James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic – Says Hansen 'Embarrassed NASA', 'Was Never Muzzled', & Models 'Useless'

nasa_logoUPDATE 1/28: Full text of Dr. Theon’s letter has been post on the Senate website and below.

This is something I thought I’d never see. This press release today is from the Senate EPW blog of Jame Inhofe. The scientist making the claims in the headline, Dr. John S. Theon, formerly of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Arlington, Virginia, has a paper here in the AMS BAMS that you may also find interesting. Other papers are available here in Google Scholar. He also worked on the report of the Space Shuttle Challenger accident report and according to that document was a significant contributor to weather forecasting improvements:

The Space Shuttle Weather Forecasting Advisory Panel, chaired by Dr. John Theon, was established by NASA Headquarters to review existing weather support capabilities and plans and to recommend a course of action to the NSTS Program. Included on the panel were representatives from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Air Force, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

For those just joining the climate discussion, Dr. James Hansen is the chief climate scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and is the man who originally raised the alarm on global warming in 1988 in an appearance before congress. He is also the keeper of the most often cited climate data.

EPW press release below – Anthony


Washington DC, Jan 27th 2009: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote. [Note: NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his dire climate warning, his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear, and his claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite doing 1,400 on-the-job media interviews! See: Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom – Get the Facts on James Hansen UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says ‘lock up the oil men’ – June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for ‘high crimes against humanity’ for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008 ]

Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.

“As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research,” Theon wrote of his career. “This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles,” Theon added. (LINK) Theon also co-authored the book “Advances in Remote Sensing Retrieval Methods.” [Note: Theon joins many current and former NASA scientists in dissenting from man-made climate fears. A small sampling includes: Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA, Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt, Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7, Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA’s Plum Brook Reactor, Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Ames Research Center, Climatologist Dr. John Christy, Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA’s Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility]

Gore faces a much different scientific climate in 2009 than the one he faced in 2006 when his film “An Inconvenient Truth” was released. According to satellite data, the Earth has cooled since Gore’s film was released, Antarctic sea ice extent has grown to record levels, sea level rise has slowed, ocean temperatures have failed to warm, and more and more scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made climate fears as peer-reviewed studies continue to man-made counter warming fears. [See: Peer-Reviewed Study challenges ‘notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming’ & New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears ]

“Vice President Gore and the other promoters of man-made climate fears endless claims that the “debate is over” appear to be ignoring scientific reality,” Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee.

A U.S. Senate Minority Report released in December 2008 details over 650 international scientists who are dissenting from man-made global warming fears promoted by the UN and yourself. Many of the scientists profiled are former UN IPCC scientists and former believers in man-made climate change that have reversed their views in recent years. The report continues to grow almost daily. We have just received a request from an Italian scientist, and a Czech scientist to join the 650 dissenting scientists report. A chemist from the U.S. Naval Academy is about to be added, and more Japanese scientists are dissenting. Finally, many more meteorologists will be added and another former UN IPCC scientist is about to be included. These scientists are openly rebelling against the climate orthodoxy promoted by Gore and the UN IPCC.

The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. Reports from the conference found that Skeptical scientists overwhelmed the meeting, with ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ ( See full reports here & here ] In addition, a 2008 canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.” More evidence that the global warming fear machine is breaking down. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices.”

The scientists and peer-reviewed studies countering climate claims are the key reason that the U.S. public has grown ever more skeptical of man-made climate doom predictions. [See: Global warming ranks dead last, 20 out of 20 in new Pew survey. Pew Survey: & Survey finds majority of U.S. Voters – ‘51% – now believe that humans are not the predominant cause of climate change’ – January 20, 2009 – Rasmussen Reports ]

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore’s claims that the “science is settled” and there is a “consensus.”

On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick“; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.

# # #

ORIGINAL FULL TEXT LETTER SENT VIA EMAILS:

—–Original Message—–

From: Jtheon [mailto:jtheon@XXXXXXX]

Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:05 PM

To: Morano, Marc (EPW)

Subject: Climate models are useless
Marc, First, I sent several e-mails to you with an error in the address and they have been returned to me. So I’m resending them in one combined e-mail.
Yes, one could say that I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation. He was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). He thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.
My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.
With best wishes, John
# #
From: Jtheon [mailto:jtheon@XXXXXX]

Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:50 PM

To: Morano, Marc (EPW)

