More counterpunch to Obama’s recent speech.
Rocket scientists -vs- James Hansen, “in God we trust, all others bring data”
WASHINGTON, Jan. 23, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A group of 20 ex-NASA scientists have concluded that the science used to support the man-made climate change hypothesis is not settled and no convincing physical evidence exists to support catastrophic climate change forecasts.
Beginning in February 2012, the group of scientists calling themselves The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) team received presentations by scientists representing all sides of the climate change debate and embarked on an in-depth review of a number of climate studies.
Employing a disciplined approach of problem identification and root cause analysis honed from decades of dealing with life threatening safety issues in successfully sending astronauts up through Earth’s atmosphere and returning them safely home, the TRCS team concluded that no imminent threat exists from man-made CO2.
TRCS team is comprised of renowned space scientists with formal educational and decades career involvement in engineering, physics, chemistry, astrophysics, geophysics, geology and meteorology. Many of these scientists have Ph.Ds. All TRCS team members are unpaid volunteers who began the project after becoming dismayed with NASA’s increasing advocacy for alarmist man-made climate change theories.
H. Leighton Steward, chairman of CO2isGreen.org as well as the educational non-profit, PlantsNeedCO2.org, makes the following comments regarding the TRCS posting, which can be found at www.therightclimatestuff.com:
- The science of what is causing global climate change or warming is clearly not settled and never has been.
- There is no convincing physical evidence to support the man-made climate change hypothesis. The standard test of a hypothesis is whether it is supported by real observations, which seems to have been ignored by climate alarmists.
- Claims made by proponents of catastrophic man-made warming are dominantly supported by non-validated computer models and the output of these models should not be relied upon by policy-makers. Some TRCS team members have been making critical decisions using complex computer models for decades.
- There is no immediate threat of catastrophic global warming even if some warming occurs. The sea level is not going to suddenly begin a steep acceleration of its 18,000-year rate of rise. Global sea level rise is not currently accelerating despite what climate change alarmists claim.
- The U.S. Government has overreacted to a possible catastrophic warming. The probable negative impacts to the economy, jobs and an increased cost of food, transportation and utilities will be severe and hurt the poor and middle class the most. Real experiments show that Earth’s habitats and ecosystems could be damaged if CO2 levels are actually reduced. Environmentalists have been grossly misled to believe CO2 is a pollutant.
- Empirical evidence shows that Earth is currently “greening” significantly due to additional CO2 and a modest warming.
- Money saved by abandoning a premature rush to lower CO2 emissions could be better spent by continuing research on alternative energies that are not currently competitive or reliable.
Dr. Harold Doiron, team leader for TRCS and former NASA scientist, along with H. Leighton Steward, will be participating on The Hard Question panel debate on climate change tonight at 5:00pm at The National Press Club, Holeman Lounge (13th floor) , 529 14th Street, Washington, DC.
More information can be found at www.CO2isGreen.org.
Supporting scientific information can be found at www.PlantsNeedCO2.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
therightclimatestuff needs a professional to clean up the page otherwise it just won’t be taken seriously.
This gives us a picture of how NASA used to be and how much we have lost.
Spot on – the Right Stuff indeed. A very useful piece of analysis.
Excellent! I knew the REAL scientists at NASA wouldn’t just sit back and just let the CAGW scam continue. The villains in all this must be greatly disturbed at how much information is getting out there now, they just can’t keep the lid on it.
Politicians have chosen not to believe the truth when it has been presented to them in the past, so there’s no guarantee they will listen this time. The only thing that will make a difference is when they realise they’re losing votes over it.
Does ANYONE get the delicous irony of the concept that the “ir-religious”, i.e. people who generally would describe themselves as agnostics, humanists, and or atheists, will dismiss this group of bright, well qualified, technical (notice I did NOT say the “magic” word, “scientists”…because a lot of these folks are ENGINEERS in training and background. THINK the last AIRLINER you were on was designed by ENGINEERS not “Scientists”….) as non-sequitors as they are not “hoity toit scientists”. AKA, “priests” sanctioned by the church.
It is SUCH a delicious IRONY that the REBELS of th 60’s and 70’s NOW HAVE BECOME THE CONFORM OR DIE PEOPLE OF THE 2000’s.
