets put on the line!

    Thanks again for singling me out! I’m truly flattered!!!
    *****
    Now here’s what Nate should be looking at: http://www.colderside.com/Colderside/Temp_%26_CO2.html

    Here you find DATA, not supposition. Temperature and CO2 READINGS, not projections. If people (yes, Nate, you too!) focussed on the message, not the messenger, they might learn something!

  391. tomwys:

    You conclude your fine post at April 18, 2012 at 2:12 pm by saying;
    “If people (yes, Nate, you too!) focussed on the message, not the messenger, they might learn something!”

    Yes! Thankyou.

    Richard

  392. Mr Decker:

    May I point out that – despite the “conventional wisdom” and all peer-reviewed literature and science organizations not recognizing the terms, process, and methods, that continental drift, H-H nuclear fusion, Uranium fission, and radioactive decay were proceeding along their merry ways …… long before anybody in the 20th century published anything.

    Your vaunted “peer-reviewed” literature is not all worthless – some is very valuable. But ALL of it worth less than one fact that contradicts the so-called conventional wisdom of “pal-reviewed” papers that are written to gain friends and influence people. And, to date, there are simply no “facts” of any number that establish CO2 is anything more than a 1/10 of one degree influence. And billions in lives benefit from that anthropogenic use of CO2.

    Only the CAGW “scientists” and their propagandists in the UN and mass media benefit by denying people lower cost energy, more food, clean water, sewage and garbage disposal, roads and bridges, tunnels and ports and housing.

    The corruption in scientific “literature” by anonymously-reviewed self-serving “climate papers” is BY and FOR the CAGW cliques and CAGW propaganda mills of ABCNNBCBS.

  393. I do have to admit that the complains in this letter are vague. What are they disputing as far as the science goes? I don’t see why they should have to shut up though.

  394. Tom Wysmuller ,
    Nice of you to stop by and post here on the thread which presents the letter to NASA that you signed.
    There have been several people here who asked some questions on the assertions that you make in this letter. For example, one of the first sentences in your letter states this :

    We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data.

    Here, could you please clarify which claims of “catastrophic impact on global climate change” by NASA and GISS you are referring to exactly ?

    And also, exactly which “thousands of years of empirical data” did you have in mind that show why these NASA/GISS claims were “not substantiated” (scientifically, I hope) ?

  395. Thanks, Rob, for your clearly posed questions! Answers may well find their way into a possible reply to the Agency’s reaction to our original letter. I would be doing a disservice to my co-signatories, each of which, without exception, was involved in one of humanity’s most magnificent achievements (and that includes the GISS people too!), if I prematurely undercut any potential joint response. Such individual pre-emption on my part would also be a discourtesy to the Agency, who responded to our group as one, and deserves any reaction, if forthcoming, accordingly.

    In the interim, many webpages cover aspects of your queries, some in great detail. Of course, your interest is highly appreciated and welcomed. I look forward to many years of more reasoned, data oriented discourse in this fascinating area of study, within which I share your interest!

  396. Richard S Courtney, at April 15, 2012 at 10:32 am, wrote:

    “At April 14, 2012 at 3:45 am I replied to your post at April 14, 2012 at 12:49 am and I then explained how your post clearly and unambiguously demonstrated you are a pseudoscientist.

    You have not replied (which is not surprising).”

    You are clearly overestimating the substance of your elaborations and the importance of your person. Replying to your palaver isn’t on the top of my priority list of the things I do in my life.

    As for your alleged demonstration. What you really have done:

    1. Applied straw man argumentation. You were babbling about how I didn’t understand that “mathematical proof” was not possible in science, and then you concluded, because I didn’t understand this, I did not know the difference between science and pseudoscience.

    Yours is a strawman argumentation, since I didn’t say a word about “mathematical proof”. Again, you just misrepresented what I said. Your misrepresentation is based on redefining the word “proof” by postulating it means the same as “mathematical proof”.

    The meaning of the word “proof”:

    “Definition of PROOF
    1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

    b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
    2 obsolete : experience
    3 : something that induces certainty or establishes validity
    4 :
    .
    .
    .
    8 : [...]”
    (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof)

    Based on giving another meaning to the word “proof” you falsely equalize scientific proof and mathematical proof.

    Mathematical proof is only a special case of proof. The word “proof” itself has a wider meaning. If both were just identical you didn’t need the adjective “mathematical” to specify it. “Mathematical proof” would be a pleonasm.

