James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic – Says Hansen 'Embarrassed NASA', 'Was Never Muzzled', & Models 'Useless'

nasa_logoUPDATE 1/28: Full text of Dr. Theon’s letter has been post on the Senate website and below.

This is something I thought I’d never see. This press release today is from the Senate EPW blog of Jame Inhofe. The scientist making the claims in the headline, Dr. John S. Theon, formerly of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Arlington, Virginia, has a paper here in the AMS BAMS that you may also find interesting. Other papers are available here in Google Scholar. He also worked on the report of the Space Shuttle Challenger accident report and according to that document was a significant contributor to weather forecasting improvements:

The Space Shuttle Weather Forecasting Advisory Panel, chaired by Dr. John Theon, was established by NASA Headquarters to review existing weather support capabilities and plans and to recommend a course of action to the NSTS Program. Included on the panel were representatives from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Air Force, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

For those just joining the climate discussion, Dr. James Hansen is the chief climate scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and is the man who originally raised the alarm on global warming in 1988 in an appearance before congress. He is also the keeper of the most often cited climate data.

EPW press release below – Anthony


Washington DC, Jan 27th 2009: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote. [Note: NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his dire climate warning, his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear, and his claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite doing 1,400 on-the-job media interviews! See: Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom – Get the Facts on James Hansen UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says ‘lock up the oil men’ – June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for ‘high crimes against humanity’ for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008 ]

Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.

“As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research,” Theon wrote of his career. “This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles,” Theon added. (LINK) Theon also co-authored the book “Advances in Remote Sensing Retrieval Methods.” [Note: Theon joins many current and former NASA scientists in dissenting from man-made climate fears. A small sampling includes: Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA, Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt, Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7, Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA’s Plum Brook Reactor, Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Ames Research Center, Climatologist Dr. John Christy, Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA’s Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility]

Gore faces a much different scientific climate in 2009 than the one he faced in 2006 when his film “An Inconvenient Truth” was released. According to satellite data, the Earth has cooled since Gore’s film was released, Antarctic sea ice extent has grown to record levels, sea level rise has slowed, ocean temperatures have failed to warm, and more and more scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made climate fears as peer-reviewed studies continue to man-made counter warming fears. [See: Peer-Reviewed Study challenges ‘notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming’ & New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears ]

“Vice President Gore and the other promoters of man-made climate fears endless claims that the “debate is over” appear to be ignoring scientific reality,” Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee.

A U.S. Senate Minority Report released in December 2008 details over 650 international scientists who are dissenting from man-made global warming fears promoted by the UN and yourself. Many of the scientists profiled are former UN IPCC scientists and former believers in man-made climate change that have reversed their views in recent years. The report continues to grow almost daily. We have just received a request from an Italian scientist, and a Czech scientist to join the 650 dissenting scientists report. A chemist from the U.S. Naval Academy is about to be added, and more Japanese scientists are dissenting. Finally, many more meteorologists will be added and another former UN IPCC scientist is about to be included. These scientists are openly rebelling against the climate orthodoxy promoted by Gore and the UN IPCC.

The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. Reports from the conference found that Skeptical scientists overwhelmed the meeting, with ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ ( See full reports here & here ] In addition, a 2008 canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.” More evidence that the global warming fear machine is breaking down. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices.”

The scientists and peer-reviewed studies countering climate claims are the key reason that the U.S. public has grown ever more skeptical of man-made climate doom predictions. [See: Global warming ranks dead last, 20 out of 20 in new Pew survey. Pew Survey: & Survey finds majority of U.S. Voters – ‘51% – now believe that humans are not the predominant cause of climate change’ – January 20, 2009 – Rasmussen Reports ]

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore’s claims that the “science is settled” and there is a “consensus.”

On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick“; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.

# # #

ORIGINAL FULL TEXT LETTER SENT VIA EMAILS:

—–Original Message—–

From: Jtheon [mailto:jtheon@XXXXXXX]

Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:05 PM

To: Morano, Marc (EPW)

Subject: Climate models are useless
Marc, First, I sent several e-mails to you with an error in the address and they have been returned to me. So I’m resending them in one combined e-mail.
Yes, one could say that I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation. He was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). He thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.
My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.
With best wishes, John
# #
From: Jtheon [mailto:jtheon@XXXXXX]

Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:50 PM

To: Morano, Marc (EPW)

Subject: Re: Nice seeing you
Marc, Indeed, it was a pleasure to see you again. I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that Global Warming is man made.  A brief bio follows. Use as much or as little of it as you wish.
John S. Theon Education: B.S. Aero. Engr. (1953-57); Aerodynamicist, Douglas Aircraft Co. (1957-58); As USAF Reserve Officer (1958-60),B.S. Meteorology (1959); Served as Weather Officer 1959-60; M.S, Meteorology (1960-62); NASA Research Scientist, Goddard Space Flight Ctr. (1962-74); Head Meteorology Branch, GSFC (1974-76); Asst. Chief, Lab. for Atmos. Sciences, GSFC (1977-78);  Program Scientist, NASA Global Weather Research Program, NASA Hq. (1978-82); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch NASA Hq., (1982-91); Ph.D.,  Engr. Science & Mech.: course of study and dissertation in atmos. science (1983-85); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics, Radiation, & Hydrology Branch, NASA Hq. (1991-93); Chief, Climate Processes Research Program, NASA Hq. (1993-94); Senior Scientist, Mission to Planet Earth Office, NASA Hq. (1994-95); Science Consultant, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (1995-99); Science Consultant  Orbital Sciences Corp. (1996-97) and NASA Jet Propulsion Lab., (1997-99).
As Chief of several NASA Hq. Programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the  research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research. This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate  science since retiring by reading books and journal articles. I hope that this is helpful.
Best wishes, John

Sponsored IT training links:

Best quality 640-553 dumps written by certified expert to help you pass 642-456 and 70-536 exam in easy and fast way.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
659 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike C
January 27, 2009 4:26 pm

C’mon now, we all know James Hansen is a top of the line scientist without a politically motivated bone in his body.

davidgmills
January 27, 2009 4:36 pm

So I guess this guy admits he failed to muzzle Hansen which in turn caused Gore to be taken in by Hansen.

Brute
January 27, 2009 4:37 pm

The house of cards is really beginning to tumble………………

barbee butts
January 27, 2009 4:39 pm

Embarrassed NASA?
What an understatement. Hansen’s words and actions have cast a noxious cloud so large that it has sullied the reputation of the “Scientific Community” in general.

George
January 27, 2009 4:40 pm

An article in our local paper by Seth Borenstein an AP Science Writer, states that 2008 was tied for the 8th warmest year in records that go back to 1880 according to the US NOAA. Stories of this ilk are all over the internet. What’s up with this?
George

Mark Fuggle
January 27, 2009 4:40 pm

This is quite big isn’t it? Upstageing Mr Gore before he gives his speech.Oh dear, how embarasing.

Greg F
January 27, 2009 4:41 pm

C’mon now, we all know James Hansen is a top of the line scientist without a politically motivated bone in his body.

Not entirely accurate, he does have one bone that is politically motivated. Unfortunately it is his jaw bone.

January 27, 2009 4:42 pm

The parade to the exit is beginning. All aboard.

helvio
January 27, 2009 4:43 pm

But now you have Barack Obama and Steven Chu, two men in power, determined to following the ideology, even though it’s ‘tumbling down’… it should tumble faster, before serious commitments are made!

David Holliday
January 27, 2009 4:43 pm

Wow. He annihilated Hansen. He is very well spoken and clear. His point about the models is what I tried to explain a while back. He’s just much better at it than I am.

JimB
January 27, 2009 4:44 pm

Definitely refreshing to read. Wonder if anyone’s going to put a copy of this on O’s desk in the morning? He wanted to get elected, but he also doesn’t want to be wrong, becuase on something of this scale, you could measure the time it takes for the second 4yrs to disappear with an egg timer.
JimB

Psi
January 27, 2009 4:46 pm

“there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit…”
Can someone explain what this means?
Thanks in advance.

bucko36
January 27, 2009 5:06 pm

“Fresh Air” seems to be “leaking” from inside the NASA “hot air” balloon! It’s about time.

Robert Wood
January 27, 2009 5:15 pm

“Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. … “
Damning. Just damning!!!

VG
January 27, 2009 5:18 pm

If this is really true its got to be the biggest story of the year re AGW see if the NYT publishes this…

Robert Wood
January 27, 2009 5:20 pm

Psi:
there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit…”
Can someone explain what this means?
What is meant is that the models are useless.

George M
January 27, 2009 5:42 pm

Unfortunately, this is another sterling example of NASA’a dysfunctionality; boss fails to discipline underling. Probably to keep the funds rolling in. Sad, isn’t it? Maybe the oil companies should buy NASA. See how that sits with the greenies.

MattN
January 27, 2009 5:42 pm

Wow. Just…wow.

Craig
January 27, 2009 5:42 pm

While I agree with the arguements in this article and personally derive great pleasure from calling global warming supporters alarmists and fear mongers, etc., I can’t help but cringe at the biased style of writing chosen by the author. By inserting subjective jargon such as “man-made global warming fear soothsayer, etc.,” the article undermines its objectivity – unnecessarily. Let the story speak for itself!
My skepticism usually peaks when I read the sensationalized accounts of doom and gloom from the AGW crowd. In order to win support for true skepticism, objectivity is a must. Any unnecessary display of bias makes us no better than them. When “scientists” become political, they often resort to hyperbole, insults, fear mongering and name-calling to support inconvenient scientific results… Let them be the side that does that. Time, science and history will ultimately settle the score.
Please accept this as humble/respectful, constructive criticism. I absolutely enjoyed this story and visit WATTSUPWITHTHAT daily.

PPV
January 27, 2009 5:46 pm

Pffft. None of this will make into the MSM.
The MSM will print what it sees fit, and ignore what it does not.
The problem is the media, and not the scientists. It was never the scientists. There have always been far far more sceptical scientists that believer scientists. The AGW hoax cannot and will not be exposed until people takle the media. And the only way this will happen if political parties have the guts to stand up and threaten criminal action against the editors and journalists who have deliberately created this hoax. There is a very simple and very good argument to say the actions of the media are an act of treason against our country – and as such, the journalists and editors who created this hoax will face the full force of treason laws. But no politician will ever do that, so we will continue to see these things happen ::
-global temps cooling for a decade
-far more sceptical scientists than believers
-weekly new studies/science refuting AGW
-weekly growing absurdity of the junk science that believers use
-MSM will ignore the above and continue printing lies
And so it goes.

January 27, 2009 5:47 pm

Psi – An example is convection… It’s hard to have a mile wide grid or cube (typically much larger) and expect a model to accurately simulate the effect of heat transferring through the cube’s faces the same as heat transfer in a natural space would. You need to know more about what’s behind the face rather than that one giant block of air. Another would be diffusion. A grid model just can’t hack it… There are countless downfalls of GCM’s, but they make pretty pictures if you’re into animations and know what parameters to set to achieve your political agenda. For modeling real world processes, there aren’t many who even know how to write such models for clouds, shadows, etc. The grids need to be infinitesimally small to work reasonably correctly.
I think small scale modeling of physical processes would be extremely cool to work on (I mean small as in the processes going on in the woods and lakes around my house on a sunny or cloudy or rainy day, or when a cloud passes by). That would be fun to work on and then scale up… Can you imagine the complexity?
Now imagine being constrained to HUGE blocks of real estate and imagine how you’re going to get the influences to transfer from one block to another correctly, in 50 MPH wind and driving rain… Too coarse. Now imagine the detail needed that would generate a stratus cloud that moves and ripples successfully over an hour, over a few hundred square miles, and what the shadows do to the evapotranspiration rate of trees below and evaporation rate of recent rain from wet ground? And the humidity and temperature layers that result from the sun & shadows, after being influenced by the effects of all the other small cubes all around the subject cube, just after they get influenced by the cubes next to them? And the convection currents that naturally erupt through chaotic motions of small cubes after a cumulus cloud moves by. You’re going to need a HUGE computer or worldwide distributed network to get anything useful for this small area. I would be truly impressed to see something like that…
So GCM’s are necessarily large-grid and somewhat incapable of detail small enough to model phenomena that we see every day. You’ll notice that even weather forecasts are quite large scale compared to the actual storms that develop, and they can do a pretty good job of forecasting a few days out, once you know the current state, even within a narrow band a hundred miles wide.
And as we’ve seen, doing it over hundreds or even thousands of years with great accuracy is evidently a far easier situation, you know, once you understand all those little factors like they do… Yep, uh-huh.
Anyone need $140 million for real data?

E.M.Smith
Editor
January 27, 2009 5:47 pm

Psi (16:46:50) :
“there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit…”
Can someone explain what this means?

The models break the world into large squares, called a grid, and pretend that everything in that square is uniform. Then they look at energy flows into and out of the squares as a whole, ignoring ‘little things’ that happen inside the squares. The quote is saying that the ‘little things’ inside of the smallest resolution of the squares are, in fact, big things.
An example:
Hansen takes reasonably valid data from NOAA (within their accuracy of 1F) and ‘homogenizes’ it. This is done in a couple of steps. In one of them, he divides the world into 6 latitude zones of 30 degrees each. Then within each zone it is assumed that stations ‘near’ each other can tell you how to ‘correct’ or ‘adjust’ each other. So 30-60 degrees north covers just about the whole US. This implies that San Francisco is ‘fungible’ with Sacramento. That it can be treated as ‘the same’ for temperature curve fitting.
When San Francisco data are to be ‘corrected’ for their Urban Heat Island effect, reference is made to ‘local’ rural stations. The San Francisco historical temperature curve slope is ‘adjusted’ based on stations that are inland, sometimes a long ways. Hundreds of kilometers.
Why not? Well, in summer the fog comes in over San Francisco and the temperatures are very often 60F +/- 5F where inland is more like 95F +/- 10F or even +/- 15F and the hotter it is inland, the more SF cools as the rising inland hot air sucks more cold fog in from the ocean.
So not only is it wrong to say SF behaves like inland (it is negatively correlated) but it is clearly subject to a very flat temperature slope while inland is more volatile. Putting all this in one box hides these facts. It also hides the (roughly by my observation) 3 day cyclicality of the whole process. (Air inland heats and rises, dragging in cool marine layer, stopping rise in about 1.5 days, then starts heating again and 1.5ish days later is rising… the pump works in long slow pulses.)
These processes are very important! The models “don’t get it”. All that mass flow, all the energy in it, all the water flow dynamics, all the changes in albedo as fog flows in over SF, all ignored. How can you ‘get it right’ when you ignore most of what is happening?

Mongo
January 27, 2009 5:47 pm

This in the end, will mean next to nothing. Threr have been many instances where the “data” used by proponents of AGW theory, refuted, and yet we still continued our lemming-like march to the cliffs.
Folks, our leadership is convinced this is a real issue. There has already been legislation made into law (remember that “emergency” bill last year that was riddled with all kinds of issues including treating CO2 as a pollutant), with more to come. Just look at the agenda of the people who chair the various committees and sub committees in the Congress, heading regulatory agencies and our President. It’s a train wreck that has already happened – we just haven’t felt the effects in the last car.
I write to my Representatives and Senators regularly, and get responses from them, NOT staffers. I am holding them as accountable as I am able – and posting here without doing the same is just chatting. Let them hear you, clearly, concisely and without rancor.

TerryBixler
January 27, 2009 5:49 pm

It seems that only retired people are willing to speak their minds as they are now afraid that government policy will further ruin their retirement. People still employed by the government want a piece of that $140 million or more. I applaud Dr. John Theon’s candor I only hope that those currently employed by our government are listening. Hopefully they will not interpret this as a call to fix the models and spend more money without looking out the window.

Luke
January 27, 2009 5:50 pm

Wow, what great news. Is the wall finally crumbling?

January 27, 2009 5:50 pm

” . .please maintain civility and decorum in comments.”
OK, Anthony.
I was going to shout “HALLELUJAH!”
But I’ll just whisper it instead: “hallelujah” ;0)

January 27, 2009 5:52 pm

Something which, I think, should not be ignored is how difficult many doubters must find it to air their views. We have all read of people losing their jobs by doing so but there is an additional factor. Not everyone has sufficient self-confidence to push themselves forward even if they are convinced that the so-called consensus view is utter nonsense. I am sure we can expect many more to air their dissent as time goes on.
I find it telling that many scientists say they agreed with the catastrophic AGW position until they read into the subject in detail. Does anyone know how many, if any, have said the reverse?

January 27, 2009 5:52 pm

These counter arguments are very important but they are not enough to slow down the momentum of the AGW alarmists. If anything, the AGW alarmists are even more determined to get their CO2 controls put in now, while there is still time, and before the apponents are able to rally their forces. The AGW alarmists may realize that mother nature is weighing in heavily on the subject, and by getting their bills passed now, there will be no turning back, and they can then claim credit for saving the earth as temperatures continue to moderate.
We need modern day Spartans who can slow down the Persian (AGW) assault and give us more time to prepare for battle and victory.

Jim Norvell
January 27, 2009 5:53 pm

I can’t wait to read about this over at RC.
Jim N

January 27, 2009 6:05 pm

Why do many of these people have to wait until they are retired to make these pronouncements? It may well be that if Theon had denounced Hansen several years ago, we might have avoided much of the crap that has come down the pipe in the last couple of years.
It is nice to see that more real scientists are voicing their skeptical views. Unfortunately Newton’s Laws still apply, an object set in motion will stay in motion until acted on by an outside source sufficient to slow or stop it. I fear that Hansen and his allies have a large inertia behind their movement and its going to take a very large external force to stop their wagon.
I guess we can take heart that more people like Theo are throwing themselves in the path of the AGW movement, more friction means less forward momentum, eventually.

