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.
“” John Galt (13:19:00) :
You know, bottom line
the planet is getting warmer, whatever we can do to curb this trend is a good thing. “”
I take it you have some scientific basis for making that statement.
I think if you polled the peopole of the world, you would find that more people would prefer it to get a little warmer, rather than alittle colder.
So if you had the thermostat knob; just where would you set it, and why ?
Simon,
Are you published in the field of science?
JimB
Neither you, Simon Evans, nor any other AGW-runaway global warming believer has falsified Beck, and especially not that jamoke Keeling. Dr. Beck has been entirely transparent, and answers all questions. Unlike Hansen and Mann. [What are they hiding?] Of course, I understand that you’re trying to change the subject of the thread. I would too, if I were in your shoes.
I see that it’s time again to remind everyone that the burden of proof is not on scientific skeptics to prove anything. The burden of proof is entirely on the purveyors of the new AGW-CO2-runaway global warming-climate catastrophe hypothesis, to show definitively that increasing levels of atmospheric carbon diioxide will lead to planetary catastrophe. So far, they have completely failed. The globe is cooling.
Global catastrophe due to CO2 is the AGW promoters’ alarming argument. If the warmists are now backing away from that hypothesis, in which they have invested so much of their egos, then their only ethical course of action is to now demand, as loudly and vociferously as they promoted their AGW-catastrophe hypothesis, that the government must immediately cease action on “climate change,” and end its plans to spend $trillions on a non-problem.
We’re waiting to hear that from the AGW promoters. But I’m not holding my breath.
I’m wondering why the effects of CO2 have yet to be corrected for te warming caused by the PDO.
Hi Simon,
Instead of drilling Smokey, just tell us what it is. I am of the opinion that CO2 percentages of the atmosphere actually haven’t changed much over the last 300 years if you put them on a chart that doesn’t distort their size in the atmosphere. On any chart of that purpose one would see that CO2 is flat. Saw such a chart a week or two ago.
So deal the facts to us. I’ll listen.
As of 3 PM Pacific, Wednesday, January 28th, a search of Google News uncovers a grand total of 9 references, and only two, from the National Post in Canada, represent any sort of mainstream media.
Nothing more to see here, folks….. move along…..
Simon Evans – why is measuring CO2 outside Bremen less valid than measuring on the side of a Hawaiian volcano, as Keeling did?
Dr. Theon has quite a resume:
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).
George E. Smith (14:43:17) :
“….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.”
Hmm, this guest blog seems very measured: more like a criticism of both extremes in the climate debate. Is there some other communication that is more critical of the AGW argument?
http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/
[snip, try rephrasing that without ad-hom ]
Flanagan:
I appreciate you posting the publications. However, here is my concern and its a large one: – they are ALL based on the output from simulations (models) or in the case of the Mann paper on “climate proxies”. WHERE IS THE EMPIRICAL DATA proof? I have posted my comment on each paper after the R:
1) Natural variability of the climate system and detection of the greenhouse effect
R: In the abstract we read “…Simulations with a simple climate model are used to determine the main controls on internally generated low-frequency variability…” – they are using a model to determine what the range of “natural” variability in the atmosphere is, NOT ACTUAL data
2) Simulations of Atmospheric Variability Induced by Sea Surface Temperatures and Implications for Global Warming
R: The title says it all “Simulations” – they are not using ACTUAL DATA
3) Model assessment of the role of natural variability in recent global warming
R: “Model”, not ACTUAL DATA How can a GCM, which contains gross simplifications of the physics of the atmosphere, and which the IPCC have themselves indicated cannot be used for prediction (see AR4) reasonably be used to determine with the magnitude of natural variability is?
4) External Control of 20th Century Temperature by Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings
R: Here they attempt to replicate the 20th century record by a GCM – the GCM cannot replicate the temperature record – not surprising, since it does not reproduce many of the natural modes of variability in the atmosphere/ocean system such as NAO, AO, PDO, PNA, AMO etc. and even the IPCC indicate that GCMS should not be used for climate prediction (see AR4). So they adopt the old chestnut explanation – what else could it be? aha, must be CO2 NOT PROOF that CO2 drives climate.
5) Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries
R: This is a study by Michael Mann using….oh dear….climate proxies….oh dear. NOT ACTUAL DATA. I won’t even go further here – read any of the excellent work by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick for further explanation
I will repeat – where is the beef?
First of all:
“NASA warming scientist James Hansen”
Nice way to characterize all his years of work with other things for NASA. This Might be the only way he’ll be remembered.
Second:
“…and his claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite doing 1,400 on-the-job media interviews!”
Just imagine how many interviews he would have given had he NOT been “muzzled”.
Now that a new adminstration is in power, let’s see if the number of interviews increases or decreases. Especially when the new NASA administrator takes over.
