Team of Ex-NASA Scientists Concludes No Imminent Threat from Man-Made CO2

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:

  1. The science of what is causing global climate change or warming is clearly not settled and never has been.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Empirical evidence shows that Earth is currently “greening” significantly due to additional CO2 and a modest warming.
  7. 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.

About these ads

97 thoughts on “Team of Ex-NASA Scientists Concludes No Imminent Threat from Man-Made CO2

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. “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.

  5. 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.

  6. When dealing with Hansen a slight change is in order “in God we trust, all others bring the raw data.”

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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…”

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. John Blake says:
    January 23, 2013 at 8:54 am


    Hot air still rises, water flows downhill… as ever, such an argumentum verecundiam cuts both ways.

    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.

  15. Max Hugoson says:
    January 23, 2013 at 8:49 am
    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…

    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!

  16. 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

  17. Ron says:
    January 23, 2013 at 9:07 am
    So. One must leave NASA before one can speak the truth? What an indictment of that organization!

    Yet, Hansen is the one who complained about having his free speech curtailed by NASA and the Bush administration while he jetted around the world giving speeches and accepting awards.

  18. Max,
    “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.”

    Not all of us did.

  19. Max Hugoson said ‘ 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.’

    On 3 December 2012 Old Ranga from OZ wrote at CA: ‘Some day someone will write a book/make a film/do both about the extraordinary group of geriatric resistance fighters, major and minor, who have fought the good fight for the exposure and dismantling of the Great Scam. (Apologies to Anthony Watts, who perhaps should be welcomed as an honorary geriatric in this context.) ‘

  20. “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.”

    How about that money staying in the pockets of the hard working American people?

  21. @ Bryan Hunt:

    “therightclimatestuff needs a professional to clean up the page otherwise it just won’t be taken seriously.”
    In these days where presentation tends to trump content, you might be right :-(
    The webpage looks like mine, eg in existence since 1993, days of HTML1, AARNet, CRT screens, black background so the viewers’ hair doesn’t stand on end due to the static.

  22. syphax says:

    “If someone can convincingly demonstrate, with observation and verified physical mechanisms, that climate sensitivity to CO2 is, for sure, with high probability, really low…”

    You have the scientific method exactly backward. The onus is on those putting forth the CO2=CAGW conjecture to provide convincing scientific evidence that sensitivity to CO2 is high. But they have failed. There is no such evidence.

  23. JC says:
    January 23, 2013 at 10:41 am

    Mann is working on legal paperwork as we speak.

    If it’s as good as his “climate science”, we have nothing to fear.

  24. Well these NASA engineers need to be ‘splained about how the system works.
    You see; if you predict; excuse me, that’s project, NO immediate threat; well the gravy train spigot just slams shut.
    All climatism horror stories are predicted; sorry projected, to happen 100 years in the future; well at least one SI climate time unit of 30 years. That gives me time to retire, before they find out it was a misprojection ! Why did we let these naive engineers send our people up around the moon, when they don’t understand where grant money comes from, and how to tap into it.

    So when you are on the backside of the moon; ‘scuse me; that’s side B, and you say “Burn baby, burn !” That’s space ship terminology, not a terrorist threat. So assuming it worked at the time, so you do get to retire, rather than emigrate to Moonside B, you need to keep supporting the current crop of Post-Doc fellows, trying to keep the cash stream flowing.

    So get with the program, and no more of this “No immediate threat.” radicalism. Besides, our new Emperor needs to work on his Legacy; and I don’t mean change the spark plugs, in its 4-banger Boxter Engine.

  25. The following is a link that compares electrical power costs for the US to other countries include UK, Denmark, and Germany.

    The US consumer can look forward to an increase by a factor of three in electrical prices if we follow the Germans implement the green scams. The increase in the cost of electricity will be larger if there is a massive increase in electric cars.

    Spending billions of deficit dollars on “green” scams will obviously bankrupt Western Countries and make their industries less and less competitive with Asia. As tropical cloud cover in the tropics increases and decreases to resist forcing changes (negative feedback) a doubling of atmospheric CO from 0.028% to 0.056% will result in less than 1C warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which will result in an expansion of the biosphere.

    Carbon dioxide is not a poison. Commercial greenhouses inject carbon dioxide into the greenhouse to maintain 1000 ppm to 1500 ppm to increase yield and reduce growing time. Cereal crop yields increase 30% to 40% with a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is beneficial to the environment. A slight increase in high latitude temperature is beneficial to the environment.

    The wheel is turning. A scam is a scam. Deficit spending on scams is not job creation. The question is not if but rather when the mania will implode.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361316/250bn-wind-power-industry-greatest-scam-age.html

    Why the £250bn wind power industry could be the greatest scam of our age – and here are the three ‘lies’ that prove it … …Scarcely a day goes by without more evidence to show why the Government’s obsession with wind turbines, now at the centre of our national energy policy, is one of the greatest political blunders of our time…. ….Under a target agreed with the EU, Britain is committed within ten years — at astronomic expense — to generating nearly a third of its electricity from renewable sources, mainly through building thousands more wind turbines….