ROM
January 27, 2009 6:05 pm

The end game begins !
It must have been incredibly difficult for one of the most highly profiled administrators in American science to voluntarily admit that he had failed to ensure that in at least one of his fiefdoms, good science was not being carried out by the scientists under his charge and that he had failed to take action to correct the situation.
There must now be quite a few lower level administrators in NASA [ and in other US government climate research organisations ] that are now starting to look at their heritage and the reputation they will leave behind when they leave NASA.
When they see their old boss’s Mea Culpa they may be doing some very hard thinking.
Far reaching changes may soon be afoot in the climate research industry even if we don’t see any visible signs of it for another year or two.

squidly
January 27, 2009 6:05 pm

This is just affirming what I have already suspected. I am so very glad that these things are finally beginning to come out, lets us all hope that it is soon enough.

Just want truth...
January 27, 2009 6:08 pm

Wow… i don’t think it’s sunk in yet how important this one is….

just Cait
January 27, 2009 6:09 pm

If Dr Theon knew what Hansen was doing was wrong, why didn’t he stop Hansen? Maybe that question is not appropriate for this forum, but I would still like to know the answer.

Kath
January 27, 2009 6:14 pm

A copy of the original article & link should be sent to the Drudge Report.

David Ermer
January 27, 2009 6:21 pm

Unfortunately this will make absolutely no difference in the ‘scientific’/political debate. It will be ignored and I predict this guy will characterized as having senile dementia or some such.

January 27, 2009 6:22 pm

@ Mango
You rained on my parade.
And, I’m grateful.
Sobering.

January 27, 2009 6:23 pm

Sorry.
@ M -o-ngo

AnyMouse
January 27, 2009 6:28 pm

George (16:40:42) :
An article in our local paper by Seth Borenstein an AP Science Writer, states that 2008 was tied for the 8th warmest year in records that go back to 1880 according to the US NOAA. Stories of this ilk are all over the internet. What’s up with this?

It’s probably due to NOAA saying that in “NOAA: 2008 Global Temperature Ties as Eighth Warmest on Record” (January 14, 2009)

January 27, 2009 6:30 pm

It’s hard to have a mile wide grid or cube (typically much larger) and expect a model to accurately simulate the effect of heat transferring through the cube’s faces the same as heat transfer in a natural space would.
Obviously. At RealClimate, I on a thread devoted to GCMs, I noted that, at one time, aeronautical engineers had proven bumble bees cannot fly.
In that case, of course, the AEs knew their model was wrong: there must have been something they were not taking into account.
Gavin deleted the comment.
++++
E.M. Smith:
You win the thread.

January 27, 2009 6:30 pm

Oh come ON!!!! Dr. Theon isn’t even a climate scientist!!!!
// sacasm off //

January 27, 2009 6:32 pm

If Dr Theon knew what Hansen was doing was wrong, why didn’t he stop Hansen?

Dr. Theon has a boss, too.

Just want truth...
January 27, 2009 6:35 pm

“sonicfrog (18:30:47) :
Oh come ON!!!! Dr. Theon isn’t even a climate scientist!!!!”
will you be saying next he’s paid by big oil?

Bill Junga
January 27, 2009 6:38 pm

An eyeopening post for sure. Another furrow in the face of defeat for AGW alarmism. It appears that the “skeptics” are by far the superior scientists to the most vocal alarmists. These scientists are the ones making significant progress in explain the workings of the climate, unlike the ones who only say manmade global warming to explain everything. Maybe we should start referring to the alarmists as CO2-phobes.

Craig M.
January 27, 2009 6:38 pm

This will not get nearly as much media coverage as “Climate change irreversible for 1000 years”, “Obama gets a new dog” or “Britney Spears goes to the washroom”

January 27, 2009 6:48 pm

It reminds me of the story of Nikita Khrushchev giving a speech denouncing Stalin’s atrocities to an audience of the Soviet Communist Party, and someone in the audience shouted:
“You were right there next to Stalin. Why didn’t you stop him?”
Khrushchev immediately shouted back:
“Who said that??”
The place went deathly quiet. After several heartbeats, Khrushchev said quietly:
“Now you know why”

Robert Bateman
January 27, 2009 6:51 pm

If I were NASA, and I was aware of the methods being proposed to force the climate to a colder stage based on compromised data and Secret Formula Modeling, I’d be distancing myself from a terribly embarassing 3 ring circus about to hit the proverbial fan.
The stage is set for Gore to give an account in the midst of a miserable wave of freezing rain set to hit the East Coast, with snapped trees and downed powerlines for all.
I have no problem with anyone wanting to clean up toxins dumped into our environment, but this is gone way over the cliff of disbelief.

January 27, 2009 6:54 pm

Boom!
This is huge. Noconsensus baby.
He just trashes Hansen, deservedly so. I didn’t expect anything like that from the government in my lifetime.
Great stuff, made my day.

RICH
January 27, 2009 6:55 pm

The glass roof on their greenhouse is about to come crashing down.

Editor
January 27, 2009 6:55 pm

Well, this is certainly pleasant news, and from a source I hadn’t considered being a source.
My big hope for this year is for the MSM to take note that not only is the science unsettled, but that there’s a news story going on that they’ve missed. One reason I hoped for a blizzard at the inauguration is that both Washington and New York media would have it right in their face on a day with millions of people watching. There have been cold events pretty much across the country this winter so it’s been hard to ignore. So far there hasn’t been much progress in the media, but the year’s still young.
I’ve never seen an EPW press release get much attention in mainstream media, and I doubt this one will either, at least not without some effort to get them to pay attention. Write the editor! Perhaps this one has a chance of getting some news media to ask questions before printing the next piece from Hansen about how we are going to destroy Creation.

VG
January 27, 2009 6:56 pm

looks like a cycle 23 spot may be forming… again!
http://www.solarcycle24.com/

Joseph
January 27, 2009 7:01 pm

Re: Mongo (17:47:32) :
This in the end, will mean next to nothing. Threr have been many instances where the “data” used by proponents of AGW theory, refuted, and yet we still continued our lemming-like march to the cliffs.
——————————————————————-
Mongo, “we” are not marching lemming-like towards the cliffs, the climate-alarmists are trying to herd us in that direction, in an effort to make us feel good about reducing our standard of living (and paying more for it), in favor of “saving the planet”.
I’m not convinced that our leadership actually believes this is a real issue. I think they are just willing to go along with it because it meshes so nicely with the societal and economic changes they wish to impose upon us.
I do agree with your metaphor of this being “a train wreck that has already happened”. Carbon trading has begun, and millions of dollars have already changed hands. Once that level of economic momentum has built, it is very difficult to stop. I am concerned that we are probably in for at least a decade of this nonsensical waste of human efforts. We will be ill-prepared if we are confronted with a real crisis.
Looking back upon this time from the future, this will certainly be seen as one of our inglorious moments.

Robert Bateman
January 27, 2009 7:03 pm

VG (18:56:41) :
looks like a cycle 23 spot may be forming… again!
http://www.solarcycle24.com/

Well don’t that just beat all ??!!
Yup, that’s got SC23 written all over it. I’ll be hooked on the SOHO and GONG images tonight. My refractor goes with me to work.
Oy ye vay.

Bill Illis
January 27, 2009 7:04 pm

I’d like to see the actual letter that Dr. Theon wrote.
It would be far more powerful as a stand-alone letter rather than the potentially out-context-quotes and other off-topic inserts from the Inhofe page.

Fred
January 27, 2009 7:07 pm

If Dr Theon had tried to silence Hansen, the entire world would have heard that the evil Federal government was silencing an independent thinker and Hansen would not have given 1,400 on-the-job interviews but 2,800. Obviously, they would only silence him if he was telling the truth. Just like in a Hollywood movie.

Mike Davis
January 27, 2009 7:08 pm

Rumor has it that Gore has canceled his speach tommorow due to ICE and cold

juan
January 27, 2009 7:11 pm

E. M. Smith
Thank you for an explanation that we laymen can understand. Your example reminds me of Mark Twain’s comment that the coldest winter he ever lived through was a summer in San Francisco.

Brent Matich
January 27, 2009 7:13 pm

People are finally starting to wake up and smell the BS. The world has bigger fish to fry than listen to an old washed up politician and his cronies ( Hansen ,UN fools etc ) and their computer models ( garbage in garbage out ).
Long live my Chevy Tahoe!
Brent in Calgary

January 27, 2009 7:16 pm

A couple of things I think I have learned. The question is asked why the writer didn’t expose Hansen when it might have prevented the impending imposition of the economic destruction and social engineering planned by the UN/IPCC crowd on the basis of “climate change”.
the answer is simple. It would have cost him. I find that most people stand back from telling the truth or joining the fray if it might seriously cost them. If I sound cynical, it is only because I have found myself standing alone on more than one occasion when an issue such as freedom of speech and the press was on the line in my town. It is very lonely to take a stand while the outcome is still in doubt. I find most men are cowards.
Second: I agree that civility is a high value. But the AGW dragon will not be dead until the masses laugh at those who champion it’s “remedy”. Satire, parody, stand up comedy routines, are the final step in killing the lie. It will only be dead when the public “gets” the jokes.
I don’t know what to do with that, except I believe there will be a public confrontation one day and some wag will offer a priceless comment and the warmists will be unable to answer for the guffaws. Then it will be truly over.

Steven Hill
January 27, 2009 7:22 pm

Makes no difference for the US…Obama and the Enviro hacks are going to do their thing, they won the election.
I hope that I am wrong, don’t bet on it.

Mick
January 27, 2009 7:26 pm

tick, tick, …tick ……tick ……….tick_______________pegs up!!!
The AGW tent collapsing
LOL

philincalifornia
January 27, 2009 7:27 pm

helvio (16:43:02) : wrote:
But now you have Barack Obama and Steven Chu, two men in power, determined to following the ideology, even though it’s ‘tumbling down’… it should tumble faster, before serious commitments are made!
—————————————————-
I’m hoping, respectfully, that you have this (the first part) called incorrectly. So far, since being inaugurated, Obama has not come out and said anything totally stupid as far as I know – except when the BBC had to fraudulently modify his speech to approaching the stooopid level. Like many individuals who frequent this site, both he and Chu have stated interests in cleantech and reducing pollution. I sincerely hope that they will do it while still retaining the kind of scientific integrity inherent in us so-called skeptics. I have faith in them, mostly because Chu is an excellent scientist, and Obama watched what bad counseling on weapons of mass destruction did to Dubya. Is it next week when Obama’s walking, talking weapon of mass destruction, Al Gore, gets to give bad counsel ?? I shall keep faith in our elected leader until at least the aftermath of that polar bear and penguin circus act.

montjoie1095
January 27, 2009 7:31 pm

Sadly, Hansen was allowed to testify as an expert in a British criminal case that ended up letting off a bunch of vandals who trashed a coal plant (I think) because of his testimony that their “efforts” were for the common good.

MC
January 27, 2009 7:32 pm

I believe the reason Theon only now expresses his skeptisism is that he senses a social wave of non support for AGW. He senses that if he does not write about his true feelings he can be seen with egg on his face when the climate proves Hansen and Gore wrong. Distance and the truth is what he seeks to clear himself from the stupidity of manmade global warmimng. If this is true for Theon its true for many others who have their reputations at risk.

Lance
January 27, 2009 7:33 pm

One wonders what fantastic and new discoveries in science/earth sciences could of been achieved from all the billions of dollars going toward AGW. It’s a travesty to think real work has gone disregarded by their own collegues because of one hypotheses just to save face.
Fortunately. I don’t think this is a conspiracy, more of doing what you’re boss says and keeping funding. I think most of them do believe in their heart that AGW exist, a scientist caught in the middle, just trying to do research they’ve been trained to do.
That said, climate science now has become political, and as someone over at RC posted, says it all,
“Sometimes public policy needs to serve science, and sometimes science needs to serve public policy. Now is a time for the latter.”
So as you can see their minds are made up already, science or no science, facts and reality don’t enter into the equation.

hotrod
January 27, 2009 7:36 pm

If Dr Theon knew what Hansen was doing was wrong, why didn’t he stop Hansen? Maybe that question is not appropriate for this forum, but I would still like to know the answer.

It is entirely possible that the internal political culture of NASA would not allow him to control Hansen or others! Just like the NASA culture would not listen to the Morton Thiokol engineers that begged them not to launch Challenger, and the specialists that begged them to take high resolution pictures of Columbia to verify if it had damage from the foam strike.
The internal peer pressure in large organizations can be fearsome, and you literally risk your livelihood to raise some issues. It is a problem in ALL large human organizations. It is wired into our DNA not to risk our own welfare to call out the leaders of our group unless they go out of their way to encourage honest feed back.
This “group think” tendency was traced out to be one of the root causes in several major airplane accidents, as the pilots did not encourage feedback from other crew members — read the story of the Tenerife accident where two planes collided on the runway for an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_disaster
It is such a powerful tendency, that senior commanding officers in the military occasionally tell junior subordinates that there is no rank in the airplane and if they see anything wrong they want to hear about it. That sort of a culture starts at the very top of the agency and cannot be pushed up from the bottom.
It will be years before we hear the inside story of bloody battles and shouting matches in conference rooms and hallways, where sane scientists tried to stop this years ago. In all likelihood they got quietly pushed out to dead end assignments and that “Who said that” comment by Khrushchev is exactly what prevails. After one or two people get sent to dead end assignments, or can’t get good job references or can’t publish because they get blackballed by prestigious journals, others quickly learn to keep their head down or get out.
I have been through this sort of thing in a State agency, and ended up leaving because I could not associate my self with what they were doing. Not everyone has the financial or family support to be that willing to walk away from a career. In small technical fields you can get black listed just like actors were in the 1950’s if you confront the wrong people.
Larry

G Alston
January 27, 2009 7:37 pm

Here’s how this news will be handled by the alarmist crowd —
“This is little more than yet another ossified has-been scientist who hasn’t contributed anything useful in years and for whom real science has sadly passed him by.”
Obviously that’s not true, but that’s how retirees who speak their minds are treated, as well as those in the Dr. Spencer age bracket. On the other hand if you’re e.g. Steve Chu and a true believer, you’re one of those marvels who can contribute bigtime lomng past the “sell by” date.
Those of you who think the tide has changed are mistaken.
There was a show on NOVA about the “CA green energy gamble.” Essentially the die is cast already. The show featured Steve Chu, waxing poetically about the infinite number of new high paying non-exportable “green” jobs.
That’s why you are mistaken. This is what you are up against. People are being promised jobs. Good jobs. High paying jobs. And in a time where jobs are getting scarce. They don’t know climate science from dissertations on whale spleens. Nor do they care. Who are they going to believe?
On the other hand, remember that despair is a sin.

G Alston
January 27, 2009 7:41 pm

hotrod
You’re describing Jerry Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy, which states:
“…that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.”

JohnD
January 27, 2009 7:51 pm

Thanks, Dr. Theon, for speaking up now that the damage is done.

Steve Hempell
January 27, 2009 8:00 pm

Bill Illis (19:04:28) :
I’m with Bill on this. Any chance of getting the original letter EPW? Knowing what was actually written is most important.
REPLY: I’ve asked for it, and got a response sayimg they’ll get it to me tomorrow when they get to the office (assuming they can make it through the snow and ice there). – Anthony

Steve Hempell
January 27, 2009 8:03 pm

Should have been from EPW

Robert Bateman
January 27, 2009 8:23 pm

The new SC23 spot is just barely visible on a SOHO image converted to Luminance and maximum clipped to compensate for the overwhelming advantage of space-based imaging.
I have it visible as a flyspeck on a Teide GONG image of 01/27/09 16:54 image exponential stretched.
That makes 2 SC23’s in 1 month. Does this shoot a hole in SC24 minimum of Sept/0ct 08?
We are comparing SC23 flypecks to SC24 flyspecks. Seems fair to me.
Egg on face. Gore takes a ‘freezing rain check’.

Robert Bateman
January 27, 2009 8:27 pm

Oh yeah, I got a process to bring SOHO images down to lowly Earthling based images.
Go ahead, make my day, count that spot.
You know you want to.

April E. Coggins
January 27, 2009 8:30 pm

My guess as to why Hansen wasn’t exposed earlier is because he was under-estimated and who could have known that powerful political forces would run with his theory. Face it, the science industry is filled with people who have whacky theories. Isn’t that the point of science, to coddle and probe every possibility? I imagine that Hansen was considered to be just another insecure, egocentric, imaginative scientist.

Richard M
January 27, 2009 8:36 pm

If Fox News and CNN, in the form of Lou Dobbs, pick up this story and highlight it, I can see the rest of the MSM being forced to address the issue. Not only that, but this is great drama. This is very, very marketable.

Adam Sullivan
January 27, 2009 9:00 pm

@ G Alston
Interesting the “jobs” argument. I agree that Climate Change Catastrophism has become a self promoting machine with enough inertia to make it a permanent part of government.
Sad – thinking people would understand that the burden of AGW ‘remedies’ kills jobs and kills any potential for a manufacturing renaissance in the US.

E.M.Smith
Editor
January 27, 2009 9:00 pm

Easy as one two three… First news report was one ship stuck in the St. Lawrence river. Second report was two (one the icebreaker sent to the rescue…)
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=1222717
while this one says three:
http://www.startribune.com/world/38455609.html
May not take all that long for the ‘message’ to get through… Now if we can just get NY harbor to freeze…

Shallow Climate
January 27, 2009 9:01 pm

I too hope that this Theon statement makes a huge (appropriately huge) impact. However, we know (as with the Hockey Stick) how the alarmists can ignore the reality and go right on with the same old same old. And if I, or we, thought this was new, I just read this, by Colin McEvedy, in The New Penguin Atlas of Ancient History: “Worse than that, there is a reflex in favour of the status quo. When Flinders Petrie, an eminent Egyptologist if ever there was one, pointed out that Middle Egyptian Bronze Age implements were actually copper, you might expect his observations to cause something of a rethink. Not a bit of it: the official view is still that his remarks, though technically correct, are, in some wider sense, unhelpful, even confusing. That’s a tale from a fair while ago, but how about this, from the standard work on the Aegean Bronze Age published in the 1990’s: ‘For the sake of simplicity vessels which might be of copper or bronze are referred to as “bronze” throughout’. Wow!”

