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.
What if the warming is natural? There is little real data to show current warming exceeds previous warm periods. You are also mistaken to believe warm is bad. Cold kills. Check out the MWP and the LIA. In regards to climate, which would you rather live in?
Check out who is really getting rich off AGW — it’s not the oil companies. It’s people like Al Gore who are trying to convince us there is a problem and then sell us the cure, or T. Boone Pickens, who wants our tax dollars, our various other large corporate interest who seek mandates on what we must buy, regardless of whether we want it or not. Cap-and-trade is a scam being pushed because the brokers expect to profit greatly from it.
The argument about big oil is simply intellectually lazy. As for the climate models not being right — they’re the basis of AGW. No hockey stick, no crisis!
The link was dropped. Here it is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7853093.stm
John Philip (02:37:30) : 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’.
Well, I’d take the word of a gardener over that of a computer model when it comes to ‘has it gotten colder or warmer’ for the simple reason that plants don’t lie and gardeners deal in the real world.
While I don’t know the particular ‘presenter’ you are talking about, I do know that the guys who make it to TV often have rather good credentials (you know, things like PhD in botany or agronomy). So what are this guys credentials? (Not your ad-hom slur, his actual bio.)
If you don’t think agriculture, farming, agronomy and yes, even gardening, require a keen understanding of weather and climate, abandon all hope…
Sidebar: During the recent ‘warm in the west’ I lost 2 small avocado trees. They were started from a tree that has grown here for about 20 years (i.e. genetically OK for the last 20 years). What does this say? It says it was cold. But that cold is lost in the averages of averages of averages that the computer models use…
I grew up in a farm town. The best weathermen were the local farmers. They would look at the sky, sniff the wind, think a bit, and give a good call. 40 years of historical weather patterns in their heads.
bigcitylib (02:59:36) :
1) Retired 15 years ago.
So? Does that invalidate his time observing Hansen?
2) His real work (papers) stop around that time as well.
So? What part of ‘retired’ is unclear? Or do you mean that papers have an expiration date? If so, when did the work of Newton and Einstein expire?
3) Was “in effect” Hansen’s superviser, presumably in contrast to “in reality”.
Never worked in a matrix organization?
It was the fad about 15 – 20 years ago. One line of the organization is the formal reporting path and does the performance review (good at HR stuff and overall staffing decisions – picks what areas of knowledge the organization needs) the other is the project oriented path (day to day supervision on particular projects that can run for years; gives input to the performance review but does not write it nor do the hiring and firing.)
It would be nice to see an actual org chart for NASA to clear this up, by my take on the statement is just that he managed Hansen’s area day to day but the other part of the matrix did the performance review. (It was thought that having the HR skilled folks give the bad news would leave the direct managers free to have a better relationship with the employee day to day…)
This is all speculative and an org chart would clear it up, but it is what the extant data available support.
4) Has absolutely no first hand knowledge of the Bush years, or whether or not Hansen was muzzled.
You have got to be kidding! You can’t open a magazine, watch TV, read a newspaper, or even follow court proceedings in the UK without tripping over Hansen! Muzzled? The guy is positively a news hound and media darling.
Garacka (05:56:00) :
My sense is that Theon was stifled in taking action because, NASA had been politically cornered.
It is simpler than that. In any organization, if a manager goes public talking dirt about an employee they open the organization to lawsuits. I was run through ‘Managers and the Law” about ever 2 years during my time as a manager (part of why I left the field…).
Theon simply knew that to go to the press and talk down Hansen or to restrict his media access, which would result in a media food fight, would all expose NASA to suit for his actions and truncate his career (google ‘Career Limiting Move’ – lawsuit bait would qualify). Oh, and any guidance or counseling given to Hansen will not see the light of day. To even talk about it would result in suit. If an employee shouts to the world that there are being wrongly persecuted, and you as manager know they are being counseled about very real problems, you can say exactly nothing about it. Best you can do is ask HR and Legal to take a look.
And firing someone? Especially from a government job? Don’t get me started… I once caught someone in the act of theft. Hard evidence. HR advised me to try to talk the guy into resigning… (he did) and reminded me that I could never say a bad thing about him if called for a reference… I’ve also watched a 2 year attempt to dump an incompetent once. If he met the requirements for just one period, the timer started over again. And again. And again…
dhogaza (06:08:23) :
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.
Well, in the GISStemp code they do just that. NOAA hands over real temperature data, this is then changed via the ‘reference station method’ that thinks Lodi knows more about San Francisco temperatures than SF does. It also takes a (rougly 10 year) set of recent years and uses that to change the past years (for stations with both GHCN and USHCN data) based on the belief that recent changes to TOB (time of observation bias) or equipment control past TOB and equipment. Both are clearly wrong and both clearly change the data to fit the model of reality that they represent.
I can provide the code in question if anyone wants. (I am presently working my way through GISStemp and I’m up to STEP1 – which is actually the fourth process… gives a clue right there. 1- manually download data. 2 – compile and run a sort program for antarctic data. 3 – run STEP0 programs. 4 – proceed to STEP1…)
Having read quite a lot but not all of this posting, I an not the first to mention that scientific debates take place in the scientific literature. Check out John S Theon on google scholar. He has a very small number of hardly cited publications. He may have had a distinquished career as an administrator, but he was hardly involved in scientific research of any kind.