RE: Flanagan (03:58:33) :
***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.***
Proof would be a scientific study which MEASURES the percentage of the warming or cooling caused by CO2. To date no such paper exists. If you want a idea of how the logarithmic effect of warming by CO2 works you can check slide 22 of David Archibald’s presentation at: http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
Why do scientists believe that CO2 is responsible for most warming? They looked at graphs of CO2 and temperatures increasing, and not knowing what the main cause is, they concluded (not very scientifically) that CO2 is to blame – and the rest is history. A lot more work is needed including studying the sun. The IPCC4 essentially ignored the sun in the last Report as well as many scientists who where critical of the conclusions. You can find this in the comments part of the IPCC which they did not want to release.
In addition,a second question can be asked: Where is there a detailed engineering quality calculation that a doubling of CO2 will cause a 2-6 Degree C increase in temperature? They (IPCC and others) are using a worn out old paper which is not detailed enough.
***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…***
Almost certain- not really. It may have been greenhouse but was not caused by CO2. CO2 is released by water as it warms, but the initial cause of the warming is not mainly due to CO2. The models may be showing feedbacks as caused by CO2, but questions are being raised whether feedbacks from CO2 are positive or negative.
***So what do you need?***
The two big reports as specified above.
Smokey (14:52:42) :
If anyone changed the subject of the thread it was you, by linking to an article talking of Beck’s notions. I simply showed the courtesy of following your link and asking you to say what you thought of it. I note that you don’t wish to do that, which is a bit of a shame, as I was looking forward to your thoughts on such very eccentric (I use that word correctly and not pejoratively) notions.
As for your comments on the burden of proof, this is science – there is no ‘proof’. There is evidence. I don’t feel any burden at all, I assure you, but you might do, if you wish to change the assessment. I do suggest that you look a bit further than Ernst-Georg Beck if you wish to find it, but that’s JMV. I don’t have to prove anything to you, Smokey. I could tell you why I think Beck’s work is not of value, but I gather that you’re not interested in sceptical views, so I will leave you with your undisturbed faith in anything that supports your opposition to AGW theory.
I din’t understand your last two paragraphs at all, by the way.
Grant Hodges (14:56:07) :
I’ll get back to you tomorrow if I may, since I’m UK based and it’s time for bed :-). Can you dig up the chart you’re referencing so that I know what you’re talking about? I’m very happy to discuss why I think Beck’s analysis is unsound, if that’s the subject.
Steve D. (15:02:15) :
Simon Evans – why is measuring CO2 outside Bremen less valid than measuring on the side of Hawaiian volcano, as Keeling did?
Because one can reliably adjust for the localised known bias, which one can’t do when the source and extent of the bias is unknown. Of course, some here don’t like the idea of adjusting for bias – I become rather lost for words at that point! Keeling wasn’t an idiot, and he spent a long time looking for a sutable site to assess background C02 (he got Beck-like readings from earlier attempts elsewhere, with totally implausible suggestions of C02 flux (a la Beck!)).
JimB (14:47:56) :
Simon,
Are you published in the field of science?
JimB
No. Are you? Actually, don’t answer that – I’ll just assess what you say on its own merits :-).
Simon Evans
I’m afraid your memory is faulty. Becks data is taken from surviving measurements made by hundreds of scientists- several of them nobel winners. They started in 1780 and became reliable around the time of Saussure in 1820 who took measurements in well mixed air on the banks of lake Geneva- measurements ceased around 1956. The co2 readings came from all over the world. They have been documented in numerous books many of which I have cited in another thread, and are available by links from Becks very comprehensive site.
Taking measurements were a matter of course from around 1820 for all sorts of reasons, from medical to factory air monitoring. The first law stating the permitted co2 levels in working places was the UK Factories act way back in 1889, although levels were agreed some forty years earlier than that, but were never legally enforceable.
The vast majority of measurements have not survived-I would estimate the 90,000 detailed on Becks site are less than 10% of the original total.
From my own research of Becks data I would say that by no means all are reliable, but that still leaves thousands that seem reasonably accurate and I am inclined to believe that past levels were similar to today.
Beck is by far the most accessible of those involved in co2 research apart from Ferdinand Engelbeen who doee not agree with Beck but is sceptical of the exaggerated claims for co2.
If co2 was not variable at around todays levels but instead was fixed at 280ppm -according to the ice cores- what has driven the climate in the past when temperatures have fluctuated to heights much lower and much higher than todays?
TonyB
Simon Evans
Sorry, just saw your latest post. I was very sceoptical of Becks assertions as well until I looked into it and also researched Keeling and GS Callendar. I am genuinely interested as to why you are sceptical if we are not going OT
TonyB
Adam Sullivan says:
Well, the allegation of fraud is a different story. It would not be appropriate for a peer-reviewed journal However, it is still appropriate to provide evidence to back up such a strong assertion. Or, do you think we should just accept that there is fraud because Theon says so?
