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.
David S (09:39:43) : 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.
Yup, sure is:
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=hell&wuSelect=WEATHER
Hell, Michigan
Local Time: 3:17 PM EST (GMT -05) — Set My Timezone
Lat/Lon: 42.5° N 83.9° W (Google Map)
19.7 °F
Scattered Clouds
Windchill:
8 °F
E.M. Smith: click
[Photoshopped from Hell, MI]
Leif Svalgaard (14:26:10) : said
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.
The sun is though not absolutely constant and there is as you are aware a clear correlation between sunspots and temperature, sunspots may not be the cause just the visible markers of a driver of short term variations in climate, their none appearance at the present time appear to be linked to the present cooling. As I said, as yet I believe the mechanics of the earth/sun/climate link are not fully understood, the PDO was only discovered in 1997.
I just wonder how complex the climate is compared with say to a computer processor, if that processor was given to the most talented engineers in 1800, how long would it have taken them to understand and replicate it, probably never.
It took over 60 years in small steps to design and develop the processor in the average PC, I wonder how long it will take to unravel the secrets of the sun/earth/climate link.
The science does not matter to Obama. What matters is the march to global socialism and the paradise it promises. ‘Climate Change’ is simply a handy tool being used to pry away your freedoms and fortune.
Robert (16:11:30) :
A systemic problem with climate science is the capitalization. A research scientist at a university or think tank can’t simply go out an buy the equipment required to gather and process the data. The increasing complexity of the models compounds the problem. One can only hope to do “incremental” work and ultimately rely on data from other sources – the sources that admit to adjusting data but don’t fully disclose all of the raw data and the methods and assumptions that went into the assumptions.
It starts to resemble a capital intensive tautology.
This is, I believe, the most commented thread ever on WUWT.
If only the MSM will take up Theon’s words.
If we really want to be serious about winning this argument, we need to have weather men and women explaining why things are hot here, warm there, wet down south, cold up north, why oranges are at risk right now, and why Washington, DC is freezing. They should stop just reporting temperatures in a two minute segment with a funny joke or a short skirt. They should be given time on all the news programs to explain the why of weather variations and patterns. They should be given time to explain why ice is growing or melting here and there. They should be given time to explain ocean climates and currents (since much of our weather is a gift from the oceans, good or bad). That is where the good stuff is and will, if allowed to happen, turn this debate into something winnable. Until then, we are just staring at the Sun waiting for something to happen, like deer caught in headlights.
That does not mean I am uninterested in the Sun. I find that globe fascinating and beautiful. The greatest disappointment in my life is that I can’t look straight at it. My above statement also does not mean that I don’t appreciate the fact that it’s rays melts the ice I slipped on Monday. But the fact that ice occurred Sunday and melted today has nothing to do with some kind of variation in the Sun’s output. It had to do with Earth’s weather. I’m tellin ya, that is where the goodies are for this argument.
G Alston says:
Well, besides having done computational science for a living for the last 20 years-ish, no not much.
It is true that they do not include this very speculative process. However, even if CERN validates Svensmark, it is a long way to showing that this process is the dominating effect in producing the current warming (particularly given the lack of a significant trend in cosmic ray flux) and explaining why the warming due to CO2 does not occur.
As for testing the models, there are lots of things that can be done…and really at the end of the day the main thing that the models are doing is giving us an estimate of the climate sensitivity to the known forcing due to CO2. (Even Richard Lindzen accepts that the value of the CO2 forcing is known to good accuracy.) The fact is that the models with the current processes incorporated in them give estimates for this that are in good agreement with estimates obtained by looking at various empirical data, such as the glacial – interglacial transition, the eruption of Mt Pinatubo, the instrumental temperature record, etc. And, furthermore, the various processes within climate models can also be tested. For example, Brian Soden and Andrew (?) Dessler and others have been verifying that the models seem to be getting the water vapor feedback basically right. The models can also be tested by looking at the fingerprint of the warming…E.g., is it warming in the troposphere but cooling in the stratosphere, the answer is yes (and this would not be true if, for example, direct solar forcing were causing the warming).
I might suggest reading some of the things that evolution “skeptics” say. If you don’t see the similarity in the arguments made, well I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. (I’m not saying that the analogy is perfect and I will admit that there is still more room in AGW to question the magnitude of the effects based on the uncertainties that do remain. And, just as in evolution where you have the gamut running from young-earth creationists to intelligent design or “directed evolution” adherents, in AGW you have the gamut ranging from those who argue that there is no greenhouse effect at all / that CO2 is not at unprecedented levels in at least the last 750000 years[ a la Beck] / that the basic physics of CO2 radiative forcing is not understood to those who simply argue about the value of the climate sensitivity, i.e., that it is being overestimated.)