FMR. V.P. Gore Testifies on Global Climate Change
Warns of
* Complete melting of Arctic ice in summer
* Up to 11 deg F heating within the century.
* Melting of Greenland ice with 20 ft rise in ocean level this century.
* Release of methane from arctic regions.
January 29, 2009
Leif Svalgaard (10:57:01) the oldest trick in the book: “turn off the Sun if you don’t think the Sun is the driver”.
The only “trick” I see is you stating your “interpretation” of what what I said vis a vis the sun being the “big Cahuna” of drivers.
After the gospel of man-made global warming is sufficiently debunked, what will be the new messianic mission to pursue and promote?
Fortunately third world countries won´t do too much against “CO2 pollution”, no matter what they say or pledge, so the only ones affected by green policies will be developed countries and perhaps…only the USA
Re: Joel Shore (12:22:11) : (Still OT but in the spirit).
It appears that the short answer to my question is: Yes, way back in 1999 Bard ran your suggested experiment. See
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/284/5417/1133
PALEOCLIMATE:
Ice Age Temperatures and Geochemistry
Edouard Bard
Whether the last ice age was unusually chilly is more than merely historical curiosity. Such information is used to bench mark the computer models that are used to estimate future greenhouse warming. In his Perspective, Bard discusses recent efforts to use geochemical data to calculate past climate behavior. Data from noble gases in groundwater and trace elements in corals, for example, can indicate past sea surface temperatures. This can be compared with general circulation models, a comparison that shows good progress in modeling and also highlights where improvements can be made. According to the author, these advances have been made possible by the extensive exchanges of information between the data measurement and the modeling communities.
Unfortunately, I did not find a free version of the complete article. Dr. Schrag reproduces his survey here:
http://environment.harvard.edu/docs/faculty_pubs/schrag_ancient.pdf
Every one knows that water vapor is 20X as effective as a greenhouse gas as CO2 is.
So why aren’t we banning methane (CH4) and promoting coal?
And where is the hot water tax?
President Obama has spoken on record as ‘being happy to listen to good ideas from wherever they may come’.
We must stop boiling water at once. Doesn’t he know how devastating to climate that is?
At least Dr. Theon spoke out after he retired. I can’t blame him for not speaking out sooner, nobody wants to lose their job.
Part of the new stimulus package the Democrats are so eager to pass contains another 450 million dollars for “global warming research.” You can bet NASA is one of the agencies that will get some of that money.
It works like this:
Say global warming is real…. you get money.
Say global warming is not real….. you don’t get money.
This is how the Democrats make us pay for our own deception. They make “global warming” the bread and butter of a segment of the scientific community and let it be known what their findings MUST BE, in order to get more money. It’s pure corruption and the heads of NASA are going along with it.
RJ Hendrickson wrote:
“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.”
This is a major reason for media promotion of AGW: it “fits the template” they’ve been taught, as John Leo would say. They feel that AGW nests nicely into the belief system and overarching stance of every properly Annointed person; disbelief is Benighted.
Bruce Cobb (13:39:42) :
Leif Svalgaard (10:57:01) the oldest trick in the book: “turn off the Sun if you don’t think the Sun is the driver”.
The only “trick” I see is you stating your “interpretation” of what what I said vis a vis the sun being the “big Cahuna” of drivers.
As far as “minute variations in the solar output”, and there being “no evidence for those controlling the climate in a big way”, that is your opinion, and you are certainly free to have that opinion, wrong-headed as it is. There is plenty of evidence to support it, but you obviously aren’t interested. Your ego and scientific position have become sadly entangled.
Do you mean ‘evidence’ of the kind you presented on another thread which included a fabricated graph? Or are you thinking of something better?
I think you should present your ‘evidence’ rather than resorting to ad homs against another poster – they will only ever be demeaning of you rather than of your intended target.
evanjones (21:55:05) :
(My best joke was snipped from both WUWT and Climate Audit . . . in my own best interests I am sure.)
David Ben…new messianic mission…
Ice Memorial day…
I presume
“” 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?
Thanks in advance. ”
Why not try Googling: Nyquist Criterion or Nyquist theorem, or Aliassing Noise, or sampled data system theory.
If you find a hole in the ground and measure its depth, then you know within some margin of error what the depth of that hole is. But you can’t extrapolate from that hole, to say anything about any other holes in the ground.
The land based (non satellite) sytem of weather stations; including the avant garde ones Anthony has shown us, fails by orders of magnitude (in space), and also by a significant ratio (in time_ to properly sample the continuous function they are trying to measure.
I’m referring to the three scenarios charted in the appendix to Hansen’s 1988 testimony. Sure looks to me like he was way off, but if you use NOAA or perhaps GISS data, perhaps it looks at lot closer.
I’m sure you’re not suggesting the IPCC models are correct because the IPCC says so, are you?