In the case of “Don’t trust anyone over 30!” I think it now applies to HEIGHT not age.
Max
“The TRCS team is composed of renowned space scientists with formal educational and (decades-long credentials)” in a whole panoply of technical disciplines. And if this magical team was not so reverentially qualified, so what? Hot air still rises, water flows downhill… as ever, such an argumentum verecundiam cuts both ways.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100199760/donald-trump-wants-to-buy-the-new-york-times-if-nothing-else-it-might-improve-the-headlines/
Wiggy Trump wants to buy the New York Times.
Someone please tell Obama.
So. One must leave NASA before one can speak the truth? What an indictment of that organization!
Yes, Max. I have long maintained that most alarmists are bald, bearded midgets with a grudge against the world on account of other people not being bald, bearded, or midgets. Look at Michael Mann or Gavin Schmidt. Both of them are only 2’9″ even in their cuban-heels.
Of course I have no scientific proof of this but my Institute in the bowels of Holyhead Mountain is working on the problem.
When dealing with Hansen a slight change is in order “in God we trust, all others bring the raw data.”
Just posted the main parts on facebook…it is to be hoped that it is not lost on those snowed in
on our tiny island of Britain. Our climate change is extrordinary at times and the MET Office is the most laughed at institution in the country. Last night I was driving back to my home in Ross-on-Wye with weather reports of snow in the SW of England and SE Wales which includes us as Ross is right on the border. I was prepared for it but not when it started snowing just past Oxford….60 miles from where the snow should be. Love to know what the MET Office factor in for error bars! If they and their mates can’t do something simple over a timescale of a few hours how on earth can they predict 100 years hence?
Answer is they can’t.
Thanks you ex NASA staffers…great stuff.
I dutifully went to http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/ and poked around.
Observations:
The Current TRCS Overview Assessment & Tentative Conclusions ( http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/CurrentOverview.html ) reads like an incomplete rough draft. Typos abound. No author indicated. ~12 pages of basic atmospheric physics, then a bunch of “conclusions” that are really just questions.
Are the studies listed on http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/StudiesReports.html inputs or outputs? If inputs, I would submit that they might be missing a relevant paper or two (thousand)!
The SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY REPORT ( http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/SummaryPrelimReport.html ) is all standard skeptic trope, and doesn’t seem to foot to the Overview Assessment & Tentative Conclusions document at all. Where’s the preliminary report?
To aid the TRCS’s mission, here are some answers to the numbered questions in http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/Documents/Current%20Overview%20Assessment%20of%20How%20The%20Earth-Atmosphere%20Heat%20Balance%20Works-Rev1h.pdf :
1. Well known.
2. Important.
3. Re: ” It’s probably a strong message as to the complexity of the issue that, after ~33
years and significant money/effort, little progress has apparently been made in this area (or they
were pretty good estimators back before 1979.) ” I’ll go with the latter.
4. Among other things, this contains a false assertion: “All of their scenarios, including their “best case”, assume zero attempt to reduce greenhouse gases for global warming’s sake.” Did the author never see results for “what if all emissions stopped now?” scenario?
5. Weather, plus variations in other external forcings, e.g. the sun.
6. Significant over short and medium timescales. No.
7. Because changing climate rapidly is a very risky thing to do. And the more uncertain we are (or claim to be) about the impacts, the more we should be cautious…
Is anyone other than James Visentine willing to attach their name to this? This is amateur hour stuff, in content and form.
If someone can convincingly demonstrate, with observation and verified physical mechanisms, that climate sensitivity to CO2 is, for sure, with high probability, really low, then we can revisit “the overwhelming judgement of science.” Everything else (tree rings, cosmic rays, Gore, Hansen, etc.) is a side-show.
Sounds like an “overwhelming consensus” to me.
I call this “reactivism.” It’s a reaction to the corrupt, ideologically driven, post-normal science conceived and promoted by activists on the international political left.
the Warmist response when I point out the contrary opinion of these ex-NASA scientists is usually, “engineers and rocket scientists dont understand the science as well as climate scientists do…”
The target audiences are not like John Cook’s ‘settled’ science faithful.