And, by the way, the interesting thing about this accusation is that it can be interpreted in so many ways. You have chosen to interpret it as Theon having inside info from his days as an administrator. In my interpretation, the accusation of fraud is probably just parroting what Theon has read in the blogosphere about Michael Mann and Jim Hansen and so forth. Of course, since he doesn’t present any evidence or even any elaboration, it can be interpreted any way you want.
Looks like this made it on youtube:
This thread has, for sure, stimulated a lot of synapses from both (all) sides of the AGW discussion (argument). I, for one, am happy that WUWT has provided an arena that permits equally worthy combatants to joust and exchange views in a setting unencumbered by petty subjectivity!
If all blogs adopted the the polite philosophy promulgated by Mr Watts then, IMO, the race for ‘Best Science Blog’ would be far less certain than hitherto!
Joel Shore — There are plenty of ways in which the models can and are being tested, just as evolution is tested without having to actually watch evolution occur in the lab. (Well, you can see what creationists call “micro-evolution” in the lab but this doesn’t convince them that “macro-evolution” occurs.) I suggest reading the IPCC reports for further discussions.
I’m gathering you don’t know much about software. Models are not tested. At best, their initial conditions and parameterisations are tested. Easy to prove this. Models do not discover processes; e.g. Svensmark’s cosmic ray stuff. Let’s say for argument CERN validates Svensmark. Every model run has just been invalidated at that moment. Models at the outside can only be as good as their inputs (unless of course they’re using advanced AI techniques, but this seems unlikely.) The original poster is correct; models are not science and they are not data. And unless they’re knee-deep in next gen AI techniques, they’re little more than spendy, bloated spreadsheets with a zillion rows and columns and running in a loop. Not exactly really advanced stuff. Just big.
And one more thing.
The equating of AGW skeptics with creationists always manages to rear its ugly head. It’s inevitable. Death and taxes territory. Surely there’s a way to question the skeptic IQ and draw analogies without dipping into that. Low hanging fruit may either be too tempting or the limit of your reach.
TonyB (15:36:21) :
Simon Evans
I’m afraid your memory is faulty. Becks data is taken from surviving measurements made by hundreds of scientists- several of them nobel winners.
Be assured that I have no real issue with the accuracy of the measurements taken – my scepticism is to do with the representativeness of what was being measured (and, frankly, with the plausibilty of the results in terms of Co2 flux). I’ll try to write some more tomorrow if it’s of interest, but for now it’s late here! 🙂
As Dr. Roy Spencer likes to say:
Until/unless that long-standing hypothesis is falsified, it is the AGW-CO2-climate catastrophe hypothesis that is wrong.
I could as easily hypothesize that there is a black cat in a dark room. I could be one of a half-dozen people here arguing about it incessantly, and run endless computer models proving there’s a cat.
So just turn on the lights, and you will see: There is is no unusual climate variability, there is no black cat, and there is no AGW catastrophe right around the corner. Deal with it.
Yep “The equating of AGW skeptics with creationists always manages to rear its ugly head”
However, alarmists more closely resemble flat earthers.
345 comments,,,, this is by far the best AGW discussion blog.
And the AGW holdouts get fewer and weaker every day.
Joel –
While Theon (or anyone making such an accusation in any profession) should back it up, I think it is fair to point out that the whole idea of publishing data, methods and assumptions exists to short circuit such accusations and counter accusations. Transparency = credibility, not pedigree or reputation.
I agree that there is room for that interpretation. When when looks at the emails they are almost casual in tone yet ended up in a less casual press release. Such is politics. Just the same, he provides his background and seems to value his reputation. Even if this is an opinion catalyzed by events that came to light after he retired there is a memory he has of NASA and of Hansen et al. Were his memory of people who were earnest, diligent, honest and sober scientists then I very much doubt he’d level the accusation. His is an opinion but not one that should be discounted outright. And again – full transparency would put everything to rest (at least for me).
re: G Alston (15:49:00) :
“I’m gathering you don’t know much about software. Models are not tested. At best, their initial conditions and parameterisations are tested. ”
I know a lot about software and a lot about electronic warefare models and simulations. So I assume that this is not a general statement about software models but a specific statement about the GCM class of models. Other than this nit, I agree with the general thrust of your post because the GCM models use large scale approximations. The application of (a whole lot more than $140 million worth of) additional computing power/programming that gets these models closer to the underlying physics would help them become more “testable”.
Of course, we know that much of the underlying physics for climate remains poorly understood. So perhaps we need to spend more money there before working the model problem.