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.


Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Mike C

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

davidgmills

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

Brute

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

barbee butts

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

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

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

Greg F

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.

The parade to the exit is beginning. All aboard.

helvio

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

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

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

“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

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

Robert Wood

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

VG

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

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

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

Wow. Just…wow.

Craig

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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...

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

just Cait

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

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

David Ermer

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.

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

Sorry.
@ M -o-ngo

AnyMouse

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)

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.

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

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...

“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

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.

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”

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

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.

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

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