    …The first is the pretense that turbines are anything other than ludicrously inefficient.
    The most glaring dishonesty peddled by the wind industry — and echoed by gullible politicians — is vastly to exaggerate the output of turbines by deliberately talking about them only in terms of their ‘capacity’, as if this was what they actually produce. Rather, it is the total amount of power they have the capability of producing. … ….The point about wind, of course, is that it is constantly varying in speed, so that the output of turbines averages out at barely a quarter of their capacity.

    This means that the 1,000 megawatts all those 3,500 turbines sited around the country feed on average into the grid is derisory: no more than the output of a single, medium-sized conventional power station…. ….Furthermore, as they increase in number (the Government wants to see 10,000 more in the next few years) it will, quite farcically, become necessary to build a dozen or more gas-fired power stations, running all the time and emitting CO2, simply to provide instant back-up for when the wind drops….

    When a Swedish firm recently opened what is now the world’s largest offshore windfarm off the coast of Kent, at a cost of £800million, we were told that its ‘capacity’ was 300 megawatts, enough to provide ‘green’ power for tens of thousands of homes.

    What we were not told was that its actual output will average only a mere 80 megawatts, a tenth of that supplied by a gas-fired power station — for which we will all be paying a subsidy of £60million a year, or £1.5billion over the 25-year lifespan of the turbines….
    The third great lie of the wind propagandists is that this industry is somehow making a vital contribution to ‘saving the planet’ by cutting our emissions of CO2.

    Even if you believe that curbing our use of fossil fuels could change the Earth’s climate, the CO2 reduction achieved by wind turbines is so insignificant that one large windfarm saves considerably less in a year than is given off over the same period by a single jumbo jet flying daily between Britain and America… ….Then, of course, the construction of the turbines generates enormous CO2 emissions as a result of the mining and smelting of the metals used, the carbon-intensive cement needed for their huge concrete foundations, the building of miles of road often needed to move them to the site, and the releasing of immense quantities of CO2 locked up in the peat bogs where many turbines are built….. ….When you consider, too, those gas-fired power stations wastefully running 24 hours a day just to provide back-up for the intermittency of the wind, any savings will vanish altogether…

  26. 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.

    So a bunch of people with scientific training (many even with Ph.Ds…how impressive!), but no expertise in the field, who knew what they wanted the answer to be supposedly looked at the data and get an answer in agreement with their preconceptions. I am shocked! shocked!

    Maybe next, we can have a bunch of NIH retirees who are dismayed with NIH’s increasing advocacy for evolutionary theories look at the evidence for evolution vs intelligent design. I imagine that they would conclude, as Roy Spencer did ( http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005/08/faith-based-evolution.html ), that ” intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.”

    Apparently, that is all it takes to overturn a scientific consensus.

    REPLY: Joel, your opinion is a real foot in mouth moment. And I thought about snipping it to prevent you from making a fool of yourself, but decided otherwise. This same description applies to you sir and the paper you published about climate. It applies to Al Gore, it applies to Bill McKibben, it applies to Joe Romm, and it applies to hundreds of people involved in the IPCC and the NGO’s like Greenpeace.

    So while your opinion is OK to express here, let me say with all sincerity, that you can take the merits of it and shove it up the bodily orifice of your choice. – Anthony Watts

    • @Joelshore – I guess you missed the “meteorologist” listing. And I guess you missed the fact that neither Jones, Mann, Trenberth, Schmidt, or Hansen (et. al.) have degrees in the applicable field either?

      I guess you missed that.

  27. D. B. Stealey says:
    January 23, 2013 at 11:28 am
    syphax says:

    “If someone can convincingly demonstrate, with observation and verified physical mechanisms, that climate sensitivity to CO2 is, for sure, with high probability, really low…”

    You have the scientific method exactly backward. The onus is on those putting forth the CO2=CAGW conjecture to provide convincing scientific evidence that sensitivity to CO2 is high. But they have failed. There is no such evidence.
    ————————————————

    So, if you’re still here syphax, the null hypothesis den!er, would you please do what you ask of others.

    Could you please convincingly demonstrate, with observation and verified physical mechanisms, that climate sensitivity to CO2 is, for sure, with high probability, really high …

    … or measurably positive even

  28. ex-NASA TRCS v Mike’s Nature Trick… very good, a sense of humour is important however smart you are. Often missing in people who merely think they’re smart of course…

  29. Reposted from Steve Milloy’s Junk Science site reacting to a complaint that these were “disgruntled ex-employees.”

    Not “…disgruntled ex-employees..” at all. For one thing, EVERY ONE of them, no exceptions, cares enough about current climate (mis)representations to continue utilizing the expertise and knowledge gained during their lifetimes to focus on climate reality vs fiction.