At any rate, ***I*** don’t really have to make the equation between the two because one of the few scientifically-reputable AGW skeptics (e.g., with a significant publication record in the field), Roy Spencer, is also an evolution skeptic: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I
Adam Sullivan says:
I don’t see the field of climate science as being any less transparent than the areas of physics that I have worked in. And, in fact, with the GISS Model E climate model, the data and programs from Mann et al.’s latest paper, and the code that Hansen et al use for GISTEMP all online now, it seems to me there is now much greater transparency than there has been in the areas of physics I have worked in. And I give the “skeptics” some credit here in moving the field in that direction…Maybe they should come on over and do the same thing in physics!
Bravo, Dr Theon!
Flanagan (04:27:47) : Smokey… So where’s the scientific publication asserting that the role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect is “tiny”. Looking at a graphic is not science. What? Looking at a graphic is not science? Examining some of the most basic and common forms of evidence is not science? Ah (light of illumination flashes) if the graphic is peer-reviewed one does not need to check it oneself, to ask tricky questions. Does Flanagan believe that only peer-reviewed material is real science? Oh, that could mean that he will not even weigh these words of mine, because I am not peer-reviewed! Will he just “know” in advance that I am probably wrong? Ah, there are many who rely on official authority, who maybe don’t even hear a possibility of truth or excellence in what is said to them on places like this blog, by non-published noobs.
Makes me feel more and more we need a skeptics’ wiki so we have good science to hand but don’t have to keep on repeating ourselves while not getting heard.
Hansen’s words and actions have cast a noxious cloud so large that it has sullied the reputation of the “Scientific Community” in general.
Perhaps that cloud is part of the reason why global warming isn’t actually happening.
Robert — 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.
Absolutely.
1. Where I was going with my equating models and big honkin’ spreadsheets… climate models were developed with the premise of understanding the role of CO2, so when one spits out any answer other than 42, are we to be astonished that the answer has something to do with CO2? Of course not. What would be a most welcome surprise would be a result that *didn’t* have something to do with CO2.
2. Re models I was speaking as a general rule: if your spreadsheet/model is designed to calculate oil company finances, it’s not going to solve Fermat’s Last Theorem. Models are limited to their inputs and constraints.
3. Loop to 1.
So, I am trying to understand how absorption of photons by CO2 molecules in the air can have a positive feedback effect on the temperature of the atmosphere. That is, I am trying to understand the mechanism.
I can understand that there are a number of photon wavelengths that are close to the energies associated with rotational and vibrational modes of the CO2 molecule, but what I wonder is:
1. Can an excited CO2 molecule transfer that energy to an O2, N2 or H2O molecule as simple velocity during a collision or must the energy be transferred as an excitation level of the molecules it collides with? Ie, how is the energy transferred to other molecules in the atmosphere and thus raise the overall energy of the atmosphere.
2. Are there preferential transfer paths, say with H2O that might then result in H2O rinsing higher in the atmosphere and then releasing that energy by radiation when condensing into water?
That’s all I can think of at the moment. I can understand that at the densities near the surface, CO2 molecules will collide with other molecules before they have a chance to re-radiate the energy they absorbed … but what is the probability they will indeed transfer that energy during a collision?
M. Simon (14:54:22) :
I’d like to get at least a couple more years of data before seeing people do that, and use the satellite temperature record. Weather is just too noisy, and we only have about 18 months of the recent negative PDO and 360 months of positive PDO, I think it would be tough to come up with good scaling coefficients that will stand up over time. I am going to lean on Joe D’Aleo for updates to the step before, his graphs showing the correlation between CO2 and temp, PDO and temp, and PDO+AMO and temp. His last set had the best correlation. Some people like to use SST 3.4, that could be mixed in too I suppose. I’m giving a talk in a couple weeks on the state of the climate and want those graphs.
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/ for last year’s graphs. Most of them go back to 1900.
Does anyone know what the CO2 levels should be? What is the CO2 neutral point without any man produced CO2 (not counting exhaling)?
I know this cannot be answered but I expect that Hansen and Gore have a number in their models.
I understand the Gore effect hit Washington DC today!
Steve M. (06:28:05) :
OT, maybe: From the MET office website regarding HARCRUT3:
“We have recently changed the way that the smoothed time series of data were calculated. Data for 2008 were being used in the smoothing process […] it looked as though smoothed global average temperatures had dropped markedly in recent years, which is misleading.”
Am I missing something? They have to change their process because January 2008 was “unusually cool.” And I thought HARCRUT might have better data than GISS.
Oh great. Another data source that looks like it uses the recent past to rewrite the distant past. Gak! Can’t any of these folks figure out that it’s a bad idea to change the past?
OK, does anyone have access to the HADCRUT source code? Or does anyone know if they have published a description saying they do something like GISS does (i.e. the ‘reference station method’ and /or adjusting for UHI using some kind of ‘recent 10 years’ adjustment?