Jim B in Canada
January 27, 2009 9:05 pm

Ok he has the truth now does he have a good publicist? Is he going to be plugging a book soon?
I’m a cynical skeptic, and I would lay good money right now if he does not have a good publicist and a book coming out soon from a solid publisher, this will be the first and the last we will hear of Dr. John Theon.
Truth or no truth.

January 27, 2009 9:36 pm

“Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,”
A true statement, after digging in the data, we all suspected it. This is a just damn, especially with all the information built up on sites like Anthony’s WUWT and others. When your former boss says this, it means much more than when some bloggers claims this to be the case. It is what it is, and we all know what that is.
To say the least it sheds new light on last weeks hysterical “new findings” in the Antarctic. It was a Gore setup.
IMHO — Open science is going to be the only way for climate science to recover from this worldwide hoax, if it ever can. People of the world deserve better than to be scammed by science and those who claim to practice the art.

trevor
January 27, 2009 9:37 pm

I think that some of you guys are being a bit tough on Dr Theon. It takes real courage to speak out as he has, and we should compliment him on that and be thankful.

Robert Bateman
January 27, 2009 9:43 pm

Considering the fiasco of a 2nd SC23 spot today, Theon is the light at the end of the tunnel.
SC24 is falling into quicksand.
Gore, Hansen & Hathaway have painted themselves hard into the corner.
Another year of this and thier onion will be nicely peeled.
The rest of the AGW crowd will be begging for Theon and his like to come forward to head the investigation into “How could this have happened?”.

anna v
January 27, 2009 9:44 pm

E.M.Smith (17:47:18) :
Psi (16:46:50) :
“there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit…”
Can someone explain what this means?

Your elucidation is good, but still it does not hit the heart of the problem.
The methodology of general circulation models is wrong, because the weather/climate system depends on an extensive system of highly non linear coupled differential equations. This is what is meant by its being “chaotic”. This means that any gridding, no matter how small, ( how big the computer) will get it wrong after a a number of time-steps. This is because the logic of gridded models depends really on assuming linear approximations to highly non linear coupled differential equations. Anyone that has taken some mathematics analysis knows that functions can be expanded in series, and often the first few terms are good approximations. This is not true for solutions of coupled differential equations, because usually they are highly divergent, the first terms do not describe them. After a number of time steps reality will diverge with a vengeance from the assumed approximations. This happens for weather models in a few days, for climate in a few years.
There is no solution in throwing millions for larger computers. The only way to model climate is by using tools of chaos and complexity, a vigorously expanding research topic from biology to physics. ( See the Tsonis et al work I have referenced several times in these threads).
In general, I agree that at the moment it is the money that is giving the momentum for cap and trade. A lot of people smell a lot of money down the pike and they will fight tooth and nail to get at it. They will not be bothered with the facts, which is what has brought on the current economic downfall too.

AEGeneral
January 27, 2009 9:46 pm

PPV (17:46:54) :
The problem is the media, and not the scientists. It was never the scientists. There have always been far far more sceptical scientists that believer scientists. The AGW hoax cannot and will not be exposed until people takle the media. And the only way this will happen if political parties have the guts to stand up and threaten criminal action against the editors and journalists who have deliberately created this hoax.

No, the only way you remove the media bias from the equation is to buy them out while they’re struggling financially. I have been screaming this to the masses on various forums on the internet since the Chicago Tribune declared bankruptcy. This is an unprecedented opportunity to seize control of the media right now.
There is no criminal case against the media. Never will be.
Craig (17:42:46) :
While I agree with the arguements in this article and personally derive great pleasure from calling global warming supporters alarmists and fear mongers, etc., I can’t help but cringe at the biased style of writing chosen by the author.

That was my initial reaction as well, although part of me thinks the writing style is irrelevant. If it doesn’t fit the agenda, the MSM won’t pick up the story.
If it’s green, it leads.

evanjones
Editor
January 27, 2009 9:52 pm

I don’t know what to do with that, except I believe there will be a public confrontation one day and some wag will offer a priceless comment and the warmists will be unable to answer for the guffaws. Then it will be truly over.
“Lights=0!”
(And the audience explodes with laughter.)

David Ball
January 27, 2009 9:53 pm

There will be a “tipping point”, just not the one Hansen had hoped for, ……”Brother, can you paradigm?” ( from the department of redundancy department) :^)

evanjones
Editor
January 27, 2009 9:55 pm

(My best joke was snipped from both WUWT and Climate Audit . . . in my own best interests I am sure.)

Just want truth...
January 27, 2009 9:55 pm

“REPLY: I’ve asked for it, and got a response sayimg they’ll get it to me tomorrow when they get to the office (assuming they can make it through the snow and ice there). – Anthony ”
It would be nice to see the original from the man himself. I looked around for it, didn’t turn it up.
Hope it’s here tomorrow.
Thanks,

Pamela Gray
January 27, 2009 9:57 pm

Since we are worried about our new President’s belief about global warming, I would like to say that better gas mileage is alright with me (that’s in the stimulus package). And better controls on pollution sources are a good thing. We used to have a coal stove in the ranch. The soot caked to the walls and inside the chimney. I imagine it caked to the inside of our lungs as well.
But more important, I would like to put in my two cents for banning men’s cologne. That stuff is worse than a three-day old chewed up cigar. And you could add commercial bathroom smell-dispensers to my list of banned substances. I did my part last week when I tore the dispenser off the wall of my favorite tavern and threw it in the garbage.

Ross
January 27, 2009 10:08 pm

Very interesting and informative article by Dr. Theon.
May we expect to see it on the front page of the NY Times any time soon – with 3″ BANNER headlines?
One can but hope.

E.M.Smith
Editor
January 27, 2009 10:10 pm

Hey Skipper (18:30:25) :
E.M. Smith:
You win the thread.
juan (19:11:51) :
E. M. Smith
Thank you for an explanation that we laymen can understand. Your example reminds me of Mark Twain’s comment that the coldest winter he ever lived through was a summer in San Francisco.

BLUSH!! Another ‘two-fer’ & Mentioned in the same breath as Twain!
I lived on a boat in SF bay for a couple of years. Any day of the year it can be 50F and dank. Finally sold the boat after mold ate a favorite WWII trench coat & a favorite book… (it would just randomly ‘take’ one object leaving the one next to it pristine. Very strange. Decided to move back ashore before I woke up moldy one day 😉
I’ve driven from SJC airport at 105F (50 miles south) to SF at 60F within 1 hour, then back to SJC and it was still 103F… So much for ‘local reference station method’ ! And I’ve been in SF when the fog rolls in and it drops 15F almost instantly.
FWIW, some long time ago I learned that ‘big words’ & jargon were handy some times, but mostly they hid more than they revealed. Shortly after that I learned that what they often hid was the ignorance or insecurity of the speaker.
Now I try to always reduce jargon and fluff and excessive vocabulary to the simplest residue of truth. It lets me keep a tidy mind (and it’s a lot easier to remember).
MC (19:32:19) :
I believe the reason Theon only now expresses his skeptisism is that he senses a social wave of non support for AGW. He senses that if he does not write about his true feelings he can be seen with egg on his face when the climate proves Hansen and Gore wrong. Distance and the truth is what he seeks to clear himself from the stupidity of manmade global warming.

I added a bit of bold.
Reminds me of the Sean Connery film “Rising Sun” “See how they distance themselves?” he says to kohai (Wesley Snipes) as the Japanese manager peer group and one level up in the board room physically move away from the ‘suspect’ who has brought loss of face to The Corporation…
What we are seeing is the beginning of ‘distancing themselves’. That his ex-boss has done it early now provides cover for anyone of lower rank and anyone higher up the food chain. One via an appeal to authority, they other through an appeal to new information… (“I never new until his ex-boss said so, or I would have said this sooner”) We will see ever more folks ‘distancing themselves’ … It can be as simple as saying “Gee, I have no opinion…” and the group near Hansen shrinks.

April E. Coggins
January 27, 2009 10:10 pm

Pamela: Are you really looking forward to Prius powered vehicles towing trailers down Rattlesnake Grade?

Ross
January 27, 2009 10:28 pm

A little OT.
I wanted to send a link to this article to the Whitehouse.
It seems that the comments@whitehouse.gov link has been removed from
The White House
If the link is still there I can’t find it.
Guess they grew tired of public feedback.

evanjones
Editor
January 27, 2009 10:35 pm

Colin McEvedy
Mac has always been one of my favorites.

January 27, 2009 10:43 pm

Robert Bateman (20:23:30) :
The new SC23 spot is just barely visible on a SOHO image […]
That makes 2 SC23’s in 1 month. Does this shoot a hole in SC24 minimum of Sept/0ct 08?

TSI may have begun its slow climb back up:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2006-now.png
The green curve is a quadratic fit. The green triangle [at day number 229 = Aug. 16th, 2008] ] marks the ‘minimum’ of the fitted curve.

deadwood
January 27, 2009 10:50 pm

Marc Moreno is more to blame for the caustic aftertaste of the article than Dr. Theron. He is better known for his eye gouging and poking than for his adherence to the finer rules of parliamentary decorum. Then again he is a staffer for a Republican from an oil state who might find it somewhat difficult to heard otherwise.
Drudge sometimes runs Moreno’s stories though. I suspect that Drudge is bit of a skeptic, so I’ll be watching. His showcase get pretty wide distribution.

VG
January 27, 2009 11:00 pm

Better make sure it’s a “certain” (“The letter”) before coming to more conclusions.. it could be a “plant” LOL. It appears to be quite genuine. I don’t think a US senator would post this unless it a was a certainty. Maybe someone should write directly to Dr Theon…
Maybe if warmist realized that the only quibble we have with them is the CO2 story. In most other environmental issues we probably see eye to eye (I do anyway). Too many people, too much concrete, plastic bags, waste, yes even pollution ect?

Flanagan
January 27, 2009 11:45 pm

I’m tired of all this… Has someone else noted that that the main “scientific” opposition to the AGW theory is made of op-eds and vague declarations?
I’m still waiting for a paper showing in a coherent and (loosely) proved way that something else could be responsible for the observed warming… Svensmark? He’s still spending his millions of public-funded euros to try and prove his theory, for which we don’t even know how much would be the impact on climate. Gerlich and Teuschner? Their 2-years old “paper” is still not published. So, what else?
In my opinion, the evolution of the American opinion is simply a proof that lobbying works..

Alex Llewelyn
January 27, 2009 11:55 pm

On an unrelated note, there’s another SC23 sunspot!
http://www.solarcycle24.com/

Roger Knights
January 27, 2009 11:56 pm

Grant Hodges: “I find that most people stand back from telling the truth or joining the fray if it might seriously cost them. … It is very lonely to take a stand while the outcome is still in doubt. I find most men are cowards.”
Everyone’s a hero–as long as it’s not High Noon.

Ron de Haan
January 27, 2009 11:59 pm

This is a surprising development, however it will not effect the current US Administration policies towards the UN AGW climate doctrine.
The United Nations have been building this doctrine for twenty years now and the current structure and network is gigantic.
It involves thousands of NGO’s, (many of them advising Governments all over the world on policies), Environmental organizations, Scientific Institutes and Universities Representatives of the doctrine now have taken position dominating complete political parties including the one that currently holds the US presidency which means that our current President is part this pact.
It is their objective to mitigate the “devastating” effects of a run away world population that thrives on the industrialized mass production made possible by the abundance in cheap fossil energy.
Because any burning of fossil fuels generates CO2 this innocent plant food has been qualified as a poisonous gas that is responsible for the greenhouse effect to cause a catastrophic warming of the earths atmosphere, melting the Poles and rising the sea level. In short, Humanity will be grilled and drowned unless…our political elite get total control over CO2 emissions, read your life.
The US presidential elections represented the final crucial stage of execution of the Global Warming Doctrine.
Now the “right man is in the right place” we will experience the full effects of the doctrine.
Unfortunately it will take a lot more than a retired NASA Boss turned skeptic and The Best Science Blog WUWT to counter this one.
So unless you are a passionate tree huger that loves to drive an eco box that only operates at room temperatures, you better get organized and hit the streets before some of the elected geniuses decides to flick the switch on the life you’re used to.
The mess they will cause on the road to create their “Green Utopia” will kill more people than all the Communist and Socialist Regimes put together.

Flanagan
January 28, 2009 12:12 am

Oh, yeah right, I almost forgot to mention that, in my opinion, J.S. Theon can call himself anything but a climate scientist. Well, I must say he published some papers…
In fact, 4 papers in the last 20 years. Including one abstract on aldehyde hydrocyanation, one book chapter where actually no science is discussed (“the status of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) is discussed in this chapter”), one named “My View of the Early History of TRMM” and finally one about the effect of turbulences on commercial aircrafts which has been cited… well, never over the last 18 years.
So, to me, with all due respect, J.S. Theon has so to say been scientifically inactive for the last 20 years at least. How can he proclaim himself a specialist in climate modelling? Is he the new “homme de la renaissance”? The typical knows-it-all?

Rhys Jaggar
January 28, 2009 12:15 am

Well
I guess President Obama has spoken on record as ‘being happy to listen to good ideas from wherever they may come’.
Is it perhaps time to put his words on record to the test and humbly request that a panel of some of the most eminent retired or soon-to-be-retired climatologists etc (the names in the article, including Simpson, Spencer, Christy et al) be allowed to explain, in simple layman’s terms, why AGW is, in the infamous words of Mrs Thatcher’s Press Secretary, the late Bernard Ingham, ‘bunkum and balderdash’?
At least then Obama wouldn’t be able to say that he hadn’t been given the benefit of dissenting views?
And he did, after all say in his inauguration address that ‘the US administration will respect science’. I think he was talking about Stem Cells, but I guess you might want to try Climate Science on him too?
IMHO

Lance
January 28, 2009 12:16 am

“In my opinion, the evolution of the American opinion is simply a proof that lobbying works..”
Though that may be true, I agree. And from my understanding we should leave all science behind and assimilate for the good. Your thinking is the epidamy of a ~snip~.
I will never be a part of your world.

Pete Stroud
January 28, 2009 12:38 am

This will never be reported by the BBC.

January 28, 2009 12:50 am

Flanagan
Catastrophic climate change is typified by the violent lurch upwards in temperature from -10C to +10C in fifty years immediately afteer the last ice age-within the time scale of human activity.
Unless you believe the sun is controlled by a giant thernmostat designed to keep us to exatly the same temperature, natural variability is all we currently are experiencing. The obserrved warming over the last 150 years is very minor, disappears when you look at periods even during the LIA -for example the early 1700’s, and todays values become negative when you examine the MWP, The Roman Warm periods and the Holocenes.
TonyB

January 28, 2009 12:59 am

I think it important we get confirmation this letter is real before making too much out of it.
If it is true it is a powerful weapon and perhaps ought to be fleshed out with Wirths admission that after choosing a hot day he turned off the A/C before Hansens congress hearing… and Hansens latest escapade in Britain defending vandals at Kingsnorth…hhis comments about deniers and the Nazis… and his belief about a 20 foot rise in sea levels in 90 years.
Hard to believe he’s an employee of the Amrican govt sometimes.
TonyB

Adam Gallon
January 28, 2009 1:05 am

“Jim Norvell (17:53:17) :
I can’t wait to read about this over at RC.
Jim N”
I’ll bet on a high level of censorship about this!
Perhaps Tamino will add another luminary to his list of the terminal stupid.

January 28, 2009 1:07 am

What observed warming?

Neil Crafter
January 28, 2009 1:10 am

Flanagan (23:45:52) :
I’m tired of all this… Has someone else noted that that the main “scientific” opposition to the AGW theory is made of op-eds and vague declarations?
I’m still waiting for a paper showing in a coherent and (loosely) proved way that something else could be responsible for the observed warming… ”
You’re tired of it? Poor darling. Spare a thought for those of us who have had Gore and Hansen’s doomsday pronouncements stuffed down our throats. Well I’m still waiting for the paper that proves its CO2 and it does the warming its supposed to. Is there one? And not a computer model either. As its your theory, you have to prove it, not the other way round. Assume its all natural processes first and foremost.

Brendan H
January 28, 2009 1:37 am

“NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.”
Translation: unknown retired old guy disses famous scientist. Sorry people. This ain’t news. News needs an issue and authorised spokespeople, not just a disagreement.
The rest of this so-called ‘press release’ is a standard rehash of Imhofe’s staffers’ usual prolix bilge. The technique is to make a grand announcement that someone disagrees with AGW, then attempt to give the announcement credibility by throwing in everything including the kitchen sink, hoping something will stick.
This is not journalism. It’s just cutting and pasting. If anyone wants to get excited about this sort of non-story, best to do so in the privacy of their own home. Whooping and hollering in public just looks silly and smacks of desperation.

Pierre Gosselin
January 28, 2009 1:46 am

This is something we have to see a lot more of.
Scientists, free from intimidation, coming out and telling us what they really think.
It’s high time that we stand up to the intellectual thuggery, smearing and intimidation practiced by the alarmists.
They all ought to step forward at the upcoming NIPCC Convention.

Phillip Bratby
January 28, 2009 2:05 am

Flanagan:
I too am tired of all the AGW theory touted by publicly funded folk with a vested interest and others with a massive financial interest.
I am waiting for all these climate scientists with their wonderful theories and models to explain how the Medieval Warm Period and all the other climate optima are dut to carbon dioxide.
But there is no evidence for carbon dioxide driving any warming we may have had and computer models are GIGO.