    Their talents are uniquely available for this purpose and will benefit all who care to venture into this fascinating field!!!

  30. “therightclimatestuff needs a professional to clean up the page otherwise it just won’t be taken seriously.”

    The problem is, if they do that, its “evidence” of a deep pocket. In fact, maybe the amateurishness MEANS that it is, in fact, a Koch front group.

    Yeah, yeah, that’s it…

  31. WilliamAstley…what if we install large amounts of uranium electricity…really large amounts.
    With accounting depreciation over 60 years, the price comes in at 1.7c per KWh.
    What then? We are in heaven.

  32. looking at the site and the rough draft it seems pre mature for them to announce that they have settled the science and concluded that there is no threat. No threat? no threat whatsover? absolutely certain there is no threat? Their rough draft ( a review of two web sites ) says basically.. “we dont know” very different from a scientific conclsuions that there is no threat whatsoever. We are geo engineering the atmosphere. Good skeptics would not “go with throttle up”. Then again, nasa has a record of taking risks that dont turn out so good.

    [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwipEpNT6Qw ]

    REPLY: Steve, I think you are out of line here. You’ve aligned yourself with Muller et al, who has made grand claims and grandstanding before Congress without even having submitted papers for peer review at the time.

    As a friend, I’m embarrassed for you, because this isn’t the thinking of the Steve Mosher I’ve known. Maybe you are having a bad morning. I suggest you re-examine and walk-back a bit from your position. Thank you for your consideration. – Anthony

  33. Steven Mosher says:
    January 23, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    This post is deeply offensive. You don’t make jokes about great tragedies to score rhetorical points.

  34. Good responses. Esp Henrys view. Wise people know the AGW claims in the media are a scam.
    No one can reliably predict the global temps in the next 5 years. The actual past trend in the instrument era is actually flat, zero warming. We know for sure that little ice ages exist on something like the century scale of time. We know that periods between ice ages that are warmer are of something like the same time scale. On the millenial scale, temps are certainly cooling for the last 7000 years. Based on my observations, it is likely that the next century scale trend will be cooling from the current peak. If anything, the next 5 years might very well be a sudden large cooling, but the null hypothesis prevails until proven otherwise.
    There is no point of speculating, just keep watching the temps and be prepared for anything. Those calling for reduced CO2 emissions should be put in jail, same as yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Basic observations of how the atmosphere operates shows that adding CO2 has no real impact on the IR physics, but does benefit biology/crops.
    As in Henrys link, Glassman’s page is very good

    http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

  35. joeldshore says:
    January 23, 2013 at 11:51 am

    “So a bunch of people with scientific training (many even with Ph.Ds…how impressive!), but no expertise in the field, who knew what they wanted the answer to be supposedly looked at the data and get an answer in agreement with their preconceptions.”

    There is no field, Joel. Climate science is in its infancy. Anyone who wishes to prove me wrong need produce only one (that’s right: 1) reasonably well confirmed physical hypothesis that can be used to explain and predict some global warming phenomenon in nature. The hypothesis that CO2 retards Earth’s heat loss does not qualify because it must be supplemented by hypotheses about forcings. Got any well confirmed physical hypotheses which show that cloud behavior is a positive forcing, Joel? You do not. Neither does anyone else. Climate science is in its infancy. In a hundred years or so, we might have a climate science worthy of the name science that can provide useful information to policy makers.

  36. Steven Mosher says:
    January 23, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    Seriously, Moderators, could you remove the video in Mosher’s post? It’s like looking at a newsreel of Nazi atrocities being carried out, and there is no merit to Mosher’s attempt at guilt by association. If there were, we could as easily point to Hansen and Schmidt as being members of the same organization.

    People died there. Watching them die again serves no purpose here.

    REPLY: I’m offended by Mosher’s comment too, but he won’t learn anything if we don’t allow others to comment on it. – Anthony

  37. Anthony Watts says:

    This same description applies to you sir and the paper you published about climate. It applies to Al Gore, it applies to Bill McKibben, it applies to Joe Romm, and it applies to hundreds of people involved in the IPCC and the NGO’s like Greenpeace.

    That’s a red herring. How many times have you heard myself, Al Gore, Bill McKibben, or Joe Romm say that you should trust what we have to say about the science over what is said by the IPCC, NAS, the Councils of the various professional societies, etc., etc. who are most qualified to review the peer-reviewed science (which is what these NASA retirees are saying)?

    As for the paper that I published: That is how the game works. People submit papers to peer-reviewed journals and if the journals decide to publish them then they are out there for the scientific community to consider and pass judgement on. In the case of the particular paper that I was involved in, we weren’t really concerned about the scientific community because the paper that we commented on was so obviously flawed that it was not going to be taken seriously by scientists. (I think even you would agree with that.) However, we wrote our comment so that people outside the scientific community could not claim that the paper had not been debunked. And, I think the contributors to our comment were well-qualified to discuss the aspects of basic physics that were the subject of the discussion although clearly, as with all work, it is the broader scientific community that will ultimately pass judgement on it.