Subject: Re: Nice seeing you
Marc, Indeed, it was a pleasure to see you again. I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that Global Warming is man made.  A brief bio follows. Use as much or as little of it as you wish.
John S. Theon Education: B.S. Aero. Engr. (1953-57); Aerodynamicist, Douglas Aircraft Co. (1957-58); As USAF Reserve Officer (1958-60),B.S. Meteorology (1959); Served as Weather Officer 1959-60; M.S, Meteorology (1960-62); NASA Research Scientist, Goddard Space Flight Ctr. (1962-74); Head Meteorology Branch, GSFC (1974-76); Asst. Chief, Lab. for Atmos. Sciences, GSFC (1977-78);  Program Scientist, NASA Global Weather Research Program, NASA Hq. (1978-82); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch NASA Hq., (1982-91); Ph.D.,  Engr. Science & Mech.: course of study and dissertation in atmos. science (1983-85); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics, Radiation, & Hydrology Branch, NASA Hq. (1991-93); Chief, Climate Processes Research Program, NASA Hq. (1993-94); Senior Scientist, Mission to Planet Earth Office, NASA Hq. (1994-95); Science Consultant, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (1995-99); Science Consultant  Orbital Sciences Corp. (1996-97) and NASA Jet Propulsion Lab., (1997-99).
As Chief of several NASA Hq. Programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the  research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research. This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate  science since retiring by reading books and journal articles. I hope that this is helpful.
Best wishes, John

Sponsored IT training links:

Best quality 640-553 dumps written by certified expert to help you pass 642-456 and 70-536 exam in easy and fast way.


Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
659 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DR
January 28, 2009 6:48 pm

Hello Flanagan,
Perhaps you haven’t heard of these papers? They are ancient history compared to your examples I know, but the crux of the matter is AGW promoters have had this very nagging problem of the earth’s energy budget, still yet unsolved.
Chen, J., Carlson, B.E. and Del Genio, A.D. 2002. Evidence for strengthening of the tropical general circulation in the 1990s. Science 295: 838-841.
Hartmann, D.L. 2002. Tropical surprises. Science 295: 811-812.
McPhaden, M.J. and Zhang, D. 2002. Slowdown of the meridional overturning circulation in the upper Pacific Ocean. Nature 415: 603-608.
Wielicki, B.A., Wong, T., Allan, R.P., Slingo, A., Kiehl, J.T., Soden, B.J., Gordon, C.T., Miller, A.J., Yang, S.-K., Randall, D.A., Robertson, F., Susskind, J. and Jacobowitz, H. 2002. Evidence for large decadal variability in the tropical mean radiative energy budget. Science 295: 841-844.
Let us fast forward to Santer et al (Gavin Schmidt) 2005, the ubiquitous “hot spot” :
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/881407-xk2Sdg/881407.PDF
Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere
Ah, yes, the Big Red Dog 🙂
Hansen claimed he found “the smoking gun” (just in time for IPCC AR4) in Hansen et al 2005
Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5727/1431
full version here:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Unfortunately for CO2 AGW, the earth is not now absorbing 0.85 +/- 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. Refer to OHC data since 2003. Oh well, he tried. Interestingly too is his untested assumption (amazing the “peer review” process didn’t question this) the oceans retained heat in such large quantities in just ten years as a direct result of increasing CO2 and “other greenhouse gases”.
Now, you can present all the “high impact” peer reviewed literature you want warning of impending doom from elevated CO2 levels. You can also tell us of all those premiere scientific bodies that have jumped on board in agreement, but unless those aforementioned mechanisms are not supported by observational evidence, the entire hypothesis of CO2 driven AGW ist kaput, end of story.
So my challenge to you is to provide empirical evidence to support the idea that a) the tropical troposphere is retaining heat as climate models dictate and b) earth’s energy budget is accounted for according to AGW.
I know I know, Santer et al 2008, peer reviewed in a “high impact” journal (like crap through a goose) says all is well. But there’s a problem.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4991 which you no doubt have been following.
One would think the “peer review” process should be more thorough than a bunch of incompetent bloggers who are not climatologists, don’t you agree? Why was Roy Spencer told not to resubmit his paper? Are they afraid of something? Also, who on your side has falsified Miskolczi’s paper? Surely it can’t be that difficult.

henry
January 28, 2009 6:51 pm

Pamela Gray (18:09:14) :
“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…”
Maybe he should have done it the way Hansen did – read the weather report, and give his testimony during a heat wave…

E.M.Smith
Editor
January 28, 2009 6:55 pm

Mike Abbott (09:38:52) :
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.

There are three valid cases I can think of where someone is a ‘supervisor’ but does not have the authority to give a performance evaluation.
1) In a matrix organization the project supervisor does not do the review, the staff supervisor does.
2) An employee not in a matrix organization is ‘loaned’ to another organization for ‘a while’. This can be years.
3) The group manager does the reviews at one higher level up. (I did this for a while once. Had folks under me who wanted to concentrate on the technical and the only way I could get them to take supervisory duties was to promise that I’d keep doing the reviews if they would take everything else.)
There is also a fourth, where the employee is a contractor, but I don’t think Hansen was in that group.
There may be more.
The ‘bottom line’ is that ‘authority to review’ does not define the supervisor role.