    The theory of evolution is scientifically proven, i.e., there is an
    overwhelming amount of evidence for that this theory is able to comprehensively explain a part of the real world. It is also proven that the moon is not made from green cheese. We have the data that prove this.

    2. You invent statements I haven’t made:

    “Your claim that consideration should only be afforded to information you like that is only available in or from sources you like is a proclamation of pure pseudoscience.”

    I haven’t made such a claim anywhere. You are a falsehood disseminator. Projecting a lot?

    3. You resort to appeal to majority to reassure yourself of the validity of your “arguments”, which is a logical fallacy.

    “Anybody can see that I deconstructed your comments.”

    Sure, the majority here will “see” and applaud you. It’s the same majority that very likely will applaud to anything, no matter how illogical or contrary to the data and published finding of science it is, as long as it confirms the preconceived views of the fake skeptic crowd.

    You certainly make a lot of noise with your straw man arguments, falsehoods about what I said, and other logical fallacies which you apply, but the intellectual substance of all of it is rather meager.

    Also, you don’t seem to know what “ad hominem” means. You say,

    “Your comments concerning “scientific proof” demonstrate that your understanding of the difference between science and pseudoscience is severely lacking (n.b. this is a factual statement and not an ad hominem).”

    Because it was a “factual statement” (allegedly) is couldn’t be an ad hominem?

    “However, your unfounded suggestion that I have “bias” in my “perception and opinion” is an ad hominem. Indeed, it is an unjustified insult which tells much about its provider (i.e. you) and nothing about its target (i.e. me).”

    Ad hominem means “unfounded suggestion” or “unjustified insult”?

    An “ad hominem” argument is an argument “to the man”, about a person’s character, bias, beliefs, ideology, interest. The question whether an argument is “ad hominem” has nothing to do with whether it’s a factually true statement or not.

    As for the greenhouse gas effect of carbon dioxide.

    You weren’t satisfied with my explanation about the basic principles of the greenhouse gas effect exerted by carbon dioxide. You objected:

    “It is a fact that CO2 is a GHG so – all other things being equal – an increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration would increase radiative warming of the Earth’s surface. But so what? That is not what you were asked because all other things would NOT be equal if atmospheric CO2 were to increase. Indeed, you admit that all other things would not be equal when you write;
    “In reality, it’s a bit more complicated, since there are also turbulent, sensible and latent energy fluxes, and there is convection, there is a vertical lapse rate of the temperature, the atmosphere has different strata with different properties.”

    The “mechanism” you were asked to show was how the entire climate system would respond such as to cause the atmosphere to warm up. You have not done that, and so it seems Babsy was right to claim “you cannot”.”

    Let’s be clear what you are asking me. You are asking me to write an essay here, in which I explain the working of the whole Earth system in it’s total complexity, taking into account all essential aspects of this system, all essential interactions between its components, all positive and negative feedback relationships, and name all the evidence from measurements and observations for that it really works like this, referencing all the scientific publications where this evidence has been presented, and then, taking into consideration all of this, to explain how an increase in carbon dioxide leads to a warming of the surface and troposphere, and again, present all the evidence needed to show that it really works like this and reference all the scientific publications where the evidence has been presented.

    All this in a comment in a thread of this opinion blog.

    And you are faulting me that I haven’t delivered.

    You are asking me to write here in a comment an essay of book length with many hundred pages that reviews and assesses the current knowledge about Earth’s climate.

    Oh, wait. There is such a book with a comprehensive review and assessment. It’s called IPCC Report 2007, Volume 1, “The Physical Science Basis”. The next IPCC report with an updated status about the knowledge of the workings of the climate system is going to be published in 2013.

    You wrote at April 15, 2012 at 12:03 am,

    “You are using the pre-climate-science view that science is about understanding the natural world.”

    I’m still waiting for the evidence for your assertion according to which my view was science wasn’t about understanding the natural world. The only way to prove your assertion, if it was true instead of just being absurd nonsense for the purpose to discredit me, would be to present statements made by me where I expressed such a view.

    You also wrote:

    “Climate-science practitioners use the post-normal method of studying models which they construct from their opinions, beliefs and prejudices.”

    And what is your supposed evidence for this assertion? Where have I chosen such an approach in my scientific work? I’m still waiting for the evidence that I have done so. You would have to provide the evidence on the basis of the scientific publications where I’m an author. But you won’t provide any, since you only have made this up. The question for me is whether you deliberately make these things up, then you are a deliberate falsehood disseminator. Or whether you believe what you say. Then your perception is highly distorted, looking for confirmation of your preconceived views making you see things how they are in your head, not how they are in reality.