    REPLY: LOL! You really need some self examination and reflection Joel. take a break for a day or two – Anthony

  38. REPLY: Steve, I think you are out of line here. You’ve aligned yourself with Muller et al, who has made grand claims and grandstanding before Congress without even having submitted papers for peer review at the time.

    As a friend, I’m embarrassed for you, because this isn’t the thinking of the Steve Mosher I’ve known. Maybe you are having a bad morning. I suggest you re-examine and walk-back a bit from your position. Thank you for your consideration. – Anthony

    Good reply Anthony. I said some time back that Mosher changed fundamentally after his break from blogging a year or 2 back. He has become a pain in the ass troll whose contributions diminish he statue lump by big lump. He totally disappoints.

  39. Steven Mosher says:
    January 23, 2013 at 12:17 pm
    “looking at the site and the rough draft it seems pre mature for them to announce that they have settled the science and concluded that there is no threat.”

    They did not claim to have “settled the science.” They claimed that there is no evidence for the claims of climate alarmists. That is true. See my response to Joel Shore above.

    “No threat? no threat whatsover? absolutely certain there is no threat?”

    Right, there is no threat. The only reason anyone has for believing that there is a threat is the transparent propaganda carried on under the name of science by Al Gore, James Hansen, and all alarmists. If the government were interested in warming because millions of farmers (or truck drivers or anyone who works with nature) had been complaining about genuinely unprecedented conditions for decades then there would be some reason for alarm and some reason for investigating the reported threats. But climate science is based entirely on the work of academics who have no instinct for the empirical, propaganda minded NGOs, rabid tree huggers, and likely criminals such as GreenPeace.

    The “threat” is no different than the so-called threat from “extreme weather.” All extreme weather conditions are down in number. There has been no serious hurricane in the US for seven years, an all time record. Yet Al Gore and others continue to trumpet that “extreme weather” is increasing and that it is because of global warming. Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense.

  40. philjourdan says:

    January 23, 2013 at 12:26 pm

    @Joelshore – I guess you missed the “meteorologist” listing. And I guess you missed the fact that neither Jones, Mann, Trenberth, Schmidt, or Hansen (et. al.) have degrees in the applicable field either?

    I guess you missed that.
    Shore like all good greenie beenies misses everything but that it wishes to see.

  41. S. Mosher writes: “Looking at the site and the rough draft it seems pre mature for them to announce that they have settled the science and concluded that there is no threat. No threat? no threat whatsover? absolutely certain there is no threat?

    It’s become an avocation of mine, disagreeing with Steve Mosher, at least privately. BUt in this case it seems to me he has half a point. BUt then he loses that half point for not making the same complaint about Mann et al. Perhaps you have elsewhere. I hope so.

  42. Max said “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.”

    Just because they were rebels doesn’t mean they were ever, ever openminded.

  43. ‘“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.”

    How about that money staying in the pockets of the hard working American people?’

    To make a slight adjustment to the sentiment, how about having that money stay in the pockets of the hard-working people all over the world who earned it?

    Americans getting ripped off is bad enough, but the people getting hit hardest by the global warming scam are the desperately poor people, who are quite literally starving to death. What we are dealing with here are a weird variety of crypto-pagan Gaia worshippers who believe that they can control the weather via human sacrifice. And the people getting killed — rather than merely made poorer — are the already desperately poor in the third world.

    (Everything is related. Example — a big contributor to the revolution in Egypt is the doubling of food prices in a country which imports 1/2 of its food supply. The food prices have lots to do with biofuels and other wonky rich-people religious rituals.)

  44. Joel Shore:
    What do you think of John Cook and Skeptical Science? I ask you because he is our litmus test of decency. What do you think of the AGU which invited John Cook as a featured speaker at its last annual meeting? Do you approve?

  45. @JoelShore – they have degrees in fields as applicable as the Climate crew. I challenge you to list a single leader of the Alarmist movement with a degree in Climatology. The closest is meteorology. Which the NASA group possesses as well. Along with degrees in all the other fields that the leaders of the climate alarmists have.

    And Publications? Please! That just proves that any moron can get published in a field they have no clue on – by your standards.

    In other words, you did miss that. If you have nothing to say to back up your lies, please refrain from commenting. If you have anything substantive to say, that does not involve your ignorant opinion, please provide it.

    But your opinion is worthless. You do not have the qualifications – by your own standards – to have one.