Neven
January 28, 2009 2:25 am

quote: I’m tired of all this… Has someone else noted that that the main “scientific” oppositon to the AGW theory is made of op-eds and vague declarations?
I totally agree with this. I said a while ago that I hold great expectations for WUWT in the AGW debate but if it cannot go beyond the level of acting as Morano’s mouthpiece all its momentum (increasing amount of visitors, Best Science Blog Award) will be lost.
If you want to be serving the skeptic side of the argument you have to steer well clear of Inhofe’s blog, as at least 90% on it doesn’t hold up under closer scrutiny. For instance, I researched quite a few people on those lists of scientists myself and found out things that totally killed any credibility the list had for me.
Now, the way I see it is that the good skeptics have to start distancing themselves from the bad and incompetent skeptics. For when some renewed warming kicks in or the Arctic Sea Ice hits a new bottom their voice will sink because of all the excess weight from the incompetent or dishonest skeptics. But I believe a good skeptic voice is needed to combat the nefarious consequences of AGW mitigation, such as biofuels and emission trading.
I personally believe that AGW is real and even underestimated, so the parties that try to cash in on AGW must be stopped. With all the money already thrown at saving failing banks/car manufacturers and killing American soldiers/Iraqi civilians we cannot afford criminal profiteers taking advantage of AGW. There are actually measures that help mitigate AGW AND increase energy independence AND reduce pollution at the same time. It’s these measures that need to be promoted the most, irrespective of AGW being a reality or not.
So Anthony, please be very careful what stories you reproduce. Otherwise I fear you may be digging a hole for the side of the skeptic argument that has something useful to contribute. Better not to post anything for a few days than to reproduce unsubstantiated nonsense, that in the worst case might even be deliberate misinformation (of which I highly suspect Morano’s efforts).

Stefan
January 28, 2009 2:25 am

Flanagan wrote:
I’m tired of all this… Has someone else noted that that the main “scientific” opposition to the AGW theory is made of op-eds and vague declarations?
I’m still waiting for a paper showing in a coherent and (loosely) proved way that something else could be responsible for the observed warming

One doesn’t require a competing scientific theory if AGW was never a good theory nor good science in the first place.
Without any good theory grounded in good science, the simple answer is to what is causing the warming is, we don’t know.
Better to know you don’t know than to believe wrongly that you know.

January 28, 2009 2:30 am

Flanagan
As soon as you produce a body of work that proves that AGW is loosely proven, the AGW theory has had over 20 years of data to compare to its predictions, how is it doing so far? Well 10 of those years just refuse to behave…
The IPCC did not do any science they only presented their opinion. Kinda like a technical Op-Ed.
Perhaps you should look-up lobbyist, it has nothing to do with American Public Opinion it actually has to do with elected officials and special interests, and we know what way they are leaning! The Environmental lobby is twice the size of most groups. The government gives more assets (Public Money) to environmental groups than any other, in the form of financing, grants, endowments, land trusts titles, regulation enforcement, prosecution and special injunctions.
More money has been lost in US manufacturing industries due to environmental issues than any other, including labour. That is why CA is trying to get exemptions to get infrastructure spending rolling. Did you know it takes less than 5 years to plan and build a transit train route, but takes almost 7 years for environmental approval.
The environmental lobby is one of the most powerful forces in western government(s) it is the same in Canada and the EU.
Sierra Club ( just one group, search the database for your favorites )

January 28, 2009 2:35 am
John Philip
January 28, 2009 2:37 am

I was dismayed when the ‘debate’ began to get politicised, now I am doubly so as it is clear that some wish to push it past the political and into the personal.
If anyone has earned the right to have a Press Release treated with extreme caution it is surely Mr Morano in whose universe, when it suits his purposes, the presenter of a TV gardening show is a member of the set of ‘prominent scientists’.
But let us assume we are being told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. The timeframe is interesting – when exactly did Dr Hansen ‘embarrass’ the agency? Dr Theon is apparently referring to Dr Hansen’s Congress testimony over two decades ago. Not exactly breaking news then. Given the startlingly good record of the temperature projections presented on that occasion, I speculate that many climatologists would give their right arm for such ‘embarrassment.’
And most of Dr Hansen’s complaints about NASA censorship actually date from around 2005 onwards, at least a decade after Dr Theon left his position.
I do not doubt Dr Theon’s sincerity and I respect his experience and qualifications, and his decision to voice his views, nor do I question that he is keeping his expertise up to date by reading the academic journals and other literature, however while he is reading papers on the latest climate science, Dr Hansen is writing them. While Dr Theon is writing pieces for the AMS about his time at NASA, the same august body, who one would assume are equally aware of the current state of the science, recently awarded the good Doctor their highest honour.
Fascinating.

The Skeptic
January 28, 2009 2:57 am

Flanagan, the point is we just don’t know enough about how this highly complex system works to give definitive answers.
Catastrophic AGW is just a speculative hypothesis with lots of dollars, media hype and government support. Therefore, on that basis along it is taken as fact to by many people.
Therefore, all other attempts to explain a highly complex natural system are, by nature going to be incomplete, and will require lots of support and further research before anything definitive can be said. But they are in for a hard road with a lot of obstructions.
The best we can say is that there are some speculative models about how the whole system works and is driven (long term). But unfortunately, those that control the money have the power to pass speculation as fact, and undermine competing views.

stephen richards
January 28, 2009 2:58 am

Look at it the other way, Mr Flanagan.
Where is the proof that the GW is ma

stephen richards
January 28, 2009 2:59 am

I’ll try that again
Mr Flanagan, where is the proof that GW is man made?? Only the data issueing forth from the Hockey team supports it, et alors ???

bigcitylib
January 28, 2009 2:59 am

1) Retired 15 years ago.
2) His real work (papers) stop around that time as well.
3) Was “in effect” Hansen’s superviser, presumably in contrast to “in reality”.
4) Has absolutely no first hand knowledge of the Bush years, or whether or not Hansen was muzzled.
[snip, BCL stop the childish commentary. Your only purpose is to troll. BTW how is that bigfoot research coming along? Any new photos or radio shows? – Cheers Anthony]

January 28, 2009 3:20 am

John Philip, did it occur to you that Dr. Theon, like more and more people in the scientific community, has become so fed up with the claims that the unmeasurably small effect of CO2 on temperature [which may, in fact, be a negative forcing], that he finally decided to say something? And this isn’t just another scientist joining the swelling ranks of those questioning Hansen’s unleashed attacks on anyone who questions catastrophic AGW. This is Hansen’s former superior.
Hansen spouts his version of reality all the time to anyone who will listen — then runs and hides out from any questioning himself. Is no one else allowed to respond, without instant attacks from the warmist contingent? Can’t you people just respond to the merits, instead of nitpicking issues like the amount of time since Dr. Theon retired, or by demanding that a supervisor in charge of dozens of other scientists must also continue doing personal research and writing papers? That is not how the real world works.
The fact that Hansen has complained, with a straight face, that he has been “muzzled” by the Bush Administration when he gave some 1400 interviews to the press and others says something about his non-existent veracity. That is a fact that goes directly to Hansen’s credibility.
You are more rational and civil than many of Hansen’s supporters, John. Don’t you have problems with the situation he has created for himself?

Flanagan
January 28, 2009 3:58 am

Well, to all:
I can give tens of references showing that the increase in temperatures is above natural variability. The Medieval warm period has nothing to do with that… And noone ever said CO2 is the only factor affecting climate!
I’m a bit surprised by the claims that “there’s no proof” that CO2 is causing the observed warming. What would you consider a proof? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that it absorbs and reemits IR? That the troposphere is warming more rapidly than the upper layers of the atmosphere? Numbers about the amount of energy CO2 is capable of reinjecting back? This is all given in the IPCC ARs and in many independent publications.
On top of that it is also almost certain that the CO2 released by ocean warming in the past (you know, the 800 years delay) accelerated the warming through the greenhouse effect…
So what do you need?

January 28, 2009 4:03 am

I’d like to second Craig’s comment re the use of hyperbole in our dialog. I have been told by objective bystanders listening to my debate with Alarmist that I immediately lose credibility when resort to hyperbole. If you ever saw the play or movie West Side Story remember the song “Keep Cool”. Bringing it to mind helps.
Craig, if you read this check me out on Twitter – TheSlyFox

January 28, 2009 4:12 am

Craig (17:42:46) I agree completely. for my part I am guilty of name calling amongst parts of my criticism of the AGW proponents. We on the logical and scientific side of the argument MUST let time and real science settle this, one way or the other.
I think if nothing else, this debunking of Hansen et al, by his former supervisor will, (or should) utterly finish, destroy and kill off the absurd notion of consensus within the serious and relevant scientific community about AGW.
There are serious and decent eminent scientists, specialising in climate sciences (atmospheric, oceanographic, geological etc) that agree with AND others within that same community that vehemently dispute the AGW thesis.
I think my last paragraph sums up one of the few facts that we ALL should be able to agree with. There is NO scientific consensus.

January 28, 2009 4:14 am

Flanagan said:

I’m a bit surprised by the claims that “there’s no proof” that CO2 is causing the observed warming.

There’s not much argument that CO2 has a slight effect on temperatures, in theory. But to claim that CO2 ‘is causing the observed warming’ is contradicted by by the facts: click
It is increasingly apparent that any effect on the temperature by CO2 is so tiny that many other factors overwhelm it. On balance, the effect of CO2 on life on Earth is so beneficial that the planet needs much more of this highly desirable trace gas, not less.

January 28, 2009 4:16 am

Flanagan: “On top of that it is also almost certain that the CO2 released by ocean warming in the past (you know, the 800 years delay) accelerated the warming through the greenhouse effect…
So what do you need?”
How about one example of an IPCC computer projection based on the computerised climate models that accurately predicted the earth cooling? Or even any model that with the same raw data, manages to model the cooling in spite of continuing increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2….Just for a start? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Sophie
January 28, 2009 4:26 am

Let us be clear that what drives the AGW mantra in statutory quarters is not climate concern but, in the EU anyway, the intention to minimise dependence on fuel imports from ‘unstable’ or ‘unreliable ‘ neighbours. In the UK it is now not uncommon to hear senior politicians discussing ‘security’ of supply amongst the major drivers for renewable energy strategies, while GW is tagged in only at the end …’Oh yes, and our environmental targets, ahem’.
Accordingly the outlandish claims made by AGW campaigners and energy developers are allowed to pass unchallenged even when the evidence is to the contrary because it serves the governments purposes to have the like of Gore and the environmental lobby whipping up hysteria. Ignoring the critics conveniently leaves the impression that the criticism was unfounded.
Meanwhile a multi-trillion dollar industry in carbon trading and renewable energy develops, which is actually achieving virtually nothing in terms of reducing carbon emissions. In fact, despite the alleged ‘fact’ that AGW is going to trigger a global catastrophe in near future, there is absolutely no evidence, if you look carefully, of any meaningful global effort to reduce emissions, within the timescale which is apparently required.
What we see is the birth of a new economy, which truly is based on hot air, which effectively imposes further taxes consumers and industry, and in the long term will probably make the sub-prime fiasco look like a tea party. The major problem, as with sub-prime, is that while interested parties cash in to the tune of billions there is no incentive for anyone to listen to reason, including our politicians.

Flanagan
January 28, 2009 4:27 am

Smokey:
Alas, typical… So where’s the scientific publication asserting that the role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect is “tiny”. Looking at a graphic is not science. Moreover, and this is quite funny, both the CO2 and temperature increase in your graph. What is the problem? The lines are not parallel? I’m sure we can arrange that we proper rescaling if you want. But actually it makes no point.

Denis Hopkins
January 28, 2009 4:27 am

OT
I have read somewhere that all the frequencies of em spectrum that are absorbed by CO2 are already being absorbed in the atmosphere and that any extra CO2 cannot absorb any more at these frequencies as all the energy is already being absorbed. Is this true does anyone know?
I should have thought if it were true that more would have been made of it in the arguments about greenhouse gases.

Robert
January 28, 2009 4:30 am

I found this at Bad Astronomy, The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science
http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm

Raven
January 28, 2009 4:45 am

Flanagen says:
“I’m a bit surprised by the claims that “there’s no proof” that CO2 is causing the observed warming. What would you consider a proof? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that it absorbs and reemits IR?”
CO2 is a GHG – so what? The AGW rests on the argument that the climate system is dominated by positive feedbacks and a small CO2 induced warming will result in a large change in climate. There is no proof of that claim.
So what you need to provide is proof that these net positive feedbacks exist and the only way to do that is with experimentation. i.e. make a prediction and verify that the prediction can true.
Unfortunately, we cannot conduct these kinds of experiments in a lab so we really have no option but to wait and see. So far, the evidence collected since the last batch of IPCC models strongly suggests that these positive feedbacks do not exist and the effect of CO2 is much less than claimed. Obviously we are in the grey area right now and we cannot rule out the possibility that the climate models are still correct despite the cooling trend.

Robert Bateman
January 28, 2009 4:46 am

Ken Hall (04:12:48) :
I think my last paragraph sums up one of the few facts that we ALL should be able to agree with. There is NO scientific consensus.

That is correct. Debate rages with the same ferocity as the ice storms sweeping across the heartland toward the East Coast, snapping power line, downing trees, crashing airplanes & wrecking cars.
Only, one side is trying to commandeer the public while at the same time getting political ears to propose thier corrective measures. Claiming 1000 yrs for the Earth to clean out the evil C02 and seeking the green light to implement Doomsday Measures. When it all goes wrong, what will they then do?

January 28, 2009 4:50 am

Flanagan said;
” I can give tens of references showing that the increase in temperatures is above natural variability. The Medieval warm period has nothing to do with that… And noone ever said CO2 is the only factor affecting climate!”
Please give your references and clarify why the MWP has nothing to do with that.
TonyB

January 28, 2009 4:57 am

Flanagan (23:45:52) :
I’m tired of all this… Has someone else noted that that the main “scientific” opposition to the AGW theory is made of op-eds and vague declarations?
I’m still waiting for a paper showing in a coherent and (loosely) proved way that something else could be responsible for the observed warming…

I’m still waiting for the proof that the AGW theory you are promoting is shown in a choerent and proven way that is responsible for the obeserved warming. I think that there is still a lot of science to be done on this subject to identify and disqualify the theoretical drivers of the climate systems.
Whilst I currently sit firmly on the sceptic side, I am open to suggestions of human induced drivers, but they must be clear, coherent and sufficient enough to disqualify natural drivers. An open mind is currently the correct mind set to have, in my opinion.

Don L
January 28, 2009 4:59 am

This poor and honest soul will be relegated to spend his dying days in the Arctic with a thermometer and a (frozen) ball point pen.
The battle is over folks -they have propagandized sufficiently to alarm the masses raised on Captain Planet and Bambi to bring about the control of people and the loss of US sovereignity. Obamination will use it to force us into international submission.

Nigel Calder
January 28, 2009 5:02 am

Flanagan says:
“I’m still waiting for a paper showing in a coherent and (loosely) proved way that something else could be responsible for the observed warming… Svensmark? He’s still spending his millions of public-funded euros to try and prove his theory, for which we don’t even know how much would be the impact on climate.”
The Svensmark effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover is sufficient to explain all the warming of the 20th Century, and also the mid-century cooling and the present flatterning. This theory is not just coherent but tightly verified and it is far more secure scientifically than the AGW models.
Here are the main references.
Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, ‘Variation of Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Cloud Coverage – a Missing Link in Solar–Climate Relationships’, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol. 59, pp. 1225–32, 1997
Henrik Svensmark, ‘Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth’s Climate,’ Physical Review Letters, Vol. 81, pp. 5027–30, 1998
Nigel Marsh and Henrik Svensmark, ‘Low Cloud Properties Influenced by Cosmic Rays’, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 85, pp. 5004–07, 2000
Nigel Marsh and Henrik Svensmark, ‘Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate’, Space Science Review, Vol. 94, pp. 215–30, 2000
Henrik Svensmark, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Nigel Marsh, Martin Enghoff and Ulrik Uggerhøj, ‘Experimental Evidence for the Role of Ions in Particle Nucleation under Atmospheric Conditions’, Proceedings of the Royal Society A, Vol. 463, pp. 385–96, 2007 (released online 2006)
Henrik Svensmark, ‘Imprint of Galactic Dynamics on Earth’s Climate’, Astronomische Nachrichten, Vol. 327, pp. 866–70, 2006
Henrik Svensmark, ‘Cosmic Rays and the Biosphere over 4 Billion Years’, Astronomische Nachrichten, Vol. 327, pp. 871–5, 2006
Henrik Svensmark, ‘The Antarctic Climate Anomaly Explained by Galactic Cosmic Rays’, eprint http://arxiv. org/abs/physics/0612145, 2006
Henrik Svensmark, ‘Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges’, Astronomy and Geophysics, Royal Astronomical Society, London, Vol. 48, Issue 1, 2007
Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, ‘Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The Persistent Role of the Sun in Climate Forcing’, Danish National Space Center
Scientific Report, 3/2007, September 2007
Other papers are pending. There is also a plain-language book:
Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder,: The Chilling Stars, Icon Books (Totem in USA) 2007, updated edition 2008
Flanagan’s remark about “millions of public-funded euros” is inept. Svensmark has had very little public funding and has had a ten-year battle to keep his very small team going.

old construction worker
January 28, 2009 5:03 am

E.M.Smith (22:10:47) :
‘I’ve driven from SJC airport at 105F (50 miles south) to SF at 60F within 1 hour, then back to SJC and it was still 103F… So much for ‘local reference station method’ ! And I’ve been in SF when the fog rolls in and it drops 15F almost instantly.’
And yet alarmists want us to believe water vapor is a postive feedback to “heat”.
Is there any place in nature where water vapor is a positive feedback to “heat”?
Why do crop pickers in the Southwest, US wear a couple of layers of clothing?
What happens if we stop sweating while working in the “heat”?
Why would nature change her game plan when it comes to the heating and cooling the earth?