    Both of your assertions are ad hominem arguments. Both are to the man. It is telling that this was what you knew to come up with, after I had asked for the scientific evidence that a large part of the global scale warming over the recent decades is to be attributed to PDO. The scientific evidence for which I’m still waiting. The PDO claim doesn’t agree with the mainstream view in climate science. Asking for the scientific evidence is just legit. It looks like you felt the need to divert from a legit question.

  397. Richard S Courtney wrote In the paper Dr. Sherwood Idso describes 8 natural experiments to determine climate sensitivity. His empirical (n.b. NOT model-derived) results are:

    Actually, Idso does not claim to determine climate sensitivity in that paper. He attempts to determine an effect he calls “surface air temperature sensitivity factor” which he defines as “the rise in surface air temperature divided by the increase in surface-absorbed radiation that prompted the temperature rise.”. Since the Earth cools by space-bound radiation (and not by surface-bound radiation), the surface air temperature factor has little to do with climate sensitivity.

    These issues with the surface air temperature sensitivity factor were pointed out to Idso already more than three decades ago by Leovy 1980, Schneider et al. 1980, and Idso himself admits at least part of the issues with his factor (the equilibrium issue) in this 1998 paper :

    ..there was no apparent reason why the surface air temperature sensitivity factor I had derived should necessarily describe the long-term climatic response of the Earth to the impetus for warming produced by the atmosphere’s rising CO2 concentration.

    These caveats given, which (if any) of the 8 “natural experiments” still remains as a sound empirical determination of the climate sensitivity factor ?
    If you identify the one that is most convincing for you, I would be happy to explore with you on why Idso obtains numbers that are a factor 4 to 10 off with what dozens of other researchers have empirically determined.

  398. Rob Dekker: Indeed that paper by Idso is one of those things that shows how “AGW skeptics” like Courtney and Idso are not really making serious scientific arguments. They are just throwing a lot of nonsense around and hoping that most people won’t notice (which is why, of course, their arguments only gain traction with non-scientists, or at least people whose scientific expertise is well outside of this field).

    For example, his Natural Experiment #3 is hopelessly contaminated by the fact that the effect of thermal inertia will be to reduce the response to a periodic radiative forcing (as long as the characteristic time associated with the thermal inertia is not much less than the period of the forcing). So, of course we are going to see the seasonal cycle damped…and it is not at all surprising that this damping is larger over the oceans and smaller over land. By contrast, here http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/knutti/papers/knutti06jc.pdf is a real scientific paper looking at how the seasonal cycle constrains climate sensitivity and it finds a sensitivity in the standard range with best agreement for a sensitivity of 3 to 3.5 deg C per doubling. [In fact, I am surprised that he didn't use the diurnal cycle rather than the seasonal cycle, which would have yielded him an even lower sensitivity...although he probably realized that even many lay people would see the problem with such an argument.]

    Natural Experiment #4 is even more amusing. It is basically the same argument made by Monckton and by Willis Eschenbach, using the total natural greenhouse effect to derive a climate sensitivity (see, for example http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/15/sense-and-sensitivity-ii-the-sequel/ ). However, those folks at least used a more correct value for the net radiative effect of the greenhouse gases (100-150 W/m^2) rather than Idso’s incorrect ~350 W/m^2. However, even their argument is wrong because this estimate considers all of the greenhouse gases (including water vapor) in the atmosphere to be forcings rather than feedbacks. So, what it is really deriving is the climate sensitivity in the absence of feedbacks like the water vapor feedback, cloud feedback, and the ice-albedo feedback. The only feedback it does effectively include is the one that is called the “lapse rate feedback”, which also happens to be the only significant feedback known to be negative. (That feedback really just says that the Earth’s surface temperature changes less than the temperature at altitude…and it is the temperature at altitude that is relevant for the Earth to restore its radiative balance.)

  399. Rob Dekker asked :

    Here, could you please clarify which claims of “catastrophic impact on global climate change” by NASA and GISS you are referring to exactly ? And also, exactly which “thousands of years of empirical data” did you have in mind that show why these NASA/GISS claims were “not substantiated” (scientifically, I hope) ?

    Tom Wysmuller answered :

    Answers may well find their way into a possible reply. I would be doing a disservice to my co-signatories, …if I prematurely undercut any potential joint response.