    Reply: Can we back off a bit on the personal attacks? Ad Hom just gets so tiring to a mod… -ModE]

  46. philincalifornia says:
    January 23, 2013 at 11:51 am

    D. B. Stealey says:
    January 23, 2013 at 11:28 am
    syphax says:

    “If someone can convincingly demonstrate, with observation and verified physical mechanisms, that climate sensitivity to CO2 is, for sure, with high probability, really low…”

    You have the scientific method exactly backward. The onus is on those putting forth the CO2=CAGW conjecture to provide convincing scientific evidence that sensitivity to CO2 is high. But they have failed. There is no such evidence.
    ————————————————

    So, if you’re still here syphax, the null hypothesis den!er, would you please do what you ask of others.

    Could you please convincingly demonstrate, with observation and verified physical mechanisms, that climate sensitivity to CO2 is, for sure, with high probability, really high …

    … or measurably positive even

    The “null hypothesis” is not scientific, but statistical. Failing to falsify a null hypothesis doesn’t necessarily falsify a scientific hypothesis. Translating a scientific hypothesis into a statistically testable proposition is considerably more difficult than simply forming a lab-testable hypothesis. That’s one reason there’s such a spectrum of opinion over this issue. As regards “onus of proof,” that always resides on a positive assertion, since a negative assertions are not logically falsifiable. AGW has consistently asserted a positive and strong influence of CO2 on climate. This was known to be empirically false since it was first advanced. The assertion simply doesn’t match the geological evidence and without torturing the geological record in the same way the USHCN data has been, it never will..

  47. Pathway says:

    January 23, 2013 at 11:20 am

    “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.”

    How about that money staying in the pockets of the hard working American people?

    Amen to that brother.

  48. therightclimatestuff needs a professional to clean up the page otherwise it just won’t be taken seriously.

    Amen. Somebody get to them and tell them. The only thing that abysmal scream-homemade page is missing is blinking stars. (Although on a Safari browser, clicking on the report on their homepage lights up the Reader, but you have to know to lick on that far right blue tab in the URL bar.)

  49. Over here in England lowly Bradford City who play in the 4th tier of the leagues have beaten the mighty Aston Villa of the Premier League to reach the League Cup Final at Wembley. The winning goal for Bradford was scored by James Hansen, so there is something he is good at.

  50. ANH says:
    January 23, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    Over here in England lowly Bradford City who play in the 4th tier of the leagues have beaten the mighty Aston Villa of the Premier League to reach the League Cup Final at Wembley. The winning goal for Bradford was scored by James Hansen, so there is something he is good at.

    James (own goal) Hanson plays for Aston Villa?

  51. Max Hugoson says:
    January 23, 2013 at 8:49 am

    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…

    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!
    —————————————————————————————————-

    Understood! Please note: Max’s best friend is an AGNOSTIC, and Non-AWG believer. He’s a member of a local “skeptics” club, with a lot of Atheists and Agnostics. That club is defiently on the WUWT side of the issue. I’ve watched them “eviserate” a retired meteorology professor from the very “left leaning” U. of Wisc. a couple years ago.

    I AM making the observation, which I know from my “interactions” that many of the “I’m so well educated and I have a POSITION at such and such University, or such and such Government agency” AND, “I make sound science decisions and judgements based on facts” that really, the actions are more akin to “religion” than “science”.Truth is, the actions of these people…many of whom ARE agnostics, a-religious, etc., shows the hallmarks of “blind faith” and “belief”. Perhaps we should note also the “religious aspects” of the old Soviet/Communist system? There was a similar dicotomy. As such, I would have to qualify your “atheism” and your “climate skepticism” as being refreshingly consistent.

  52. Duster: Maybe I’m misreading your comment…But; my understanding of the null hypothesis is that it is written in such a way as to be incompatible with the hypothesis, ie. either the alternative hypothesis is true or the null is true. If you cannot falsify your null I don’t see how you can claim the hypothesis is true.

  53. Whois data for PlantsneedCO2.org leads to Quintana Minerals. So why should I listen to H.Leighton Astroturf puff up another organization he also belongs to?

    Perhaps TRCS should pay attention to the conclusion of one of their own NASA Alumni League presentations:

    The 0.8˚C increase in global temperature over the past 125 years cannot be explained by natural forcing operating at tectonic, orbital, or millennial time scales, nor is it the result of short-term forcing from volcanic explosions or El Niño events. Up to 10% of the
    warming (0.07˚C) could result from changes in solar irradiance.

    http://www.nal-jsc.org/Lefer_20111028_Historical_Climate_Change.pdf

  54. I disagree with point 7 in this article. 7.Money saved by abandoning a premature rush to lower CO2 emissions could be better un-spent.