Editor
January 28, 2009 5:11 am

Flanagan (00:12:22) :

Oh, yeah right, I almost forgot to mention that, in my opinion, J.S. Theon can call himself anything but a climate scientist.

If Anthony limited discussion here only to people who are published scientists who are willing to use their full name would we have to listen to you?
It doesn’t take another astrophysicist to realize that Hansen is an embarrassment. A backfilling algorithm that adjusts decades-old data each month makes it difficult to reproduce GISSTemp studies. Testimony to congress over the inpending catastrophe ignores his own data that currently shows the temperature fell between June 1988 and 2008 is irresponsible. Testifying in defense of Pamela Gray’s recent ecoterrorism on a restroom air freshener is simply made up.
——
Congrats on passing the 8,000,000 hit count!

J.Hansford.
January 28, 2009 5:11 am

Flanagan…….. You got all backwards and inside out with you Tropical Troposphere example there mate.
You said. “That the troposphere is warming more rapidly than the upper layers of the atmosphere?” …. You got it wrong. The TT is supposed to warm at a faster rate than the surface.
The AGW hypothesis is based on modeling that shows that the TT was supposed to warm at twice the rate of surface temperature change…. However, that is not what is observed….
A recent study tried to use windshear as a measurement for temp in the TT, which was grasped at by the AGW proponents, for it offered a possibility of re-explaining the low temps that were observed by both satellites and radiosondes…. However this study, http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-342.pdf
shows that, that is not the case. Dr Pielke Sr says this…. “In our paper we examine evidence for this conclusion from a variety of directions and find that evidence for a significant tropical tropospheric warming is weak.”
There is no smoking gun that shows that CO2 is causing significant warming….. Indeed, Global Temperature as defined by the IPCC, has been static or cooling for over Ten years.
Climate Audit has a good thread going on TT trends at the moment too.

January 28, 2009 5:15 am

PPV – “The problem is the media, and not the scientists. It was never the scientists. There have always been far far more sceptical scientists that believer scientists…”
It is the media plus … this is a complex social phenomenon, the “scare phenomenon”. It relies of a closed loop between advocates (pushers) politicians and the media. The pushers feed the message in, it is picked up by the media, the politicians respond to the media, the media reports the politicians, the pushers respond to that media, and the polticians then respond to the media, which is then again reported in a continous cycle.
The public, in the scare dynamic, is always the spectator, not allowed into the cycle – for them, the scare is a spectator sport.
This is why science and “being right” is not enough. The truth will not prevail of its own accord. You have to understand that the scare phenomenon has its own dynamics and rules. To defeat it, you have to break the cycle.

Pearland Aggie
January 28, 2009 5:17 am
hunter
January 28, 2009 5:28 am

Flanagan,
The fact that there has never been a run away greenhouse effect is a pretty good falsification of AGW.
The fact that not one of the AGW community’s predictions have come true is pretty good falsification.
The fact that there is not ‘troposphere hotspot’ as predicted by the aGW community is pretty good evidence.
The fact that the AGW promotion industry has to constantly rewrite history of climate and their own predictions in order to maintain the level of fear.
The very fact that AGW process is based on fear of an apocalypse should, in the normal course of events, show that its promoters are not rational.

old construction worker
January 28, 2009 5:29 am

BTW, I got a lot of white condensed “positive feedback water vapor” falling on my drive way right now (we are expecting 12” of the stuff) on top of the clear hard “positive feedback water vapor” that came down last night. The body shops are going to be very busy.

Joel Shore
January 28, 2009 5:34 am

Smokey says:

There’s not much argument that CO2 has a slight effect on temperatures, in theory. But to claim that CO2 ‘is causing the observed warming’ is contradicted by by the facts: click

Yup…That graph shows quite strong evidence that the transient climate response for doubling CO2 is not around 9 C. Of course, since the IPCC estimate is that it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 C, I am not sure exactly who you think you are arguing against.

Bernard
January 28, 2009 5:38 am

How many read this low down the page?
Why didn’t Dr. Theon denounce Obama while he was still active at NASA?
Despite the growing evidence against AGW, with Barak Obama now in power, it appears the US is about to commit another major economic blunder, by implementing a series of actions to fight AGW. Cap-and-trade will be the worst, with brokers taking commisions on so-called “carbon” transactions. Of course, sophisticated financial products will have to be put in place to hedge against risk… Sounds familiar?
“Money for nothing”, as the Dire Straits song goes. Money that could be spent on solving real problems.

Richard111
January 28, 2009 5:40 am

Why do people talk about CO2 as though it is a heat reflector? CO2 can absorb long wave energy and reradiate it, no question. But it radiates in all directions, up and down and horizantally. Horizantal radiation cancels out leaving up or down, these two paths have to be equal, therefore CO2 can only reradiate HALF the energy it absorbed back to the surface. Also CO2 can only absorb 8% of the available energy radiated from the surface, thus only 4% of the available energy could possibly be reradiated back to the surface.
Stand outside any where on the planet on a clear calm evening and note how rapidly the temperature drops as the night passes.

Brute
January 28, 2009 5:50 am

Smokey,
Nice graph. I like to compare your graph with this one when attempting to “reason” with an eco-chondriac.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/WATTSSOLAR1.jpg

terry46
January 28, 2009 5:55 am

How many of you think we will see this very informative report on the news ?In my opinion the only news organization that may touch this is Fox News.

Garacka
January 28, 2009 5:56 am

My sense is that Theon was stifled in taking action because, NASA had been politically cornered.
Hansen was brilliant in publicly saying he had been muzzled, because any disciplinary actions against him by NASA would then “validate” his contention of being muzzled.

YourWiseUncleRick
January 28, 2009 5:56 am

We have a situation. Common sense – and for some time- reputable scientists have been telling us that this global warming/cooling is natures way. We’re but ants on an acre, something the enviro’s can not grasp. The main point is this, however: this fellow Hansen, and ex VP Gore have cried Fire in a crowded theatre and punishment is due, jail time at the very least.

Allen63
January 28, 2009 6:03 am

Being a retired NASA scientist (among other things), I can relate.
Fresh out of school, my first research area was a dead end. Being new, I did not figure that out for a long time.
I was part of a team, we produced peer reviewed reports, we were considered world experts, and it was exciting. The team (including me) and our managers argued for funding every year which we got — even though some NASA Headquarters folks were “skeptical” of our research.
Finally, I figured out that we were “barking up the wrong tree” — but others on the team remained convinced regarding the value of the research. I did not attempt to “blow whistles”. I merely transferred to another department and continued my career (in what turned out to be a very satisfactory way).
The research continued for over a decade after I left. Ultimately, the research area was a “dead end” and not one dime of value was returned to the taxpayers. What was worse, I thought, was the wasted careers for those who kept on after I left.
So, nothing in the “revelations” surprise me. Sounds like business as usual. That is, people of good intent at all levels in the organization have difficulty recognizing/admitting failure and hesitate to say “no”.

dhogaza
January 28, 2009 6:08 am

If Dr Theon knew what Hansen was doing was wrong, why didn’t he stop Hansen?

Because he retired FIFTEEN YEARS AGO and was never Hansen’s boss.
Regarding his claim that Hansen was “never muzzled”, this was confirmed by independent investigation and Theon was no where near NASA at the time and in no position to judge.
Regarding his claim that some climate scientists are guilty of scientific fraud because they change data to fit models, well, he needs to provide some solid evidence of this serious charge. After he stops beating his wife.

Lichanos
January 28, 2009 6:08 am

For those who see this controversy as a battle between GOOD and EVIL, with the “doubters” on the side of GOOD, I say only, “Calm down.” Recall the obstacles facing the AGW crowd – this is why they tend to get hysterical. They feel that’s the only way they can get anything done. I, as a political super liberal, feel comforted by the built-in conservatism of society in this case!
Fads in science and social policy can do damage, but I fear little in this instance. Some bad policy may go into effect, but if the critics continue their good work, and as weather records continue their natural, changing course, the AGW crowd will loose steam. My prediction is that ten or fifteen years from now, people will be writing Ph. D. dissertaions on AGW as an example of science and public policy gone bad.
John A: nice story about Nikita, but what’s the point?

old construction worker
January 28, 2009 6:14 am

April E. Coggins (22:10:49) :
‘Pamela: Are you really looking forward to Prius powered vehicles towing trailers down Rattlesnake Grade?’
That can be done with the right type of wheel motors that can be swtiched to generators which could produce enough Eddy currents to make the vehicle safe for towing.

Allen63
January 28, 2009 6:21 am

P.S. to my above post
In another parallel, the manager of our team was very forceful. He “believed”. He definitely skewed things at times to meet his biases. It was he who kept the research area alive. Reminds me of what Hansen may be doing — except Hansen has a lot more folks than the research team on board his train.

stephen richards
January 28, 2009 6:26 am

Flanagan
You are ommiting to look at the origin of the data you are using. IE GCMs, NASA adjustments, poor quality surface stations, etc Then look at the Climate audit site to study the invented statistics and you will see why we suggest that the science supporting CO² GW is weak.
We all ackowledge that CO² has the potential to warm BUT 0.04% ? and it is ‘highly likely’ (IPCC terms) that water vapor has a much larger affect and there is little science at the moment, other than from the playstation mob, to support the effects promoted by the hockey team and its supporters.
Being a physicist, I know about the absorption spectrum of CO² but I also know that of H²O. I suggest you review them, do the appropriate calculations and then think about the results.

Steve M.
January 28, 2009 6:28 am

OT, maybe: From the MET office website regarding HARCRUT3:
“We have recently changed the way that the smoothed time series of data were calculated. Data for 2008 were being used in the smoothing process as if they represented an accurate esimate of the year as a whole. This is not the case and owing to the unusually cool global average temperature in January 2008, it looked as though smoothed global average temperatures had dropped markedly in recent years, which is misleading.”
Am I missing something? They have to change their process because January 2008 was “unusually cool.” And I thought HARCRUT might have better data than GISS.

Mark
January 28, 2009 6:36 am

I can only hope that something like this gets the attention of Obama such that he at least takes the time to listen to his reasons why he’s now a skeptic.
Given that his ‘energy czar’ belonged to Socialist International’s ‘Commission for a Sustainable Society’ which called for global governance and for the US to reduce our economy, I’m not holding my breath.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/

Bruce Cobb
January 28, 2009 6:37 am

I hope Dr. Theon realizes that he has now joined with “climate criminals”, “traitors”, “blasphemers, people who are committing “intergenerational crimes” and “terracide”, and generally “bastards” who are “members of the global warming denial industry”, for whom there should be “Nuremberg-style trials”. Obviously, he’s in the pay of “Big Oil” and “Big Coal”, but sleeping at night could be a problem. Sarc/off
The AGW fraud is being exposed, the house of cards is collapsing, and those who can and who are smart enough are getting out while the getting is still good. The MSM though, still either don’t seem to get it, or simply want to keep the AGW fraud alive for as long as they can; probably a bit of both.
Craig: Time, science and history will ultimately settle the score.
Perhaps. The problem is that the AGW machine, although in trouble, is still in place, and capable of doing a great deal of harm. There is both a scientific as well as political side to this. But, it should be pointed out, it is the AGW industry which created the political side, most notably with the UN’s IPCC. Furthermore, the politics go far beyond the usual liberal vs conservative type of debate, since it’s been pointed out numerous times that many liberals and/or Democrats are skeptics
or climate realists. This issue actually encompasses truth vs lies, science vs pseudo-scientific propaganda, and freedom vs authoritarianism.
Given what is at stake here, is there any wonder people’s emotions run high at times? Indeed, one would have to be a robot to NOT be passionate about this.

January 28, 2009 6:49 am

Wowfail:

How the hell did this blog win best science blog? Epic epic fail

WUWT won Best Science blog because folks like you are in a small minority. Who is really the epic failure?
Congrats, Anthony, on surpassing 8 million hits!

Sven
January 28, 2009 6:54 am

Re: Steve M. 06:28:05
Where did you find that statement? I can’t see this.
I was wondering for quite some time why Metoffice has not renewed their graphs, some from November, some even from April 2008. I sent hem an e-mail yesterday asking about that and got a reply that it was forwarded to some specialists who would get back to me. Nothing so far apart from the fact that they have (interestingly soon after my mail?!) replaced the year 2007 with 2008 without redrawing the graphs (that still show only 2007 with 0.4C anomaly as the end) themselves at
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcrut3.html
and these plots still end with Nov. 2008
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/temperatures.html
Metoffice used to redraw the graphs simultaneously with new data coming in and it seems to me that they are uncomfortable showing the picture of temps going visibly dow. Reading what you just posted, it really seems to be the case – they are sitting and thing about what to do? Sounds like a conspiracy theory but…?

Flanagan
January 28, 2009 6:57 am

about the feedback : as the troposphere gets hotter, the water vapor pressure increases (this is known for, well, centuries) which means more water can be stored in the same space. Now, satellite measurements exist since the mid 80s that prove that a more humid atmosphere strongly increases the Greenhouse effect (a paper in Nature, I can find it if you like).
So basically, the first and most important feedback is already observed.

John Philip
January 28, 2009 6:58 am

Smokey
John Philip, did it occur to you that Dr. Theon, like more and more people in the scientific community, has become so fed up with the claims that the unmeasurably small effect of CO2 on temperature [which may, in fact, be a negative forcing], that he finally decided to say something?
What evidence is there that Dr Theon holds that view? His issue, as reported, is with the reliability of models as predictive tools. As for the views of the scientific community at large, I refer you to the two surveys recently discussed hereabouts showing a substantial majority (97% among climate scientists) who hold the view that human activity is a significant driver of global temperature change.
Nobody seriously disputes that greenhouse gas concentrations have been increased by human activity. The size of the resultant radiative forcing is actually quite well-quantified, within an uncertainty of about 5%. The question with perhaps the highest uncertainty is by how much this increased forcing will increase the global temperature. Here the published estimates cluster around a value of 3C for a doubling of CO2. Personally I steer clear of the emotive word ‘catastrophic’, [though one could argue that it was an individual catastrophe for those already killed] and you will not find it in any IPCC document either, however such a rapid change in global temperatures is almost certainly unprecedented in the history of civilisation. The human price notwithstanding, the financial costs have been quantified by Stern, Garnaud, Yohe and others and all agree that a combination of mitigation and adaptation produces a large positive benefit-cost ratio.
You are convinced that Hansen has the science wrong. His political views are informed by his research which is peer-reviewed and published in the academic literature.
I would point especially to the ‘Target CO2’ and ‘Trace Gases’ papers. Perhaps you could explain exactly where he is mistaken, or point to other papers that demonstrate his errors? From one standpoint, there’s a danger that the prominence given to a long-retired academic who might have managed Dr Hansen a decade and a half ago, and the torturing of a single sentence from his bio beyond all reason will appear like a tacit admission of an inability to put a dent in the hard science.
Over to you.

Alex
January 28, 2009 6:58 am

hectic post!!
A new Cycle 23 region has grown! 🙂 I was going to comment about a tiny cy 23 area that popped up 2 days ago but I forgot… well it looks like it might fetch a number soon..
This reminds me of the whole dogma and mysticism surrounding the number 23… solar cycle 23 seems to be proof of this 🙂

January 28, 2009 7:08 am
colion
January 28, 2009 7:08 am

Methinks that there is a fire in the temple.

Sven
January 28, 2009 7:12 am

sorry for all the typos. I should really check before hitting the submit button

Layman Lurker
January 28, 2009 7:14 am

bigcitylib:
1) & 2) Therefore what? He is no longer capable of critcal thinking?
3) Not sure why this even matters, but what point are you making…Dr. Hansen was actually independant of Dr. Theon?
4) Not first hand maybe but certainly not limited to water cooler gossip. Woodward and Bernstein had no first hand knowledge of Watergate either.

Frank K.
January 28, 2009 7:14 am

This is the real “smoking gun” here…a profound commentary on climate models:

Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.

And in the case of Hansen’s group at GISS, we really even don’t know what their climate models are doing because they apparently don’t know how to document their numerical models adequately, be it Model E, GISTEMP,…sad, but true…

AEGeneral
January 28, 2009 7:17 am

Richard North (05:15:07) :
This is why science and “being right” is not enough. The truth will not prevail of its own accord. You have to understand that the scare phenomenon has its own dynamics and rules. To defeat it, you have to break the cycle.

This cannot be stated too many times.
Whether anyone likes it or not, the cultural & political elements of this have to be confronted as well.
For crying out loud, they’re targeting my 2-year-old on Noggin now. Scientific evidence to the contrary isn’t going to stop Moose & Zee’s new “Eco-Rangers” gig.