    Tom, thank you for you response. We are looking forward to the subtantiation of the claims you and your ex-NASA collegues are making in this letter, and realize that without substantiation, the claims made in this letter remain embarrassingly “unsubstantiated”.

  400. If they came out on the other side, how loudly would the MSM be trumpeting such a letter…?

    Here, though, we get only the sounds of silence…

  401. Joel, if these models have any validity at all, then they should be able to readily demonstrate this by the simple process of feeding in known historical data, running the model for a given time frame, and then showing that the results match subsequent historical data to within even a notable fraction of actual values (+/- oh, 3 degrees). They don’t, because these models are CRAP.

    “The validity of a science is its ability to predict”

    By that measure, Climate Science is in the Phlogiston Chemistry phase at best, and probably much closer to Alchemy than a “science”.

    The history of AGW theory is positively LITTERED with predictions that were subsequently garbage — from “no snow in England” to “regular severe hurricanes in the Gulf” to “droughts in Australia”, it’s been shown time and time again to have no — repeat NO — ability to predict. Ergo, it has no validity worthy of the kind of TRILLIONS of dollars in expenditures which AGW advocates call for as a matter of casual recourse.

    I know what computers are capable of, and have enough of a background in math to know what the math is currently capable of. And predicting with even the slightest hope of accuracy the temperature within a tenth of a degree even two decades, much less 5-10 decades, is such an utter sack of bovine excreta as to be laughed at. They can’t even reliably predict SNOW a week in advance.

    ’nuff said. When your models are worth a crap, you’ll be able to show that they are worth a crap. They’ll be able to take in any sufficiently large dataset of historical information, move it forward by a reasonable period of time, and predict what was known to have come after. Until then, all of you can siddown and STFU, you’re a bunch of self-serving quacks and charlatans and demagogues of the worst stripe, attempting to make a living pedaling doom and gloom to a bunch of idiots whose notion of an electron is a tiny little floating ball of electricity something about the size of a “BB”. To claim that the Anti-AGW opposition depends on the ignorance of **its** adherents is just flat out laughable.

  402. >>>> The theory of evolution is scientifically proven, i.e., there is an
    overwhelming amount of evidence for that this theory is able to comprehensively explain a part of the real world. It is also proven that the moon is not made from green cheese. We have the data that prove this.

    Not to support either side, here, but
    Mathematical proof is really the only real “proof” that there is, if there is any “proof”. It takes the minimum of assumptions and applies them through a rigorous set of rules to demonstrate that a proposition inherently follows or does not follow. “Scientific” proof is merely an instance of highly supported conjectures, for which we have not yet found any disputing evidence which did not have an alternative explanation other than disposing of the theory in question.

    Hence the theory of evolution is merely the best current theory we have which fits the known evidence, and explains any evidence which appears to fly in the face of predictions made by the theory. It is hardly “proven” — nothing in science is ever truly “proven”. See “Phlogiston” and “Luminiferous Ether” for examples that were at least as well founded at one point as the ToE.
    Not suggesting any doubt about the ToE, only that it ISN’T “proven” and no one who calls themselves a real scientist should even consider it as otherwise.

    And as far as the moon being of green cheese, well, that, too, is hardly proven. It’s rather improbable on the basis of it, and certainly the narrow range of actual direct data shows at least PART of the moon isn’t green cheese (along with a considerable amount of spectroscopic evidence), but the justification for saying it’s not GC is still based in scientific presumptions about the validity of our techniques (spectroscopy) is a large, unpredictable universe, and a small handful of direct observations. So, once more — a true scientist would only ack that the evidence is strongly against the validity of the hypothesis that “the moon is made of green cheese.”

    You see, THIS is how TRUE scientists discuss the notion of “proof”.

    And you notice what’s missing completely from this discussion?

    The word “Consensus”.

  403. >>> (spectroscopy) is a large…
    (spectroscopy) IN a large…

    Sorry.

  404. If Hansen had been in command of the Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle program it would have turned out to be a two-faces foot-winged electric-powered bus ride around a Houston parking lot.

  405. Haha, that photograph regarding Jim Hansen getting him self caught on the Whitened House protesting an oil pipeline claims it ALL….. He is a fanatical left-wing political activist, period. He or she figured out early on to be able to liven up his or her political agitprop using a pseudo-scientific veneer, but the purpose his or her result is so constantly mistaken is that it is all designed to function his or her political targets. http://freesixflagsticket.net

Comments are closed.