  55. Max Hugoson:

    The corruption was inevitable. They criticize other people’s faith (i.e. a perspective exceeding a limited frame of reference where a hypothesis can be tested and and an experiment reproduced) while denying their own. They reject religion because of its articles of faith, and fail to judge it by the principles engendered. They corrupt science by conflating it with philosophy or their personal brand of religion (i.e. philosophy derived from articles of faith). They fail to acknowledge that they are motivated by dreams of material, physical, and ego instant (or immediate) gratification. That they outsource fulfillment of their greed to elected politicians (i.e. government), which expands an authoritarian monopoly, and through a progressive dissociation of risk sponsors corruption of individuals and institutions. The sponsorship of a dysfunctional society, in particular where there is an election to exchange liberty for submission with benefits, makes them especially objectionable, and an imminent threat to the viability of civilized society. The latter issue is exacerbated in a society where democratic (i.e. majority) leverage is wielded by a minority interest to direct its development.

    Unfortunately, this class of people includes atheists, agnostics, and theists — everyone. This proves that material (and sentient) needs and desires take priority over philosophical considerations (and principles) for a majority of men and women.

  56. “…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…”

    Meanwhile, the “climate scientists” are trying to gather the names of 660 scientists (the 97%) to counter the arguments of 20 scientists (the 3%) – they’ve got to prove this group of ex-NASA scientists are not part of the “sacred ninety seven percent” club.

    Isn’t consensus grand? All of it based on a single group, and one well-crafted survey.

  57. Steven Mosher says:

    January 23, 2013 at 12:17 pm………….

    Yes, that was both a terrible tragedy and a spectacular failure. You might want to note that the engineers that designed/built/tested the solid rocket booster that failed STRONGLY recommended against launching at temperatures that where CLEARLY outside the design specifications of the unit that failed. Sadly, they were overruled and the rest is as they say; “history”. Of course NASA has had MANY MANY other spectacular successes. The temperature predictions made by some NASA folks over decades are currently NOT in the success column.

    So the climate science community might what to take a deep breath and tally up their collective “success” versus “failure” columns. A prediction (or projection, guess, hunch, belief, etc.) is NOT A SUCCESS unless it matches the empirical observations over a long enough time interval to know that the “match” was not just by chance.

    So, right now the climate science community has a rough total of ZERO in the “success” column, and several hundred in the “failure” column. So any rational engineer would take any of the predictions as just WAGS (WILD ASS GUESSES). And any taxpayer should be rightly concerned about wasting billions of dollars on a “science” with a success/failure ratio of ~0:100.

    Just came in from shoveling about a foot of snow up here on the “North Coast” (south shore of Lake Ontario) and I have to tell you my plans to wait until the global warming hits to sell my residence as the New Miami Beach of the North look pretty doubtful.

    Cheers, Kevin.

  58. Steven Mosher says (January 23, 2013 at 12:17 pm): “No threat? no threat whatsover? absolutely certain there is no threat?”

    Well, I’m not absolutely certain the earth won’t be eaten next year by a mutant star goat, but I wouldn’t spend a penny on mitigating the threat.

  59. Gary Hladik says:
    January 23, 2013 at 10:22 pm

    Maybe we should send the AGW chaps off on the B Ark to find a suitable planet to retreat to, just in case.

  60. Regarding Mosher’s comment- Although I frequently disagree with Mosher, he is correct.

    It is inaccurate to state that there is no threat. It would be more accurate to state that there is currently no reliable evidence to support the conclusion that warming is posing a significant threat. There is no reliable evidence to demonstrate that the net long term benefits will not exceed the net long term harms.

    Anthony- You site is more valuable by having comments such as Mosher’s posted.

  61. John Blake says January 23, 2013 at 8:54 am

    … Hot air still rises, water flows downhill… as ever, such an argumentum verecundiam cuts both ways.

    … but, I can give you situations where the ‘hot’ air will not rise and where water will ‘run’ up hill (even considering while in earth’s gravity and with no additional external energy (like electricity) input for running a pump.)

    (There is actually quite a bit more to physics that most ppl realize.)
    .

  62. Rob Starkey says:
    January 24, 2013 at 7:59 am

    You overlook one thing. The people claiming that there is evidence for a threat know that there is no scientific evidence for the threat.

  63. Steven Mosher says January 23, 2013 at 12:17 pm
    … [Challenger video] …
    Then again, nasa has a record of taking risks that dont turn out so good.

    Hmmmm … but isn’t that what happened when management (literally: management-level personnel perhaps more interested in schedules, milestone ‘accomplishments’ and PR vs safety concerns) made a decision countermanding the conclusion (informed, knowledgeable decision?) by the in-the-know technical types (i.e. the rocket-motor engineers) at Morton Thiokol?

    … good to know …

    Now, let’s get back to looking at the numbers, reviewing the legitimacy and veritable sanity of the processes et al being invoked …

    .

  64. Reply: Can we back off a bit on the personal attacks? Ad Hom just gets so tiring to a mod… -ModE]
    ================================================================

    Are homonyms really in such low demand that they need to advertise?

  65. Richard Feynman and others found that the Challenger disaster was a management issue not an engineering issue.

    Steven Mosher is one of the most respected names in the climate debate but he hasn’t done his reputation any good with this thoughtless post.

