UPDATE 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:
From: Jtheon [mailto:jtheon@XXXXXXX]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:05 PM
To: Morano, Marc (EPW)
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:50 PM
To: Morano, Marc (EPW)
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.
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
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.
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.
“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…
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…
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.
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?
I find it amazing that people claim that a man, who gave almost daily press briefings, was being muzzled.
Matt v. @ur momisugly 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.
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.
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!
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…
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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?
HALLEFREAKINGLUYAH!!!!!! Another high-level, intelligent person is joining the fight against the Global Lie.
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.
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.”
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!
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.