Mike Bryant
January 28, 2009 6:56 pm

Joel,
As a “screeching mercury monkey”, I feel I should refrain from commenting on evolution… or devolution either.
Mike

Robert Bateman
January 28, 2009 6:58 pm

An open source climate model would indeed lead to Science as it should be.
That is a great idea.
In the meantime, the AlGore effect is rather striking, is it not?
It’s like somebody is trying to say “Oh no you don’t. Man is not the boss of climate”.
Speaking of which, how much do the readers here pay attention to weather altering experiments? The ones where hurricanes were once seeded and currently the USFS runs to ‘enhance’ precipitation.

January 28, 2009 7:11 pm

I have to admit, I am a little confused. This paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161 argues that there is no greenhouse gas effect at all. I readily admit that I am not a scientist, and I did not check their math, but I found their argument convincing. That is to say, that it is impossible for gasses like carbon dioxide to contribute any kind of warming to the earth, at all. That the theory of reflected heat radiation from the ground to the air, and back to the ground is a pure fiction.
Here’s my confusion: This paper was published 2 years ago. To my knowledge it has not been scientifically refuted by other physicists. Why then, are we still talking about greenhouse gasses, in any capacity, at all?

TLM
January 28, 2009 7:36 pm

Geez. Thank God this Al Gore guy was never elected president.

E.M.Smith
Editor
January 28, 2009 7:38 pm

John Galt (09:52:30) :
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.

However it can show if assumptions are made that are clearly in violation of reality. The basis can be falsified. That is what I’m doing now in my source code review. So far I’ve found two significant issues (‘reference station method’ uses bad reference stations & ‘old data modified based on present variation’ i.e. recent TOB and Eq. changes are propagated into an indefinite past.) Since both of these are clearly creating error, we know that the modeled changes are not valid.
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.
In stock trading (and elsewhere I think) this error is called ‘data modeling’. You have the historic data and keep changing your model until it predicts a short period. You leap to the conclusion you’ve discovered The Truth. Then something shows up that was not in the base data you used and your ‘model’ fails… “Quants” regularly fall on their sword on this one. See the present melt down and failure of many hedge funds, for example…

Mike Bryant
January 28, 2009 7:38 pm

James Hastings-Trew (19:11:11) :
Perhaps there should be more physicists involved in the debate.

G Alston
January 28, 2009 8:00 pm

Joel Shore — …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.
Start of the day —
“We know CO2 has a warming effect.”
“How much?”
“We’re not sure. We’ll model it.”
So, at the end of the day, models designed to look at the effects of CO2 are showing that CO2 has an effect. Astonishing.
…one of the few scientifically-reputable AGW skeptics (e.g., with a significant publication record in the field)…
A credentialism nightmare come to life: a practicing [insert job title here]isn’t reputable enough to be allowed a skeptical opinion on some aspect of his/her field because s/he hasn’t written a paper on it. (And here I already used the word “astonishing.”)

Robert
January 28, 2009 8:04 pm

Re: James Hastings-Trew (19:11:11) :
This is an example of how there remains some question about the most basic physics. It is an enormously complex physics problem which, for example, dwarfs the complexity in building a high fidelity model of a nuclear explosion.

Robert
January 28, 2009 8:09 pm

I’ll follow up to my own post. Is there experimental verification of the simplest laboratory situation – a well mixed column of atmospheric gases with no cloud cover and no wind? How about a rigorous simulation? Is it available on line?

E.M.Smith
Editor
January 28, 2009 8:16 pm

Bill D (13:29:07) : 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.
Not all research is published. Ask anyone who works on ‘black projects’ or things that give a company competitive advantage. Also, my workgroup got 4 patents. My name is on none of them, even though 3 of them were directly my ideas. Why? Didn’t want to take the patent bonus from my folks and don’t need the ego boost. Your ruler is a broken one…

George M
January 28, 2009 8:22 pm

E. M. Smith:
Your fourth point is in fact the case. I keep pointing out that Hansen is NOT a NASA employee. He works for Columbia University. On a BIG NASA contract. And thus………………..

January 28, 2009 8:30 pm

Robc (16:29:12) :
there is as you are aware a clear correlation between sunspots and temperature
No, there is not. It is claimed that there is [different thing]. It is also claimed that ‘the planet is in grave danger’. Claiming something doesn’t make that something. If anything, the solar variations may account for 0.1 degree or less, which is not what I would call a major driver.

E.M.Smith
Editor
January 28, 2009 8:38 pm

David Ben-Ariel (13:39:42) :
After the gospel of man-made global warming is sufficiently debunked, what will be the new messianic mission to pursue and promote?