When we test software, we compare the results to the expected outcome. For a given input, the exact results are known. We know what the correct answer is, and we compare that to our output. In contrast, the IPCC doesn’t know what the exact output is supposed to be. Neither does Hansen or anybody else. The IPCC is at least honest enough to call their output “scenarios” and not “predictions” or “forecasts”.
The exact interactions of all elements in the climate system are not known. Many experts also tell us we don’t have enough computing power to accurately model the climate, even if we did know how to quantify all the interactions.
Another crack appears in the crumbling facade of “consensus”.
I have followed the comments thread, but nobody appears to have observed yet that James Hansen has promised record high temperatures before the end of this presidential term.
He maybe, and is I think very wrong, but he has firmly nailed his reputation and colours to the mast.
See http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10552746&pnum=0
Climatologist Timothy Ball, PhD:
“Down is up, white is black, evil is good, and global warming causes global cooling.” The general public can take that sort of scam talk for only so long before they start to wise up: click
Robc (13:05:08) :
Dr Svalgaard , could it be that you do not know the actual mechanism.
Well, no mechanism is needed for no effect. There are lots and lots of proposed and believed and cherished mechanisms. They just don’t hold up as to qualify as major drivers.
Even if the Sun were absolutely constant, we would still have temperature differences between day and night, between summer and winter, and still have glaciations come and go. All these things are due to variations of the Earth’s position and cycling.
PaulHClark (13:14:23) :
unless you can convince me there is another source of energy for our climate then I would suggest there is only one driver – the sun.
My response [above] is for you as well.
Bruce Cobb (13:39:42) :
Your ego and scientific position have become sadly entangled
And Bruce could do well with learning some manners.
Joel –
If I am to understand you and others here correctly, you contend that Theon is not really a Climate Scientist ® and has not submitted his skeptical assertions for peer review via a major journal. He may have been a fine administrator but he is not a scientist. Let’s, for the sake of argument, accept that in whole.
Here is Theon’s core assertion in his email –
That is an allegation of fraud. How is it that a peer reviewed journal can provide any input or feedback on such an assertion? Is it an assertion requires a scientist to interpret? Or make? Or is it an assertion that only has credibility based on the position of the observer? Theon, as an administrator, was in the position to observe and level such an accusation. In fact, it takes the skills, insights and access of an administrator (or a sufficiently empowered and persistent auditor) to make such an accusation credible.
So you and others have moved the goal posts (actually the whole playing field) by trying to attack his credibility as a scientist when what is at issue is a matter of administrators enforcing discipline so that the organization’s credibility can be preserved, which is the thrust of his email.
And, in such a context, sending such an accusation to a Senator on the committee that is supposed to provide oversight is perfectly appropriate. The real question we should all be asking is “why didn’t he do it earlier?”
The data are in doubt and have been for sometime. Garbage in, garbage out. Fraud in, fraud out. It really is that simple.
Leif Svalgaard (14:26:10) :
Even if the Sun were absolutely constant, we would still have temperature differences between day and night, between summer and winter, between poles and tropics, and still have glaciations come and go. All these things are due to variations of the Earth’s position and cycling.
Smokey (14:21:01) :
Very good, Smokey, you link to an article entitled:
“Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today. How and why we are told otherwise?”
It’s Ernst-Georg Beck again! Are you really, really wanting to propose this seriously? Do please tell me it is so – I would have much fun discussing it with you!
Ernst-Georg Beck, then. Tell us all why you take his papers seriously. Do tell us why you think the overwhelming majority of his data being derived from a three month (from memory) period on the outskirts of the city of Bremen gives us a good indication of global C02 concentration. I’m looking forward to it.
sounds like he should be named Aristotle
It is not clear that Dr Theon was Hansen’s boss or supervisor in the usual sense.
But Theon did have to get Hansen’s budget approved (by his upstairs line, and
“””
“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. “”
So I think the chain of command was more complex.
Dr Theon is just the latest of higher level NASA Scientist/managers who have become “whistle blowers” after leaving NASA. Dr Joanne Simpson had the same situation. She pretty much let out a whoop, right as the NASA door narrowly missed whacking her tush on the way out. I believe she has impeccabole scientific credentials.
I would think that in government structures, there are all sorts of rules about discipline. I doubt that Dr Theon was in a position to criticise Hansen on other than the job performance in his department; and his involvement in pushing for Hansen’s budget, and commenting on his results, would be limited to his on the job at NASA work, and not his public pronouncements.
If Hansen’s public relations stuff was damaging to NASA, it likely would have been someone well above Dr Theon who’s responsibility to speak out for the agency, should be under scrutiny.
I’ve not heard anything negative really about what Hansen was actually doing for NASA. We have been questioning his data reconstitutioning processes and habits; but we don’t have any evidence that NASA thought his department work was unsatisfactory.
I think it is sufficient that someone at Dr Theon’s level, make the scientific statement as to the validity of the MMGW hypothesis; and alsoto squash any media claim that Hansen was ever muddled (by the Bush administration as has been alleged in the past).
Well Jim Jones only took around 960 with him who drank his coolade. We have maybe the next 8 years to find out what the score will be for the current pied piper.