Sven
January 28, 2009 7:19 am

Re: myself 06:54:05
OK I found the Metoffice statement:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
It seems that, in order not to show cooling, they have just not used the 2008 data for the smoothing at all?
And the grapphs I was referring to earlier still are not up to date

January 28, 2009 7:22 am

Unfortunately the stench rises much higher than Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen. The Space Studies Board (SSB) supervises NASA, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reviews budget recommendations for NASA, NSF, DOE, etc., and Congress allocates their funds beginning with the Appropriations Committee of US House of Representatives.
I had the “pleasure” of seeing this system in action on 26 June 2008 at a colloquium at the National Academy of Sciences Building.
Dr. Ralph Cicerone*, President of the National Academy of Sciences, chaired the meeting. The guest speaker was Congressman Alan B. Mollohan, Chair of the Subcommittee on Science Appropriations for the U.S. House of Representatives. The SSB Vice-Chair, A. Thomas Young of Lockheed Martin, was moderator.
After Congressman Mollohan’s speech, Dr. Cicerone interrupted and tried to stop me from commenting about NASA’s involvement in promoting untruths about the causes of global climate change.
Other dignitaries present at the colloquium were Lennard A. Fisk, SSB Chair, Charles Kennel, the incoming SSB Chair, and other NAE/NAS members and former SSB Chairs – Louis Lanzerotti and Claude Canizares.
The events that I observed on 26 June 2008 match very closely those that former U. S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about in his 17 January 1961 Farewell Address to the Nation:
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded”.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm
*Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the US National Academy of Sciences, led the 2001 NAS study of climate change that persuaded US President Bush to support the IPCC. Six years later Dr. Frederick Seitz, the distinguished former NAS President, replied in the forward to the 2007 NIPCC Report, “. . . we do not currently have any convincing evidence or observations of significant climate change from other than natural causes.” [“Nature, not human activity, rules the climate: Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), The Heartland Institute, Chicage, IL 2008, 50 pages. http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf ]

Sven
January 28, 2009 7:23 am

Oh, one more thing. Actually I remember now that this statement “We have recently changed the way that the smoothed time series of data were calculated. Data for 2008 were being used in the smoothing process as if they represented an accurate esimate of the year as a whole. This is not the case and owing to the unusually cool global average temperature in January 2008, it looked as though smoothed global average temperatures had dropped markedly in recent years, which is misleading. ” is actually old. It was put there earlier last year. Before that they did smoothing with data from an incomplete year and after this announcement stopped doing this. But now it seems they are not doing it even when the year is over?!

G Alston
January 28, 2009 7:28 am

Flanagan — “Oh, yeah right, I almost forgot to mention that, in my opinion, J.S. Theon can call himself anything but a climate scientist.”
Just as I predicted someone would say earlier in this thread. Stabbing the messenger is an opportunity rarely passed. I’m getting good at this. And the following is directed to you as well:
Wowfail — “How the hell did this blog win best science blog?”
The way things work is to look at the merits of the argument rather than who made them. Guys who work, say, in the patent office have just as valid an opinion here as do eminent physicists. If you don’t quite follow the reference in the previous sentence, I’d not be surprised. Anthony (our host) doesn’t stand at a mountaintop issuing pronouncements, either. Science in realtime is a little messy. Sorry to have offended your preference to have the agreed upon results spoonfed to you.
Ken Hall — How about one example of an IPCC computer projection based on the computerised climate models that accurately predicted the earth cooling?
Unfair request. This is not what they really do. Models are intended to make a long term extrapolation. In the short term you may get heating or cooling, neither condition being an outlier in the long term. So if you start in 1900 and your model misses cool-down periods but still accurately enough comes up to say 0.5 deg/century and this is close enough to what has happened, prponents will say that the model has demonstrated enough long term skill. In short the idea is that model results are tendencies.
That said I think the models are abysmal in that any number of natural and/or unknown factors can give you the same result (and ought to) over the same long term time period. e.g. we know that since the LIA the world has been warming naturally, so predicting an increase over 100 years is no more skillful than what any schoolchild can do with a graph.
What I would like to see (and never have) is the results of model runs where an exorbinant amount of CO2 was released in the atmosphere at point X and then see where the models left off at at X + 70 years. (This sort of thing, CO2 release as in volcanoes, seems to have happened historically.) This would tell us not only if the model works, but would validate (or not) any beliefs about C02 longevity in the atmosphere.

January 28, 2009 7:28 am

John Philip, you quote the UN/IPCC. They are no longer credible. You also quote an obviously agendized/bogus poll which purports to show that 97% of all climate scientists believe that human-emitted CO2 is a significant driver of global temperature change. How does that fit in with this? Do climate scientists not have that information??
I’m not going to get into a long running argument over all the propaganda out there. Anyone who looks at the declining global temperature occurring when CO2 is steadily rising understands that any small effect that CO2 may have is overwhelmed by other factors.
The Earth is starved of beneficial carbon dioxide [click on page to expand]. When CO2 levels go up, plants grow faster. And CO2 has no noticeable effect on temperature. You’re worrying about a black cat in a dark room — but when you turn on the light… there’s no cat.
CO2 is a non-issue, and everyone is beginning to see that. The truth is emerging. Deal with it.

Pamela Gray
January 28, 2009 7:28 am

I think the good argument against AGW is in weather. Patterns that is, and what drives patterns. These drivers are WAY stronger than puny CO2 and the Sun combined! I think the reason we are not winning this argument is that we are using a weak driver, the Sun, instead of a strong driver. And there are plenty out there. Right outside your door.

Frank K.
January 28, 2009 7:29 am

John Philip (06:58:08) :
“I would point especially to the ‘Target CO2′ and ‘Trace Gases’ papers.”
Ah yes, the great “Trace Gases” paper – one of the strangest papers I’ve ever read that was purportedly a “scientific” publication. It contains my all time favorite “peer reviewed” prose (probably written by Hansen himself), talking about the potential of “cellulosic fibre” farms to save the world:
“The potential of these ‘amber waves of grain’ and coastal facilities for permanent underground storage ‘from sea to shining sea’ to help restore America’s technical prowess, moral authority and prestige, for the sake of our children and grandchildren, in the course of helping to solve the climate problem, has not escaped our attention.”
Of course, given what GISS has done to climate science, I suppose we may need to “restore America’s technical prowess”…

January 28, 2009 7:31 am

I posted this link to Drudge on his tip line. Urged him to turn up the orginal letter if possible. Could also get WUWT some more face time to a broader audience.

January 28, 2009 7:38 am

Flanagan
You seemed to have overlooked my querstion above. Could you please reply?
Thanks
TonyB
(04:50:33) :
Flanagan said;
” I can give tens of references showing that the increase in temperatures is above natural variability. The Medieval warm period has nothing to do with that… And no one ever said CO2 is the only factor affecting climate!”
I said;
Please give your references and clarify why the MWP has nothing to do with that.

G Alston
January 28, 2009 7:40 am

John Philip — “You are convinced that Hansen has the science wrong.”
That’s overly ambitious. As per the nature of surface stations project the suspicion is that the good Doctor may have some of the data wrong. Land use alone can raise/lower/influence any given reporting station. The suspicion is that he’s reporting a temp increase at station X and assuming global warming (or evidence thereof) when a closer examination of the apparatus and surroundings says that the station has been accurately reporting the local changes in land use moreso than a global signal.

Spurwing Plover
January 28, 2009 7:42 am

[snip, the language used is not acceptable, no name calling please]

TomT
January 28, 2009 7:43 am

Flanagan
“I can give tens of references showing that the increase in temperatures is above natural variability. “
Can you please tell me where you found this definition of “natural variability”? I’ve been trying to find out what the defined “normal” temperature of the earth is and it seems that no one actually stops to define this. Instead every thing races off talking about how we are out side of the normal.
It seems very important to have a solid and agreed on definition of what the earths “normal” temperature is before we can discuss warming or cooling in any significant way. After all do we call the temperatures during the ice ages normal? In that case the earth is currently suffering massive catestrophic warming compared to that. Perhaps normal is based on the period of time when temperatures averaged 8 degrees warmer than they do now? No? Then what is the earths normal temperature?
Second why is warming bad? Amoung the many other beneficial effects of warming is extending growing zones and growing seasons.

TJ
January 28, 2009 7:46 am

“I’m still waiting for a paper showing in a coherent and (loosely) proved way that something else could be responsible for the observed warming…” -Flanagan
No you are not. What needs to be “loosely proved” is that climate fluctuations in the 20th century are abnormal first, then we can talk about causes. What proof is there of that? One disasterously flawed paper by Mann. The hockey stick. Are you going to defend that here? Please do try. A few people have a few questions.

Steve D.
January 28, 2009 7:50 am

John Philip, this estimate of 3C temp increase due to CO2 is crud. The actual figure is about 0.5C – the rest comes down to feedbacks & whether they are positive or negative. These are not well understood or modelled. The IPCC crowd suggest it could be up to 6C’ observational measurement for the last 20 years suggest it is not. The problem for the modellers is that we have now had some 20 years to look at their predictions & the actual measured temperatures don’t support their thesis.
On another note, Gavin over at RC seems to be saying re Dr. Theon “don’t know the chap, never heard of him, wouldn’t speak to him if I did”
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=644#comment-110819
Watching the cognitive dissonance going in that heavily censored echo-chamber is becoming quite amusing.

Adam Gallon
January 28, 2009 7:53 am

I dropped this one into the latest topic on RC.
Quote: Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, 15th Jan 2009,”My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”
Anyone at Real Climate care to comment?
[Response: Dr. Theon appears to have retired from NASA in 1994, some 15 years ago. Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen’s ‘boss’ (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC, who reports to the NASA Administrator). His “some scientists” quote is simply a smear – which scientists? where? what did they do? what data? what manipulation? This kind of thing plays well with Inhofe et al because it appears to add something to the ‘debate’, but in actual fact there is nothing here. Just vague, unsubstantiated accusations. – gavin]
Interestingly, they did heavily edit my initial questions, which were….
“In view of Dr John S Theon’s press release, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320 casting a large measure of doubt upon climate models.
Where does this leave the paper on Antarctic temperatures, as it does appear to rely heavily upon modelling and extrapollation?
““My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,”
Also, the Steig paper appears to show Antarctica is warming at a similar rate to the rest of the planet. Don’t the models say it should be warming faster?
I’m becoming increasingly skeptical about the accuracy of the climate models being used, if the UK’s Met Office can’t predict the general weather a few months ahead (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080925.html “The Met Office forecast for the coming winter suggests it is, once again, likely to be milder than average. It is also likely that the coming winter will be drier than last year”. Milder, it has not been, now drier looks better, but thr weather’s doing a good job currently in trying to refute that prediction too!)
How much faith can we place in models trying to predict climate on a decade/century scale or those trying to model climate from the past and extrapolate into the future?
May I also draw your attention back in time to http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/antarctica-is-cold/langswitch_lang/sk
“Bottom line: A cold Antarctica and Southern Ocean do not contradict our models of global warming. For a long time the models have predicted just that.”
Cold Antarctica is consistent with global warming models, warm parts are also consistent?
Hopefully the $140m+ that’s been promised for improving these models will be well spent.
I have reposted asking about their somewhat contradictory statement re Antarctic cooling being consistent with global warming models, but I’ve had no response as of yet.
It is a pity than Dr T hasn’t expanded upon his statement
“Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.”
Which scientists, what data and which model?
If the debate is to advance, this needs to be known, else all get tarred with the same brush and it gives the Zealots a reason to ignore the claims.

Adam Sullivan
January 28, 2009 7:54 am

So am I to understand that the only people qualified to criticize AGW claims and the methods used to establish and justify those claims are “climate scientists” who support AGW?
Absurd.
While we are at it, why don’t we ban Patent Clerks (and other Newtonian Mechanics Deniers) from commenting on physics.

Richard Sharpe
January 28, 2009 7:56 am

Flanagan says:

Now, satellite measurements exist since the mid 80s that prove that a more humid atmosphere strongly increases the Greenhouse effect (a paper in Nature, I can find it if you like).

Either:
1. Too lazy to do a little bit of work to support his assertion with one paper that mentions this effect, or
2. It really doesn’t exist.

Jim Steele
January 28, 2009 7:57 am

It is ironic that anyone at RealClimate would have been concerned at Hansen’s purported muzzling. The RealCimate blog’s heavy deletion of opposing views is the epitome of muzzling any debate. I just had the following deleted . Have others experienced the same “muzzling”?
Jim Steele Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
28 January 2009 at 12:27 AM Chapman did a similar study of Antarctic temperatures. And to Chapman’s credit he duly noted that depending on the start dates one could construct warming or cooling trends. He chose to generate a warm trend. However if the start date began sometime around 1935 or 1980, we would generate cooling trends.
The skeptics can readily point to the fact that this recent cooling trend remains if you start around 1980 and data for increased sea ice supports that trend. The recent cooling trend coincides with the time period during which global warming was greatest and decoupled from solar effects.
Start dates that are chosen simply because that is the beginning of certain instrumental observations may be just as arbitrary as picking a date during a period of abnormally high or low temperatures. 
A discussion of the why specific start dates are chosen would be more constructive. But instead there seems to be a battle to control the “memes of warming” vs the “memes of cooling” so all sides cherry pick their trends. This is not good for science.

ked5
January 28, 2009 8:11 am

Mike C (16:26:16) :
C’mon now, we all know James Hansen is a top of the line scientist without a politically motivated bone in his body.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike, didn’t your mother ever tell you not to make funny faces or it might freeze that way? Isn’t it painful to have your tongue so far in your cheek?

anna v
January 28, 2009 8:13 am

At Jennifer’s there is mention of a second high up who has come out of the closet
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/
Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. [2]

January 28, 2009 8:15 am

I’m a database administrator for a financial company. I’ve always been a proponent of seperation of duties when it comes to data. There are those that store it and supply it to others (me) and those that crunch the numbers and use it.
The database administrator is the gate keeper. We are always under pressure to “include this” or “exclude that”, but if the data is to be trusted by anyone, then it must remain pristine. If those that crunch the numbers have control over the storage and reporting, then there is opportunity for misuse, even if it seems to be for the very best of reasons. Having an activist in charge of the data that most of the world is using, presents at the very least the appearance of wrong doing.
I believe that some agency should be in charge of providing the raw data to the world. No TOBS adjustments, nothing! Then the consumers of the data can make their own adjustments as they see fit, and defend their methods through open and documented peer review.
I realize that NASA makes the raw GISS data available, but given the circumstances, do you know for a certainty that it has not been altered?

Steve M.
January 28, 2009 8:18 am
DR
January 28, 2009 8:20 am

Where are the experimental data that CO2 has such magical heat trapping ability? The closest I’ve run across are grade school quality experiments on YouTube. One bottle is filled with CO2 (100%? 50%? who knows), another with ambient air, then two lights are shined on them and temperature measurements are taken; viola!, proof of the greenhouse effect! 
Aside from such silly unscientific experiments, the dirty little secrets that continually escape the discussion are:
1) A strong positive feedback mechanism (water vapor) is assumed to follow incremental increases in atmospheric CO2. This is the only way for the CO2 AGW hypothesis to work is with that assumption.
2) Per DOE 97% of atmospheric CO2 increase is from natural sources. Do the math.
3) It is assumed, with no experimental evidence, that CO2 has an extraordinarily long residence time, now said to exceed 1000’s of years.
4) There is no evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels can account for the increase in OHC from 1993-2003 as quoted by Hansen et al 2005, aka “the smoking gun”. Why hasn’t OHC increased since 2003? Without oceans continually warming, there cannot be “global” warming. Where is the missing heat?
5) Changes in cloud cover, their causes and cloud dynamics in general are poorly understood. This lack of knowledge is programmed into climate models. What is understood does not support the CO2 AGW hypothesis, and are left out of climate models. Unlock the mysteries of clouds and the rest can be filled in.
For years we’ve been told AGW has overcome natural variation and therefore onward and upward increases in global surface temperatures will most assuredly be the norm. 1998 was a watershed year for CO2 worshipers. Ah, but things haven’t worked out so well since 2001. Suddenly, without warning, natural variation, even the sun, is rediscovered in 2007 and are masking AGW. Met O assured us not once, but twice, 2007 would return to the inevitable Big Warm, exceeding 1998. By shear coincidence, when it became clear something wasn’t quite right, Met O introduced their latest and greatest new and improved climate model in August 2007. Ha! A glitch in their program is to blame. Problem solved. Now they include ocean data, variations in sun output and other overlooked natural hiccups throwing wrenches in the works.
Haven’t we also been told the sun doesn’t change enough to affect climate? Or is the inconvenient truth the non-participation of the sun is yet another untested assumption by AGW Climate “scientists”? I assign the title ‘AGW’ as many scientists (and there are many) have hung their reputations on CO2. Journals, societies, newspapers and premiere scientific bodies joined the herd, also known as consensus. Surely so many well funded institutions could never be wrong, and their motives are pure and untainted by the prospect of perpetual increases in tax payer dollars funding their retirement portfolio. No, all are unbiased, objective and have no political agenda. Oh, and they all wear white lab coats.
It is now 2009 and we are witnessing the falsification of IPCC predictions in real time. Rest assured however, by 2014 1998 will have disappeared into the ash heap of the distant cool past. Honest, they mean it this time. Of course, when Met O blessed us with this holy utterance in August 2007, published in the Holy Scriptures of the journal Science, it had nothing to do with the assumption solar cycle 24 would be off the charts. Well, it is off the charts, but the wrong sign.
Remember however, the sun has nothing to do with weather or climate. We must all be reminded of that. Oh, and PDO cycles, AMO, NAO, SOI and all that other stuff? Blah blah blah. One anomalous unpredictable La Nina can explain it all, yeah that’s it.
So I ask the Warmologists, as you have placed your faith in the Magic Gas with zero direct evidence of its powers of driving temperatures in either the atmosphere or the oceans deep, at what point do you become a bit suspicious that just maybe the science isn’t settled after all? You may ask what it would take for some of us skeptics to change our minds. As one who makes a living relying on accurate and precise empirical data, I demand experimental and observational evidence based on sound science. Pumping another $140 million into unvalidated expensive video games run by hoards of monkeys at the keyboards does not impress. As one noted in another blog, ‘pulling back the curtain reveals a bunch of bumpkins pulling levers on GCM’s.’
We could also discuss NOAA and their predictions of a ‘warmer than normal’ winter for the U.S. while we in Michigan have been ice fishing since the first week of December, freezing our behinds off from multiple weeks of unrelenting sub zero temperatures and record snow, but that’s another subject.
BTW, isn’t Al Gore supposed to be making a big speech on global warming in Washington or somewhere today?

John Philip
January 28, 2009 8:20 am

I’m not going to get into a long running argument over all the propaganda out there
Not what I asked for – I was looking for a credible riposte to Hansen (et al)’s scientific findings in the academic literature, apparently you class the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society and The Open Atmospheric Science Journal as nearer to propaganda than some unattributed graph and the manipulations of Joe D’Aleo.
The graph you linked to uses this much of the available data, – rather than cherry-pick your period to suit, if you simply graph all the available data it looks like this. I imagine most climate scientists are aware of which of these most qualifies as ‘propaganda’.
Bye for now.