A really good way to stop glaciers? 😎

Robert
January 28, 2009 8:42 pm

I’ll follow up again: Google is my friend. Barrett Bellamy has a great overview of the mechanism. Just reading through this provides a flavor of how difficult a modeling problem that we face to rigorously model the impact of increased CO2 on the planet’s heat budget.
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page5.htm
Lots of other informative pages on this site. The introductory page identifies Dr. Barrett as a skeptic, but I did not pick up on that from the informative descriptions of the underlying science on the site. His co-author, Dr. Bellamy, may well be an AGW proponent.

J. Peden
January 28, 2009 8:54 pm

James Hastings-Trew (19:11:11) :
Here’s my confusion: This paper was published 2 years ago. To my knowledge it has not been scientifically refuted by other physicists. Why then, are we still talking about greenhouse gasses, in any capacity, at all?
Regarding “peer review”, in general:
1] The fact that a “peer reviewed” paper has not been refuted does not make it true. Too many papers are published – and from all over the place – for example, and quite often no one feels the need to refute the findings of a certain paper, or even read it.
2] Peer Reviewers can publish anything they want to, for whatever reason. Take that one to the bank!
Therefore,
3] “Peer Review” does not deliver the “given truth” – another myth played upon by the AGW proponents. Keep that one very close.

January 28, 2009 8:56 pm

Canadians have had the coldest winter in memory. In my 52 years of existence I cannot remember such a bone chilling and long miserable winter.
It is pathetic that these greenies can spew so much of their propaganda at us concerning their nonsense.
Everyone I talk to here hates the Green [snip], the blind and brainwashed Gore disciples, the pathetic way the environmentalists forever hold thier GW conferences in warm cities, so as not to make thier silliness to obvious to the rest of the watching world.
I wish the [snip] would come to Canada in the middle of winter, but that would be an “inconvenient truth” for these losers.
[Now, now, calm down, these things take time . . . ~ Evan]

E.M.Smith
Editor
January 28, 2009 9:00 pm

Simon Evans (13:58:59) :

Leif Svalgaard (10:57:01) that is your opinion, and you are certainly free to have that opinion, wrong-headed as it is.

I think you should present your ‘evidence’ rather than resorting to ad homs
Simon, I think if you look closely: Leif says that the ‘opinion’ is wrong-headed, not the person. That is, by definition, not an ad hominem since no person is attacked.
Leif has been very though in providing convincing evidence (on many threads… frankly I wonder how he has the patience) and while he can be a bit brusque at times, his evidence has always been well researched.
Yes, he forces you to admit that the connection between sun variance and weather variance, even 30 year weather variance, is not proven; and that there are other perfectly capable explanations (such as oscillations of ocean state) and while that may dampen enthusiasm for ‘the sun did it’ it is a valuable service.
I have clearly advocated for a model that explains a way in which ‘the sun did it’ could be possible (O3 and GCR), and as long as I am careful to state that it is only a hypothesis of a possible explanation and subject to testing, Leif quite correctly lets it be. When I have asserted that which is not proven to be, such as any claim that the sun is known to be the 30 or 200 year weather driver, he correctly pulls my chain. Deservedly so…
So I would just caution: Don’t toss pebbles at the Solar Cop… 😉
From kohai on the floor …

January 28, 2009 9:34 pm

E.M.Smith (21:00:34) :
<that is your opinion, and you are certainly free to have that opinion, wrong-headed as it is.
Bruce Cobb said that. I would never have. But the rest of your post is a fair assessment of my posting record. Thanks.

January 28, 2009 9:38 pm

J. Peden (20:54:46) :
1] The fact that a “peer reviewed” paper has not been refuted does not make it true. Too many papers are published – and from all over the place – for example, and quite often no one feels the need to refute the findings of a certain paper, or even read it.
Indeed, that is the way it is: poor papers are just ignored and forgotten. Papers that other people are trying to refute usually are on to something, so an attempt at refusal may be a sort of ‘validation’ of the paper.

E.M.Smith
Editor
January 28, 2009 9:41 pm

Smokey (16:26:24) : [Photoshopped from Hell, MI]
I want one!

Jeff Alberts
January 28, 2009 9:42 pm

old construction worker (17:47:19) :
I understand the Gore effect hit Washington DC today!

I’m flying out there next week, will be right next to the White House too, lol. Supposed to be fairly warm, high 30s for daytime temps. But, we’ll have to see if a forecast that far out has any validity.

vstarrider
January 28, 2009 9:42 pm

Follow the money and you will find the cause. Hansen bet his reputation and his wallet on his models. The longer this farce was carried out the richer he and his ilk became. Every time Algore opened his mouth more and more money was sent Hansen’s was to continue his flawed research. Algore himself is lining his pockets with global warming money. He has large investments in companies that play the middle man in the sale of carbon credits. Follow the money, and you will find the cause. This is indeed good news. Now if we can just get the left to listen before they ruin the economy in the name of global warming.

1 14 15 16 17 18 27