The target audiences are the supporters of an openly transparent scientific process and of a critical public analysis / debate.
John
On a related note:
“Government Scientist Gets Fired for Telling the Truth”
http://townhall.com/columnists/davidspady/2013/01/18/government-scientist-gets-fired-for-telling-the-truth-n1492207/page/full/
This aint rocket science, it’s climate “science”. These guys are way over-qualified.
Mr. Blake, I suspect the point that statement makes about their qualifications is to prevent warmies from dismissing them out of hand, You know, that old: “You’re not a scientist so you have no business commenting on our work” nonsense.
The disturbing part is that they are all “ex-NASA.” Hierarchical systems have a tendency to require members to toe the mark or leave. This sounds like NASA has not yet recognized any alternative view as even potentially worth considering.
Dr. Jean Dickey of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, has promoted natural variability based on changes in the Earth’s magnetic field’s intensity.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
John Blake says:
January 23, 2013 at 8:54 am
No, John: Your excuse that it’s “an argumentum verecundiam” (An argument from authority) is not supported by your examples “Hot air still rises, water flows downhill”.
In the case of current “climate scientist” bozos (Mann, Hansen, Jones, and everybody at NASA), they use argumentum verecundiam when telling us that hot air falls and water flows uphill.
They’re as illogical as your arugment.
Max. Whoa whoa whoa! Hold on there! That’s a pretty big brush you’re tarring people with!
I am an atheist, AND I also do not believe humans cause global warming/climate change/nasty weather. Good on these ex-NASA guys, I say!
All of this is fine,
except that they are not addressing the next issue, which is that global warming is over. The sun is going to take a nap.
GLOBAL COOLING IS HERE
Off late, I am aware of a flurry of reports and efforts by biased media and un-informed presidents, governments and various funding-dependant institutes to scare people about “climate change” due to global warming and that we have “to do something” to curb the use of fossil fuels. These reports claim that “thousands” of scientists support the “certainty” of climate change being due mostly to atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Sceptic scientists that challenge this position are mocked or vilified (or should be).
Some of these reports blatantly show CO2 going up together with temperature, as if (all) warming is caused by more CO2. Any (good) chemist knows that there are giga tons and giga tons of bi-carbonates dissolved in the oceans and that (any type of) warming would cause it to be released: HCO3- + heat => CO2 (g) + OH-. This is the reason we are alive today. Cause and effect, get it? Smoking causes cancer, but cancer does not cause smoking.
I am not saying climate change is not happening. Climate change is happening, because global warming is over. We have started to cool globally. All data sets measuring the average air and sea temperatures, including my own, now show that we have started cooling down for the past 11 years (which is the equivalent time of one full solar cycle).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend
Furthermore, my own dataset, where I have also been monitoring global maximum temperatures, shows that all warming in the past was almost entirely due to natural reasons and that global cooling will now accelerate further. In my opinion, it will only be 4-5 years max. before this cooling effect will be felt by just about everyone in the whole world.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Indeed it is this global cooling that is generally causing more rain, more snow and cooler weather, globally, on average, whilst some places might get less precipitation.
(Namely, assuming equal amounts of water vapour in the air, remember that when water vapour in the atmosphere cools more, you get more clouds and more precipitation, at certain places, depending on latitude and wind factors).
As the farmers in Anchorage (Alaska) have noted,
http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html
the cold weather is so bad there that they do not get much of any harvests.
And it seems NOBODY is telling them there that it is not going to get any better. My own results show that this global cooling will last until ca. 2038.
There are many results from sceptical scientists that support my position and results, e.g.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/
http://www.landscheidt.info/
The sad story is, that where the world should prepare itself for climate change due to (natural) global cooling,
for example, by initiating more agricultural schemes at lower latitudes (FOOD!), and providing more protection against more precipitation at certain places (FLOODS!),
the media and the powers-that-be are twiddling with their thumbs, not listening to the real scientists,
i.e. those not making any money and nice journeys out of the gravy train that “global warming” has become.
So here we are, it is 2013, and nobody is addressing the real problems that we face due to climate change and the coming cold.
Henry