John W.
January 28, 2009 8:23 am

Fred (19:07:23) :
If Dr Theon had tried to silence Hansen, the entire world would have heard that the evil Federal government was silencing an independent thinker and Hansen would not have given 1,400 on-the-job interviews but 2,800. Obviously, they would only silence him if he was telling the truth. Just like in a Hollywood movie.

He did. You accurately summarized the MSM narrative on the attempt. The MSM did not, however, report on the hundreds of interviews he had been ginving while being “silenced.”

January 28, 2009 8:24 am

Nobody seriously disputes that greenhouse gas concentrations have been increased by human activity.

I do.
In fact, watching someone trying to maintain a high level of CO2 in his greenhouse was among the first things that alerted me to the fact that “CO2-genic global warming” was a myth. No matter how well Bob sealed his greenhouse, no matter how much he pumped in, the plants would ramp up their work removing it. And that was a small sealed environment!

Jeff Alberts
January 28, 2009 8:30 am

Pamela Gray (21:57:03) :
Since we are worried about our new President’s belief about global warming, I would like to say that better gas mileage is alright with me (that’s in the stimulus package). And better controls on pollution sources are a good thing. We used to have a coal stove in the ranch. The soot caked to the walls and inside the chimney. I imagine it caked to the inside of our lungs as well.
But more important, I would like to put in my two cents for banning men’s cologne. That stuff is worse than a three-day old chewed up cigar. And you could add commercial bathroom smell-dispensers to my list of banned substances. I did my part last week when I tore the dispenser off the wall of my favorite tavern and threw it in the garbage.

I agree heartily on better gas mileage. But there will be a point of diminishing returns, something like the Smart Car. The gasoline version gets barely better mileage than my wife’s Toyota Matrix, yet you can barely fit two adults and a week’s worth of groceries into the thing. The Smart car isn’t.
And I heartily agree on cologne! Though my beef is with women who don’t know the meaning of the word “moderation” when applying perfume and makeup. Fortunately my wife is allergic to most of that crap, so she stays naturally beautiful 😉

Alex
January 28, 2009 8:32 am

With all due respect.. there is no use for these discussions with flanagan… the folks at globalwarminghoax.com have *unsuccessfully* been toiling for close to a good few months over trying to find answers from him and change err…certain attitudes… (with some very strange discussions!!)
So prevent argumentitive circling by resisting those urges…
just smile and wave…. 😉
And flanagan,,, join the Goracle and preach in snow-blasted Washington…

Hank
January 28, 2009 8:34 am

This piece provides a nice peek behind the curtain. This Hansen guy strikes me as a man who has found a way to advance his name by preaching on the failings of the modern world – think especially of his sermons about Faust, usufruct, and comparisons he makes to Nazis . I am sympathetic to a lot of the aims of the environmental movement but preachy environmentalism is as big a turn off as creation science. If you want to convince me there is a crisis don’t run around proclaiming the sky is falling.

Jeff Alberts
January 28, 2009 8:37 am

April E. Coggins (22:10:49) :
Pamela: Are you really looking forward to Prius powered vehicles towing trailers down Rattlesnake Grade?

You mean like diesel locomotives? They’re exactly the same technology. Electric drive motors driven by power from diesel generators. Electric motors, as far as I know, give you more torque with better response than IC engines. The problem is delivering power to the electric motors. In a locomotive you have enough space to provide big diesel generators for continuous power to the electric motors. Correction, it’s not the same as a Prius, since the Prius will actually be driven by the gas motor under certain conditions. But essentially they’re the same.

Daniel M
January 28, 2009 8:41 am

philincalifornia (19:27:02) :
So far, since being inaugurated, Obama has not come out and said anything totally stupid as far as I know … I have faith in them, mostly because Chu is an excellent scientist, and Obama watched what bad counseling on weapons of mass destruction did to Dubya.
Totally stupid? Well, that’s setting the bar mighty low. The proposed budget is laden with funding to study climate change with the focus primarily on reducing GHGs. Allowing states to dictate CO2 standards to automakers at the same time they are on the ropes.
If Obama doesn’t slam on the brakes soon, this WILL be his WMD issue…
…AGWMD?

Jeff Alberts
January 28, 2009 8:42 am

Flanagan (23:45:52) :
I’m tired of all this… Has someone else noted that that the main “scientific” opposition to the AGW theory is made of op-eds and vague declarations?
I’m still waiting for a paper showing in a coherent and (loosely) proved way that something else could be responsible for the observed warming… Svensmark? He’s still spending his millions of public-funded euros to try and prove his theory, for which we don’t even know how much would be the impact on climate. Gerlich and Teuschner? Their 2-years old “paper” is still not published. So, what else?

We’re still waiting for anything to show us in a coherent and (loosely) proved way that any fluctuation in “global” temperatures (as silly a metric as that is), are anything but natural. There has been no observed warming since the 1930’s peak, none since the MWP as best as we can tell, or the RWP or previous interglacials.

Flanagan
January 28, 2009 8:46 am

ok, difficult to follow because of hectic posts. About the “above natural variability”, a few references
Natural variability of the climate system and detection of the greenhouse effect
T. M. L. Wigley & S. C. B. Raper
Nature 344, 324 – 327 (22 March 1990)
Simulations of Atmospheric Variability Induced by Sea Surface Temperatures and Implications for Global Warming
Arun Kumar, Ants Leetmaa, and Ming Ji
Science 28 October 1994:
Vol. 266. no. 5185, pp. 632 – 634
Model assessment of the role of natural variability in recent global warming
R. J. Stouffer, S. Manabe & K. Ya. Vinnikov
Nature 367, 634 – 636 (17 February 1994)
External Control of 20th Century Temperature by Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings
Peter A. Stott, S. F. B. Tett, G. S. Jones, M. R. Allen, J. F. B. Mitchell, G. J. Jenkins
Science 15 December 2000: Vol. 290. no. 5499, pp. 2133 – 2137
Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries
Michael E. Mann*, Raymond S. Bradley* & Malcolm K. Hughes†
NATURE | VOL 392 | 23 APRIL 1998
among others were one can find conclusions such as “More than 80% of observed multidecadal-scale global mean temperature variations and more than 60% of 10- to 50-year land temperature variations are due to changes in external forcings.”
I said the MWP has nothing to do with that because we know it wasn’t related to a change in the CO2 concentration

Flanagan
January 28, 2009 8:47 am

Alex: what a nice post you did there.You’re so constructive you should be elected “scientific poster of the year”
The only attitude I have is that I tend to base my conclusions on scientific publications. What a fool I am!

Flanagan
January 28, 2009 8:49 am

Richard Sharpe: it looks like I’m not as lazy as you are finally…
Observational determination of the greenhouse effect
A. Raval & V. Ramanathan
Nature 342, 758 – 761 (14 December 1989)
“Satellite measurements are used to quantify the atmospheric greenhouse effect, defined here as the infrared radiation energy trapped by atmospheric gases and clouds. The greenhouse effect is found to increase significantly with sea surface temperature. The rate of increase gives compelling evidence for the positive feedback between surface temperature, water vapour and the green-house effect; the magnitude of the feedback is consistent with that predicted by climate models. This study demonstrates an effective method for directly monitoring, from space, future changes in the greenhouse effect.”

Kum Dollison
January 28, 2009 8:50 am

My son, who could care less about all of this, explained it to me. He said, “look Dad, most people don’t believe in the diagnosis, but they’re in favor of the prescription.”
People in L.A. don’t want the brown haze over their city. People in Pittsburgh don’t want a layer of Coal Dust on their cars. People in Mississippi want to be able to go fishing, and eat the fish, and people in Detroit want to be able to put gasoline in their gas tank to go to work, or to the ball game.
So, when you tell these people about “Global Warming,” they’re a little skeptical; but when you tell them the “cure” is Wind, Solar, and Biofuels they shrug, say “eh,” and go about their business.
People, in general, aren’t nearly as stupid as the “elite” scientists, politicians, and, yes, bloggers, think they are.

crosspatch
January 28, 2009 8:50 am

OT: Looks like an old cycle 23 spot forming on Old Sol today.
And the climate “scientists” could put an end to all the back and forth by simply releasing their data and methods so others can check them and attempt to verify the result as is done in the scientific community. Why the area of climate research is somehow outside the scope of normal scientific practice is beyond me.
And note that people seem to have to wait until they are retired in order to speak out. There seems to be a lot of academic intimidation going on here.

Jeff Alberts
January 28, 2009 8:53 am

It is increasingly apparent that any effect on the temperature by CO2 is so tiny that many other factors overwhelm it. On balance, the effect of CO2 on life on Earth is so beneficial that the planet needs much more of this highly desirable trace gas, not less.

It’s like the so-called “Butterfly Effect” that never was. Like the butterfly, CO2’s ability to affect climate is utterly overwhelmed.

January 28, 2009 8:54 am

John Philip (06:58:08)
It is the statement that “The size of the resultant radiative forcing is actually quite well-quantified, within an uncertainty of about 5%.” that I have the most problem with.
Is this empirical evidence or modeled – the abstract of the paper you cite appears to suggest it is the latter Until someone can show empirically that this so called ‘forcing’ is real I cannot see why I should believe it.
The earth has warmed in the last century but such a trend is not unusual in history – for the AGW argument to hold someone has to show the modeled forcing occurs in the real world. Between the 1940’s and 1970’s the evidence is that the modeled effect did not hold. Since 1998 it looks as if it may be failing again.
The onus is actually on the proponents of AGW to prove it – that’s how science works (or at least it used to).
Over to you.

Flanagan
January 28, 2009 8:59 am

And to finish:
1- the most basic and strongest suggest feedback in AGW is that CO2 induces T elevation, which in turn induces more tropospheric water vapor. See recent measurements here :
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/fig_tab/nature06207_F1.html
2- More water means more greenhouse effect (see the Nature ref I gave before)
Conclusion: it’s gonna be hot…

psi
January 28, 2009 9:04 am

Michael Smith, E.A. Smith, and Anna V —
Thanks for your assistance elucidating the (to a layman) obscurities of that quote.
I feel the tide is shifting…I am one of those who only a year ago was wholly in the “green” alarmist camp on this issue. I still consider myself green. There are many viable reasons — economic, social, and environmental — to be transitioning towards more efficient, locally produced and alternative forms of energy. But I hate to see the green movement held hostage to AGW junk science.
For those with an interest, one good website that is bucking the AGW agenda while preserving an explicitly ecological agena is Lucy Skywalker’s http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm.

Sean
January 28, 2009 9:06 am

I think what’s interesting here is the increased sophistication of the skeptic community. I suspect Prof. Steig’s release of his data massaging paper last week to show Antartic warming was to buck up support for Al Gore’s testimony before Congress today. So the skeptic community comes out with this revelation from Dr. Theon the night before Al Gore is set to speak. All of this smells of politics to me, a skeptic.

Joel Shore
January 28, 2009 9:07 am

Adam Sullivan:

While we are at it, why don’t we ban Patent Clerks (and other Newtonian Mechanics Deniers) from commenting on physics.

Einstein published his work on relativity in the peer-reviewed literature. He didn’t just send it off to a Senate staffer.
REPLY: Oh come on Joel, really. That’s probably the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever posted. Letters expressing doubt now should be “peer reviewed”? Simply sending them to someone in government employ expressing concern over a government funded issue is not enough unless peer review is involved? Your comparison is just silly.
Adam’s point is valid, What if Einstein had chosen a journal that wasn’t open minded back then? What if the journal editor made a snap decision that Einsteins claim was so “out of touch with current thinking” that he simply discarded it and sent the standard rejection form letter? What if Einstein had this process repeated again and again until he ended up publishing in an obscure journal (witness what happened to McIntyre and McKittrick) – would history have been irrevocably altered? The CO2/AGW issue is so entrenched today that alternate considerations are becoming squeezed out of the thought process. – Anthony

Joel Shore
January 28, 2009 9:09 am

PaulHClark:

Is this empirical evidence or modeled – the abstract of the paper you cite appears to suggest it is the latter Until someone can show empirically that this so called ‘forcing’ is real I cannot see why I should believe it.

The value of the forcing is even accepted by “skeptical” scientists like Richard Lindzen and, I believe, Spencer and Christy. You are welcome to disbelieve it if you wish but just don’t expect to find much company in the scientific community.

Stefan
January 28, 2009 9:10 am

John Philip wrote:
The graph you linked to uses this much of the available data, – rather than cherry-pick your period to suit, if you simply graph all the available data it looks like this.

That doesn’t look any better for your case. It is still temperatures going up and down, whilst CO2 rises. If you increase the time period even more over thousands of years then temperature appears to drive CO2, with a lag.
One would think that if the CO2 forcing was the primary one, it would be obvious to everybody. And yet it is only “obvious” to those who have decided to agree.

Richard North wrote :
The public, in the scare dynamic, is always the spectator, not allowed into the cycle – for them, the scare is a spectator sport.
This is why science and “being right” is not enough. The truth will not prevail of its own accord. You have to understand that the scare phenomenon has its own dynamics and rules. To defeat it, you have to break the cycle.

Regarding the cultural aspects, there are many voices in the world calling for some form of a One World Government. I am in favor of some kind of unity, because we have many problems that are international. Pollution is the obvious one, along with nuclear proliferation. There are many voices calling for this, out in the open, and at think tank meetings between current and former world leaders. That debate has been going on for decades. And I wish they would simply make that call more open to the public, get people involved in the issues of world citizenry, directly—-and then we might not have to have these long and time wasting debates about politicized science. Global Warming is a side issue. It is not the main issue. The main issue is Global Government. Let’s separate the science from the politics. Let the scientists off the hook, take the load off their backs. Get the activists and remind them what they are really supposed to be concerned about. Get the scientists back to doing just the science; they are scientists, not politicians, and it is unfair to them that they are asked to behave like politicians. They are no good at it, as we can all see, and it serves nobody anyway.

Flanagan
January 28, 2009 9:14 am

Another very good example of “skeptic’s science”… Here is a graph posted on Climate Skeptic in order to try and show that temperatures are not increasing in Arizona:
http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/grand_canyon_temp.gif
Waah, look, it’s actually cooling! Global warming is a scam!
But… What’s that first point on the left of the graph 10s of degrees higher than the rest? And why is it hand-cut in 2005? How do the original data look like?
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=023596&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr.sas&_SERVICE=default&param=UTAVE&minyear=1903&maxyear=2006
Well, illustrative of the method, isn’t it?
REPLY:I don’t like the sort of tone you project. “flanagan” if you weren’t so intent on smackdowns, you might realize why the data on the left side of the graph is not an error, but an actual measurement issue. And, that lots of stations in the turn of the century time frame had this measurement issue. The data source you cite is different than the one, and has been adjusted via USHCN1 methodology.
I’ll leave it to you to figure out what I’m speaking of, the answers are here on my blog and at CA. Look it up and report back in 24 hours. Cheers – Anthony

January 28, 2009 9:17 am

dhogaza (06:08:23) :

If Dr Theon knew what Hansen was doing was wrong, why didn’t he stop Hansen?

“Because he retired FIFTEEN YEARS AGO and was never Hansen’s boss.”

Um… Dr. Theon makes clear that he was ‘the former’ supervisor of James Hansen.
Please provide credible evidence that Dr. Theon ‘was never Hansen’s boss.’
The ball is in your court.

matt v.
January 28, 2009 9:23 am

kum dollison
Your comments illustrate the problem.The AGW issue has sidetracked the entire world from the real problem which was and still is , namely to reduce and eliminate real POLLUTION and not CO2. [Like the war in Iraq side tracked us from the real threat in Afganistan.} Here is what EPA says about this.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for six common air pollutants. These commonly found air pollutants (also known as “criteria pollutants”) are found all over the United States. They are particle pollution (often referred to as particulate matter), ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. These pollutants can harm your health and the environment, and cause property damage. Of the six pollutants, particle pollution and ground-level ozone are the most widespread health threats. NOTICE THAT CO2 IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED.
The sooner we stop trying to eliminate global warming by reducing CO2 [which by the way will not do anything to change the climate] and getback to reducing real pollution ,the sooner will our life become healthier.

David Jay
January 28, 2009 9:24 am

Flanagan:
You don’t know what you don’t know.
Anyone who quotes a Michael Mann authored paper as a source (8:46) has to be a AGW debate ignoramus or a comic:
“Did you hear the one about turning red noise into a hockey stick?”

G Alston
January 28, 2009 9:24 am

Joel Shore — “Einstein published his work on relativity in the peer-reviewed literature. He didn’t just send it off to a Senate staffer.”
What you appear to be missing here is the assumption that were the current political climate in force back then, Einstein wouldn’t have had his paper published because it didn’t agree with the Newtonian consensus.
As far as I can tell, there is merit to this argument; the anti-AGW histrionics are proportional to those which precipitate them… e.g. if Dr. Hansen was to publish his work and merely go home, that would be one thing. But he doesn’t. An opposite reaction takes place. Not surprising.