  66. Rob Starkey wrote;

    “It would be more accurate to state that there is currently no reliable evidence to support the conclusion that warming is posing a significant threat.”

    And that is indeed my “takeaway” from the work presented by this group.

    Right how a “Killer Asteroid” looks like a bigger threat and nobody is calling for all of us to burrow underground to a “safe” level of 1 or 2 miles below the surface.

    I’m sure I could come up with a “projection” that the only safe elevation should a ”Killer Asteroid” strike New York would be 10,000 feet below the surface.

    Cheers, Kevin.

  67. Yep, it is global cooling that is melting the ice caps and glaciers at an astounding rate and breaking high temperature records all over the world – in addition to climate records being broken worldwide almost weekly for the last few years. Um hum.

  68. MBS says
    Yep, it is global cooling that is melting the ice caps and glaciers at an astounding rate and breaking high temperature records all over the world – in addition to climate records being broken worldwide almost weekly for the last few years. Um hum.

    Henry@MBS
    Um hum. Indeed. What you (we) are seeing is the “lag’ from the global warming period.

    By studying the correct parameter i.e. maxima instead of means, I could see that global warming stopped in 1995 and turned to global cooling. Obviously that is looking at energy-in. Earth has big places where it stores energy and I was surprised to see that it would take almost 2 decades before you could actually see the trend in the means:

    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

    note that we can clearly see that, on average, the trend for means is down from 2002. That is 11 years: the equivalent of one solar cycle. But we already know (by looking at the maxima) that this cooling trend will continue on a path of about 44 years, counting from 1995:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    So counting back 88 years i.e. 2012-88= we are in 1924. now look at eye witness reports of the ice back then?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/

    Sounds familiar? By 1945 all that ‘lost” ice had frozen back.

    So, from the trend as reported earlier I can see that earth has now started cooling down. However, you will have to wait for 2 more decades to see the arctic frozen up again.

    Let me know if you don’t understand it. Count on it that the world is going to get cooler in the two decades ahead of us…..

  69. Henry says
    Interesting, note the last sentence in that newspaper report of 1922 that I quoted earlier. They showed (proved) that the arctic ice melt was due to warmer waters from the Gulf Stream. But they called the condition ‘”favorable” hoping it would continue. How the world has changed. I think that the AGW crowd and some shipping- and oil co’s still think that the north west passage will open up, or become largely free of ice, but I will place a bet on it that it won’t happen. I would not put any money on oil and gas coming from there either. It will all freeze up there in the coming 2 decades.

  70. philjourdan says:

    @Joelshore – I guess you missed the “meteorologist” listing. And I guess you missed the fact that neither Jones, Mann, Trenberth, Schmidt, or Hansen (et. al.) have degrees in the applicable field either?

    They have degrees in fields that give them a very good grounding in the work that they do…But, more importantly, they have a record of publication of peer-reviewed scholarly articles in the field in well-recognized top journals in the field. And, even then, their opinions as individuals don’t carry that much weight alone; rather, it is the opinion of the recognized bodies who review the whole of the peer-reviewed scientific work that carry the most weight because they represent the best summary we have of the current state of the science in the field.

    • @joeldshore – still moving the goal posts. I do not care if they have degrees in basket weaving. You alleged, with absolutely no basis in fact, that none of the signatories had the credentials to challenge the ruling of the elites. Yet none of the elites have those credentials either. In other words, the elites are no more qualified to say there is a crisis than the NASA scientists are to say there is not.

      ALL OF THEM (NASA and the Warmists) have degrees, which may or MAY NOT help them in the study. All we can say for sure is that both groups possess the same qualifications. Ergo, your original statement is false.

      Are you prepared to retract it? Or are you going to maintain that a degree in Economics qualifies you to be head of the Alarmist camp?

  71. philjourdan: I’m not moving the goal posts. I originally said, “So a bunch of people with scientific training (many even with Ph.Ds…how impressive!), but no expertise in the field, who knew what they wanted the answer to be supposedly looked at the data and get an answer in agreement with their preconceptions.”

    You are the one who then interpreted “expertise in the field” in a certain way and now you are accusing me of moving the goal posts. If you had asked me what I meant by “expertise in the field”, I would have told you (which is what I did once you wrongly assumed what I meant).

    The larger point is this: On any politically-contentious scientific issue of this sort, you are always going to be able to find scientists who do not believe the conclusions of the scientific community of scientists who is actually actively working in this area. And, when you self-select scientists who are not experts in the field and already have identified themselves as highly inclined to not believe the conclusions even before they started to investigate it, what conclusion do you expect them to reach?

    • @JoelDShore – nice Projection. I interpreted nothing. I read your statement. After slamming the signatories, and having it pointed out that your high priests also lack said qualifications, you attempted to equivocate and change the thrust of your statement.