It is very easy to confound ‘smoothing’ with ‘creating’…
And I do find it suspicious that they only cared about the effect of the most recent data when it turned cold… sounds to me like they had a trend acceleration method that they were happy with when the trend was up, but now… (No, I’m not asserting malice, I’m asserting that folks don’t search for what’s wrong when they like the answer…)
That liberal news source, MSNBC was panning Gore’s poor timing in that every time he has testified, it has been damned cold outside the nation’s government doors. Obama himself gave a nod to the decidedly unwarming like cold weather in our nation’s capital. Good ol’ plain Jane Weather has trumped Gore, Hansen, AGW, the Sun, and this debate. Not to be politically incorrect, but shall we call a spade a spade here? Global warming—and cooling—is weather, not climate.
No need to worry about there being a consensus, apparently there is a need for more climate modelling:
“not less than $140,000,000 shall be available for climate data modeling.”
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/26/stimulus-plan-non-existent-unemployed-climate-modelers-get-140-million/
We’re all gunna die.
Steven Hill –
I am not sure you would get a consensus on what “normal” is, but the Vostock ice cores are graphed here. The commonly referenced Mauna Loa readings are certainly higher, but Mauna Loa is closer to the equator than the south pole, where Vostok is so they don’t compare 1:1.
Talk about piling on check out this recent post at Jennifer Marohasy’s site:
“Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. [2]
He walks through 8 reasons why GCM and the IPCC “forecasts” violate statistical principles and lack a scientific basis.
Link at: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/no-scientific-forecasts-to-support-global-warming/#more-4115
Has anyone ever suggested an open source climate model?
The idea would be to get both skeptics and non-skeptics contributing source code to a model whose only objective is to be predictive on a back tested basis. Harvest idle time on various servers / pcs much like the SETI folks. The biggest challenge would be coming up with an architecture that allows folks to “snap on” and “snap off” code segments intended to simulate different phenomena. Any thoughts?
psi (12:11:07) :
I consider myself conservative but have to agree as I think any thinking person must.
Efficiency is a prime consideration in all things, particularly use of energy, but diving headlong into uncharted territory is in my view suicide.
Renewables may be useful in the long term but now are untenable and must be treated with caution.
Joel Shore (12:22:11) :
How you can contend that positive feedbacks are not unstable I just cannot understand.
There is one plus however…
This positive feedback only works in the upwards direction.
Explain that please?
DaveE.
psi (09:04:33) : Michael Smith, E.A. Smith, and Anna V –
Thanks for your assistance elucidating the (to a layman) obscurities of that quote. I feel the tide is shifting…I am one of those who only a year ago was wholly in the “green” alarmist camp on this issue. I still consider myself green.
psi, I think the “E.A. Smith” was me, assuming so:
I’m strongly in favor of taking as much crud out of our environment as possible. I try to use bioDiesel whenever I can get it (and I’ve even made my own sometimes). Am I a green? Used to be, but now I don’t “fit” in the organizations…
This leaves me with a dilemma: I’m getting the non-OPEC energy sources I want, but for all the wrong reasons. Frankly, if the use of coal to liquids was being promoted (to let us use our 250-400 years of coal to tell OPEC we no longer cared to play…) along with the wind, solar, etc. I’d have my dream scenario on energy.
But I cannot accept AGW because it is wrong. It will lead to a lot of misallocation of resources and ‘very bad things’. The two I have cited most often are the rocket stoves and education. Even a tiny fraction of the money spent on the AGW fantasy would solve far more real world problems if spent elsewhere. So rest assured, you are in the company of fellow travelers here. Thinking AGW is bunk does not mean you are anti-green. For some of us it is exactly the opposite.
Sidebar: Rocket Stoves are a trivial way to stop deforestation. They are very cheap. Simply building and teaching folks how to build these would do more to stop wood collection and deforestation that just about anything else. The also would save thousands of ‘woman years’ spent gathering wood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_stove
http://www.pyroenergen.com/articles08/eco-rocket-stove.htm
After women have free time available, education is the thing that correlates most strongly with reduced childbearing. Give each of those women an education and the population problem plummets.
Cost? A trivial part of the rounding error of the money to be squandered on the AGW movement as it sucks the oxygen from every other green solution… and that is the kind of thing that causes me to put time in against the AGW ‘movement’. Waste is a sin.
Americans owe Sen. James Inhofe a great debt of gratitude. He stood alone on this issue for a number of years and endured every kind of ruthless ridicule. Now the tide has turned and scientist are scampering away from the great man-made global warming hoax, attempting to salvage some small part of their credibility. But we need to remember their names because these “scientist” have no credibility. Indeed some of them are the same alarmist that were involved in the global cooling scare of the 1970’s.
But the battle is not yet won. American taxpayers footed the bill for nearly four billion dollars worth of global warming research last year and lesser amounts going all the way back to the early 1990’s. America’s infrastructure is crumbling, we have bridges falling down, yet all of this money wasted on a scare tactic to assault our pocketbooks and our liberties. Enough all ready ! It’s time for the scientific man-made global warming gravy train to stop. Somebody should have to answer for all of this fraud, all of this waste and the fear it has put into the minds of our children. The whole farrago is despicable beyond belief.
And yes, hoax is the correct word to describe man-made global warming… another very expensive hoax, brought to us by the U.N., the IPCC and primarily the Democratic party.