Flanagan
January 28, 2009 9:28 am

David: that’s not really clever to start ad hominem like that. You don’t like Mann? OK, so what about the other papers?
REPLY: Everybody, let’s cool down the discussion, or I will close the thread. Anthony

hereticfringe
January 28, 2009 9:32 am

Matt,
I agree 100% with your position on controlling REAL pollution instead of the CO2 distraction.
In my opinion, humanity has done the earth a great service by liberating CO2 that has been lost from the biomass over the ages. Compared to previous epochs of the earth’s history, our current epoch is carbon poor which means that plant life is competing for the available carbon and benefits from the additional (albeit small) amounts of CO2 that we generate.
Heretic

January 28, 2009 9:38 am

Flannigan said,
I can give tens of references showing that the increase in temperatures is above natural variability. The Medieval warm period has nothing to do with that… And noone ever said CO2 is the only factor affecting climate!
I would love to see even one correct paper which shows this. There are a lot of faulty temperature reconstructions I’ve read many but you absolutely cannot make the claim that we know anything about natural variability in the last two thousand years. We just don’t. – please don’t cite papers which use trees for thermometers, they give me headaches.
If you take a moment to look at how even ground measurements were made in the 30’s (with an open mind) you’ll quickly realize that even the measured variability is in question.
We just don’t know.

Mike Abbott
January 28, 2009 9:38 am

Dr. Theon says “you could say” he was Mr. Hansen’s supervisor. However, in his original email he also said “I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation.” That authority defines the supervisor-employee relationship. I think it is a stretch (at the minimum) by Dr. Theon to call himself Hansen’s “supervisor” and a mistake by Marc Marano and Anthony Watts to keep repeating that term. It doesn’t significantly weaken Dr. Theon’s message, but Hansen’s supporters will jump all over the issue and use it to discredit Theon.

Jeff Alberts
January 28, 2009 9:38 am

Flanagan (08:59:34) :
And to finish:
1- the most basic and strongest suggest feedback in AGW is that CO2 induces T elevation, which in turn induces more tropospheric water vapor. See recent measurements here :
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/fig_tab/nature06207_F1.html
2- More water means more greenhouse effect (see the Nature ref I gave before)

“Suggest[ed]”… Actually more water vapor means more clouds, which means less Solar radiation reaching the surface, which means cooling, right here in River City…

Sven
January 28, 2009 9:39 am

Steve M 08:18:43
Thanks, Steve, I did find this link
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
but if you look closely then you see that they only changed the text on the graphs to 2008 but did not change the graphs themselves!
a) the first graph still treats 2008, even though all data is in, as “provisional annual average” that is, according to the stated new policy, not used for smoothing.
b) On the second and third graphs, even though they say that they are for 1850-2008, in fact, 2008 (0.312C) is not on the graphs, but they rather end with the 0.4c of 2007.
c) The third graph with monthly temperature has actually not been renewed since early last year…

David S
January 28, 2009 9:39 am

Hell freezes over; “James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic”
Come to think of it, if hell is anywhere near here it may well be freezing over.

January 28, 2009 9:40 am

What is it the final purpose (perhaps something like the Adolf Eichman´s “Final solution”) of all this issue of “global warming”, now conveniently changed to “climate change”, sponsored by the UN?
Could WUWT dedicate a more direct effort to clear it up totally, because “truth will make you free”?
Is it a kind of Malthusianism behind?, if it is so, who are the unwanted human beings?

MarkW
January 28, 2009 9:41 am

I find it amazing that people claim that a man, who gave almost daily press briefings, was being muzzled.

P Folkens
January 28, 2009 9:43 am

Matt v. @ 9:23:05 is spot on.
In a related matter, excess CO2 per se does not seem to be the AGW’s focus, but rather the emission of CO2 from one class of source. From my point of view, if the real concern was residual CO2 there would be more attention on deforestation (where the clearing/burning adds the atmospheric CO2 and reduces the forests’ ability to sequester carbon) and ocean pollution (which diminishes the world’s largest carbon sink from operating optimally). Hansen’s focus has been on the emissions scenarios without regard to other sources of increased CO2. Indeed, he ignored the paper in Nature in 2000 that showed the dominant source of anthropogenic CO2 was Third World home fires (not fossil fuel burning). A subsequent paper also in Nature in 2005 focused the source to home fires in rural China.

philincalifornia
January 28, 2009 9:44 am

Daniel M (08:41:14) : wrote
philincalifornia (19:27:02) :
So far, since being inaugurated, Obama has not come out and said anything totally stupid as far as I know …
Totally stupid? Well, that’s setting the bar mighty low. The proposed budget is laden with funding to study climate change with the focus primarily on reducing GHGs. Allowing states to dictate CO2 standards to automakers at the same time they are on the ropes.
If Obama doesn’t slam on the brakes soon, this WILL be his WMD issue…
…AGWMD?
—————————————
Awww, cut me some slack Daniel, after all he is a President !! If he mentions polar bears and/or boiling oceans, I shall revise my optimism downwards immediately, I promise.
In fact, I may be guilty of overly optimistic overextrapolation, but I’m equating whats happened so far with a desire for energy independence and cleantech, with the “spectre of a warming planet” as a secondary justification (unless you listen to the BBC fraud version).
I’m pretty close to biofuel R&D myself, and I’m considerably more bullish than some on here about breakthroughs that have the potential to change that game. In short, I think Obama got that call right ….
….. but no polar bears please.

Sven
January 28, 2009 9:44 am

Sorry for another off topic, but just as an early warning, it seems that UAH indicates that 2009 is going to have a really hot start, as from here:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
You need Java and choose the 5 km altitude. Right now it shows 0.82F warmer that last year!

Jeff Alberts
January 28, 2009 9:44 am

One would think that if the CO2 forcing was the primary one, it would be obvious to everybody. And yet it is only “obvious” to those who have decided to agree.

The claim is not that CO2 is the primary forcing agent, but that it’s one of them, and since we’re supposedly adding “unnatural” CO2 (Is that even possible?) we’re causing an “unnatural” increase. And then the existing, presumably “natural”, feedbacks amplify the effect. The problem is that ANY warming would then cause the amplification, if it existed. So when Summer rolls around in the NH, it would never stop. Since this obviously doesn’t happen…

Bruce Cobb
January 28, 2009 9:49 am

Pamela Gray (07:28:22) :
I think the reason we are not winning this argument is that we are using a weak driver, the Sun, instead of a strong driver.
The Sun a weak driver? No, sorry, it’s the “big Cahuna” of drivers. But, oceanic oscillations certainly have a lot of power as well, perhaps even overriding the sun’s effects in the short term.
And, we’re not “losing”, we’re winning. But it will take time, commitment, courage, and good old-fashioned gumption to rid humanity of the AGW monstrosity, due to the fact that is become so deeply and firmly entrenched, and that there is a lot of money, and careers at stake.

John Galt
January 28, 2009 9:52 am

G Alston (09:24:55) :
Joel Shore — “Einstein published his work on relativity in the peer-reviewed literature. He didn’t just send it off to a Senate staffer.”
What you appear to be missing here is the assumption that were the current political climate in force back then, Einstein wouldn’t have had his paper published because it didn’t agree with the Newtonian consensus.
As far as I can tell, there is merit to this argument; the anti-AGW histrionics are proportional to those which precipitate them… e.g. if Dr. Hansen was to publish his work and merely go home, that would be one thing. But he doesn’t. An opposite reaction takes place. Not surprising.

How can we possibly compare Hansen to Einstein? That’s like comparing … well, let’s don’t go there.
Let’s move back to science. When Einstein proposed his theory of Special Relativity, the question came up, how to test it? Any scientific theory must be falsifiable. The first such test was an eclipse in 1919. The apparent location of a star changed, which matched the predictions made by Special Relativity. Thus Special Relativity was verified, but not proven. We’re still testing Special Relativity to this day and so far no valid, repeatable experiment has ever shown Special Relativity to be incorrect.
But how do we test Hansen, Mann, the IPCC climate models, etc? How do you test a climate model that purports to show the climate in 50 or 100 years? One method is to carefully review the inputs and source code of the models, but this still doesn’t tell us if the calculations are correct.
Another method is to “backcast” the historical climate, but that still doesn’t tell us whether the model is full of fudge factors and magic numbers that appear to make the model work for that time period, or whether the model actually got it right. For instance, when Mann cherry picked his data for his various climate proxies, the proxies can be shown to closely reflect the climate for certain time periods but have the exact opposite correlation during other time periods.
Perhaps the only test is to compare the actual climate with the models’ output. Going back to Hansen’s 1988 scenarios, we can see CO2 is much higher than his worst case scenario but the climate is cooler than his best case scenario. As for models that project the climate for the year 2100, should get a time capsule for the models and ourselves and wait 90 years?
At Real Climate, we’re told both global warming and global cooling (or continental warming/cooling, or hemisphere warming/cooling) are consistent with the models. How are we ever to validate the models? If it can’t be tested, how can this be science?

Hank
January 28, 2009 9:54 am

Andy Revkin is mentioning his preliminary views on Dr. Theon over at NYTimes in the comments section of a piece titled “Europe to US:” I hope Revkin does his job and calls Dr. Theon up to get his characterizations of Hansen.

January 28, 2009 9:55 am

Joel Shore (09:09:42)
It is not that I disbelieve the forcing – it is that I have not yet seen anything in the real world that shows it to be accurate – all I see is modeled/theoretical arguments. If you or anyone can show that the forcing is real then I would like to see it and then I may well be convinced by the AGW argument.
You say, “The value of the forcing is even accepted by “skeptical” scientists like Richard Lindzen” – I have 2 specific questions:
1) What exactly is the value and definition of that forcing to which you refer?
2) Where exactly can I find reference to Lindzen supporting that forcing in published work?
You go on to mention Spencer and Christy. Dr Roy Spencer on his website seems certainly to question radiative forcing – but again if you have evidence that Dr Spencer supports the AGW theory on forcings then please let me know where I can find it – because I would like to enhance my understanding.

John Philip
January 28, 2009 9:55 am

Stefan: That doesn’t look any better for your case. It is still temperatures going up and down, whilst CO2 rises.
Up and down? Sure, but mainly up.
cheers!

TomT
January 28, 2009 9:55 am

You know Flanagan you still haven’t answered my question on what is the ‘normal’ temperature of the earth and its secondary adjunct, why must warming be bad?
Oh and of course I would like to see how this ‘normal’ temperature was determined.

Simon Evans
January 28, 2009 9:56 am

I note that the release quotes Theon as follows:
Theon declared “climate models are useless.”
However, this statement does not appear in the emails from Theon which have since been published.
REPLY: Morano also did a personal sit down interview, the statement may be from that.
ALSO I notice that it is in the subject of the email sent by Theon, perhaps you missed that?
Subject: Climate models are useless
So yes, Theon said it.
– Anthony

Mark
January 28, 2009 10:13 am

Flanagan (08:59:34) :
And to finish:
1- the most basic and strongest suggest feedback in AGW is that CO2 induces T elevation, which in turn induces more tropospheric water vapor. See recent measurements here :
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/fig_tab/nature06207_F1.html
2- More water means more greenhouse effect (see the Nature ref I gave before)
Conclusion: it’s gonna be hot…
This supposed theory of enhanced greenhouse is supposed to greatest in the tropical troposphere. Like this!:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSTrop.html
What the hey?

benjaminvallen1
January 28, 2009 10:15 am

HALLEFREAKINGLUYAH!!!!!! Another high-level, intelligent person is joining the fight against the Global Lie.

Robert Bateman
January 28, 2009 10:16 am

They are winning this arguement because they have suceeded in planting the idea that the Sun is non-existant as a driver of climate.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Sun is the ultimate source of heat or lack of it on the Earth.
Everything else is a heatsink.
Go stand on the ground with your thermometer in the path of a total Solar Eclipse and tell me the Sun doesn’t warm the Earth when it’s active.

Frank K.
January 28, 2009 10:16 am

Joel Shore (09:07:03) :
Re: Albert Einstein
It turns out that Einstein published four landmark papers in 1905, one of which introduced the “radical” special theory of relativity. But look at what wikipedia says about how they were received by his “peers”…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Patent_office
“All four papers are today recognized as tremendous achievements—and hence 1905 is known as Einstein’s “Wonderful Year”. At the time, however, they were not noticed by most physicists as being important, and many of those who did notice them rejected them outright. Some of this work—such as the theory of light quanta—remained controversial for years.[27][28]”
Personally, I think that the radical AGW theories (e.g. tipping points etc.) and their proponents have a lot in common with the theory of luminiferous aether from the 19th century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
The concept of “the aether” was dreamed up because light waves had to have a medium within which to propagate. Even Maxwell and Lord Rayliegh believed in the aether! This line from the above reference is, in my opinion, is an excellent analog to today’s entrenched AGW beliefs within the climate science community:
“Contemporary scientists were aware of the problems, but aether theory was so entrenched in physical law by this point that it was simply assumed to exist. In 1908 Oliver Lodge gave a speech in behalf of Lord Rayleigh to the Royal Institution on this topic, in which he outlined its physical properties, and then attempted to offer reasons why they were not impossible.”

joecool
January 28, 2009 10:25 am

I love it. Science is golden when the peer review process is allowed to proceed normally, by either confirming or debunking results.
Just like there are good car mechanics & bad car mechanics, so there are good scientists & bad scientists-people who basically don’t know their $hit.
Thank God the scientific community has started to peer review again!

Richard deSousa
January 28, 2009 10:27 am

Frank K: how can you think or believe AGW theory ranks with Einstein’s work? The results “achieved” by the AGW theorists are replete with errors of statistics and bad data gathering. It’s as simple as that.

January 28, 2009 10:29 am

You know, bottom line
the planet is getting warmer, whatever we can do to curb this trend is a good thing.
So models don’t work, well duh…. the whole of science is a compramise, to fit models.. this is hardly news. The map will never be the territory, but an aproximation is an aproximation….
Seems to me this is just republican backlash or fuel companies etc. and those that are growing fat on contributing to climate change, for example all the Petrolium producers.. Perish the thought that things be made cleaner and more efficient!
Literalism…. this is what it gets you

Mark
January 28, 2009 10:30 am

John Philip:
“rather than cherry-pick your period to suit, if you simply graph all the available data it looks like this.”
You mean like this?
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/IrradianceVsTemp.gif

MattN
January 28, 2009 10:33 am

Awesome.
Gore is supposed to address the US Senate about climate policy today (1/28). (http://www.turkishweekly.net/other-news/82615/gore-to-address-us-senate-panel-on-climate-cnn.html)
The forecast in Washington DC today is: Winter Storm Warning until 6pm.
You can’t make stuff up this good….

E.M.Smith
Editor
January 28, 2009 10:41 am

While looking on http://www.solarcycle24.com at the report that yesterdays cycle 23 sunspeck was gone already… I visited their discussion boards to see what they were thinking about it. Where I ran into:
http://www.solarcycle24.com/graphics/comic.jpg
Giggle

January 28, 2009 10:46 am
realitycheck
January 28, 2009 10:54 am

Neil Crafter:
“As its your theory, you have to prove it, not the other way round. Assume its all natural processes first and foremost.”
Nicely said – you hit the nail on the head.
The null hypothesis is that we are seeing random noise (natural variability). I have not read a single peer-reviewed article in the climate litrature or otherwise that disproves this null-hypothesis (and believe me I have read a lot of papers).
AGW alarmists – wheres the beef?

January 28, 2009 10:57 am

Bruce Cobb (09:49:10) :
The Sun a weak driver? No, sorry, it’s the “big Cahuna” of drivers.
Robert Bateman (10:16:26) :
The Sun is the ultimate source of heat or lack of it on the Earth. Go stand on the ground with your thermometer in the path of a total Solar Eclipse and tell me the Sun doesn’t warm the Earth
Both of you use the oldest trick in the book: “turn off the Sun if you don’t think the Sun is the driver”.
when it’s active
And then slip in that innocent statement. I have done precisely what you suggest for both solar minimum and solar maximum eclipses and I tell that there is no difference I could feel.
So, live up to being on ‘the best science blog’ and realize that what we should be talking about are the minute variations in the solar output. There is no evidence for those controlling the climate in a big way.

Craig D. Lattig
January 28, 2009 11:03 am

Mike Abbott (09:38:52) :
Dr. Theon says “you could say” he was Mr. Hansen’s supervisor. However, in his original email he also said “I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation.” That authority defines the supervisor-employee relationship. I think it is a stretch (at the minimum) by Dr. Theon to call himself Hansen’s “supervisor” and a mistake by Marc Marano and Anthony Watts to keep repeating that term. It doesn’t significantly weaken Dr. Theon’s message, but Hansen’s supporters will jump all over the issue and use it to discredit Theon.
Mike: one has to be careful when translating gov speak into english….
The person who is directly above me, and writes my performance reports, is my supervisor…my ” Immediate Supervisor”…but for at least two levels above that are individuals who include supervising me in their job descriptions…and who could legitemately refer to themselves as my supervisor…
just input from the swamp….
cdl

January 28, 2009 11:03 am

As more and more top-level administrators/scientists weigh in on the side of skepticism, I begin to wonder why the diehard CO2-induced climate changers stick with their increasingly dubious belief. Convincing data to make anyone a believer in CO2-caused climate change just isn’t there.
There has to be another reason–could it be that the pro-green brainwashing that they get in our schools is finally bearing fruit, as they move out into the work force and become journalists, scientists, administrators, etc.?
They’ve been led to believe that we are, and have been destroying the environment since time began. When you’ve been fed that hogwash for most of your existence, it’s got to be very difficult to let go of an idea that reinforces that years-long indoctrination.
It’s going to take a lot of blogging and the re-establishment of independent thinking back into our culture to reverse this trend. We are only at the beginning, and it’s going to take a lot more ice storms, cooling, unintended results, and statements by experts like Dr. Theon before we can call it a day.

Alex
January 28, 2009 11:06 am

😀 😀 Ahh Thanks Flan-man! *Accepts award, smiles and waves*
….
Anyways back to the normal discussions…
Interesting link someone put up here about a warm start to 2009… The latest ENSO report published 28 Jan shows that conditions are slipping back into neutrality… perhaps 2009 may be warmer…
No, no dear skeptics, I am not joining Flan-man team… just pointing out that 2009 may be normal not hot or cold…

Zer0th
January 28, 2009 11:07 am

Anthony, Simon Evans…
“Climate models are useless” is the Subject line of the second email.