      I assume nothing, and interpret nothing. I merely read what is written and research (a foreign concept for someone who thinks that belief is science) to find out the facts – and then report them.

      Next time, stop projecting and start reading.

  72. philjourdan,

    joelshore says: “On any politically-contentious scientific issue of this sort, you are always going to be able to find scientists who do not believe the conclusions of the scientific community of scientists who is [sic] actually actively working in this area.”

    joelshore does not have the science to support him [the planet itself is deconstructing his beliefs], so he reverts to politics. But politics ≠ science.

    joelshore continues:

    “…when you self-select scientists who are not experts in the field and already have identified themselves as highly inclined to not believe the conclusions even before they started to investigate it, what conclusion do you expect them to reach?”

    Scientists are supposed to be skeptical. Their hypothesis is that AGW is mostly, if not completyely, nonsense. So, let’s fix joel’s sentence to reflect the current belief system:

    “…when you self-select scientists who are not experts in the field and already have identified themselves as highly inclined to not believe the skeptics’ conclusion even before they started to investigate it, what conclusion do you expect them to reach?”

    There. Now you have the exact attitude of the “consensus” scientists.

    joelshore doesn’t see what a parody he has become. The tanks are in downtown Bagdad, but he still doesn’t believe it.

  73. D B Stealey: Apparently, or so the story goes, one of Abraham Lincoln’s favorite riddles was “How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg.”

    The answer, of course, is “4″ because calling his tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.

    Similarly, the fact that you and other call yourselves “skeptics” doesn’t make you skeptics. You, my friend, are probably the least skeptical person I have ever run into when presented with anything that agrees with what you want to believe.

    It is not particularly a challenge to be “skeptical” of things you are strongly ideologically inclined to disagree with.

  74. I see the truth has hit home with joelshore. According to joel, this is all “politically-contentious” politics. That’s what passes for science with joelshore.

    But me? I am interested in what the planet is telling us. And the planet is directly contradicting joelshore’s belief. That’s why poor joel is so unhappy. ☺

    If Planet Earth was telling us that AGW is a problem, I would be sounding the alarm. But the planet is telling us exactly the opposite: CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

    Sorry about joel’s failed conjecture. We scientific skeptics have it right. There is nothing to be alarmed about.

  75. D.B. Stealey says:

    If Planet Earth was telling us that AGW is a problem, I would be sounding the alarm.

    Well, I will say one thing about you…You are certainly not cursed with any degree of self-awareness whatsoever. If you had some, you might realize the extent to which your ideological blinders prevent you from objective analyzing any sort of reality (which is why your conclusions are at complete odds with nearly every scientific organization on the planet). There is more chance that you would determine that the planet is made of green cheese than you would ever determine that AGW is a problem.

    You are so well-insulated from reality that even after an election showed you undeniable evidence in contradiction to your worldview and in agreement with the worldview of people in touch with reality like Nate Silver, you label his website “far -Left” ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/09/a-post-election-oddity-im-noticing/#comment-1142776 ) because he had the gall to actually correctly predict an election would go exactly the way it did down to the vote in each state (and all but one Senate race)…but in contradiction with the way you wanted it to go.

  76. joelshore responds to my scientific post ["If Planet Earth was telling us that AGW is a problem, I would be sounding the alarm."] with: “…Senate race…” “…ideological blinders…” “…after an election…” “…predict an election…” “…vote in each state…”.

    As I have repeatedly shown, the climate alarm scare is nothing but politics to reprobates like shore. He cannot refute my statement with facts, so he politicizes the science. Thus, his position is based on pseudo-science.

    I’ll be happy to admit I am wrong, if joelshore posts testable, verifiable, falsifiable, empirical scientific evidence showing specific measurements quantifying AGW. I have repeatedly asked for such measurements, to no avail. The reason that neither joelshore nor anyone else has been able to provide such measurements is because AGW is too insignificant to measure. He can’t answer the question, so he reverts to politics. joelshore is a Communist, and that is how they operate. Honesty is not part of their makeup.

    There is no justification for spending another dime of public money on “climate studies”. AGW is not worth another wasted dime. Because joelshore has decisively lost the scientific argument, he bases his comments on politics. With joelshore, it is all politics. Science is just a mendacious veneer for that political scientist.

  77. D.B. Stealey says
    I’ll be happy to admit I am wrong, if joelshore posts testable, verifiable, falsifiable, empirical scientific evidence showing specific measurements quantifying AGW
    henry@D.B. Stealey
    I asked him the same thing, a long time ago, after asserting that there is no such evidence:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011/

    No reply on that either.

    I also doubt that he can explain why we are cooling (last solar cycle period)

    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

    whilst CO2 is still rising

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1993/to:2013/plot/esrl-co2/from:1993/to:2013/trend

    We have to conclude that his income probably depends on this AGW scare being true.
    Don’t waste your time on him. Here is something interesting:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/01/24/our-earth-is-cooling/

Comments are closed.