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.
If I understand John Theon’s quote correctly, “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” he’s saying he signed off Hansen’s budget for work he believes was “useless”. I can’t understand why he allocated the money and justified the funding.
I know if I signed off on a budget claim I knew to be garbage, I’d be fired at best, prosecuted for fraud at worst.
old construction worker (02:47:56) :
So, would this indicate water vapor as a positive or negative feedback to “heat”? Or I could ask whats the difference in climate condition between Yuma and Shreveport?
Well, at a guess, the major difference would be proximity to a large body of water. As a child I was taught in geography class that large bodies of water have a moderating effect on local weather, because they act as a heat sink/resevoir. They cool the days, and warm the nights. Deserts are, generally, far from large bodies of water. Without a large body of water nearby acting as a heat sink and cooling the surroundings, and with reduced cloud cover, it gets very hot during the day. Any heat absorbed by the ground is immediately radiated into space at night, without a nearby large body of water warming the surroundings.
The air is also such a heat sink/resevoir, like water, but with less thermal capacity because of the lower density. Perhaps humidity in the air is a factor in how “able” air is able to retain/radiate heat. This, in my mind, is an explanation for why the moon is colder than the earth – no water + no air + high albedo = poor heat retention.
But that was my understand of the issue from grade school geography. Not to mention convection effects circulating the atmosphere and transporting the heat from the ground to the upper atmosphere, etc.
Maybe a physicist can set me straight on this one – if you have a gas in the atmosphere that reflects long wave radiation from the ground, won’t this effect be balanced out by the fact that it will also be reflecting long wave radiation from the sun back into space? Won’t these two terms balance out to null? Explain it to me in ways my simple mind can grasp. 🙂
Manfred says:
There are several problems with comparing to UAH’s satellite data:
(1) Hansen’s prediction was for surface observations, not the lower tropospheric temps derived from the satellites.
(2) One has to align the data correctly. It is not clear how that cite that you gave chose to align it.
(3) It is not GISTEMP which is an outlier in the trends. It is UAH. GISTEMP and Hadcrut trends agree well over the longer time periods, and the RSS satellite analysis trend also agrees well with them (although since it is measuring a somewhat different thing, this may be partly fortuitous).
(4) Despite your claims, there is no justification for trying to correct for El Ninos and such. And, your statement “Hansen’s projections did not include ocean currents, the sun or clouds” is not correct (although the inclusion of these things was probably cruder at that time than it is today).
A better comparison between Hansen’s predictions and the reality is given here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/langswitch_lang/in
scavenger
I agree with you.
We seem to be headed for the same cool climate [ and possibly for the next 30 years ]that existed in the period of 1944-1976 due to upcoming similar ocean temperature cycles like PDO , AMO and ENSO. During the past cool cycle of 1944-1976, some Canadian regions saw a drop or departure from the long term trends of as much as 5.8 degrees C. Of the 11 coldest winters nationally 1948 to 2005, 10 were in this same past period. Here are just some cold temperatures records set during this past cool cycle. These are cities right across Canada.
SNAG, YUKON 1947 -81.4F [CANADA’S COLDEST]
WINNIPEG, MANITOBA 1966 – 45 F
LONDON, ONTARIO 1970 -31.7 F
MONTREAL, QUEBEC 1957 -37.8 F
QUEBEC CITY, QUEBEC 1962 -36.1 F
VANCOUVER, BC. 1950 -17.8 F
Some of this cold weather creeps into the US as well .The coldest US continental temperature of -70 F was in Montana in 1954, during the same 1944-1976 period.
So the next cooling trend has already started. Already in 2008/2009 new cold records have been set in Saskatoon [wind chills of -50C] and in the opposite side of Canada, Edmunston, New Brunswick [-47C.]
“I know if I signed off on a budget claim I knew to be garbage, I’d be fired at best, prosecuted for fraud at worst.”
Not quite. Effective organizational dynamics dictate that we support decisions with which we disagree but are beyond our ability to influence. In this case, Dr. Theon’s customer (or superior) most likely wanted this work funded and executed. So he has a choice – quit or get it funded. Since this was a small part of his overall responsibility, it only seems to be a big deal in retrospect. At the time it was just one of many responsibilities.
I know that there are a lot of passive aggressive folks out there that will try to sabotage or incessantly whine about efforts that they do not like, but in the long run, that it not helpful. If possible, state your disagreement and then move on, doing your part to make the organization a success.
“Can anyone tell me how there can be a positive feedback in a passive system? There is no extra energy input. Seems like a perpetual motion machine to me.”
In the AGW CO2 forcing case, there is extra energy. The hypothesis is that the extra heat retained by the greenhouse effect of CO2 has an impact on the water vapor cycle and thus enhances the greenhouse effect of the water vapor. The idea is that for a given increase in CO2, the system stabilizes at a higher temperature (or retained heat or energy content) then would be accounted for just by the effect of the increased CO2. This is the bit that is most controversial about the CO2 forcing theory.
However, as indicated in previous posts, the physics of the greenhouse effect of CO2 in our heterogeneous atmosphere is enormously complex. So while the basic temperature effect of increased CO2 is generally accepted, it is by no means proven.
How is it that you are working on the GISSTemp source code? Is it posted on the internet?
“Effective organizational dynamics dictate that we support decisions with which we disagree but are beyond our ability to influence.”
I see that, but John Theon didn’t just “influence” Hansen’s work, he signed off on Hansen’s budget. It’s his management decision. If I was given responsibility for spending taxpayers money and I signed off on a fraudulent claim because of pressure from my boss, I don’t think a defense of “The boss made me do it, I just wanted to keep my job” would work too well in court. If I did it, I’d sure want to keep quiet about it.
This is exactly my point.
I often hear claims that the IPCC does validate their models. No, they validate that the models work as designed. The question remains, does the model actually model the real climate? At this time, none do.
Joel Shore
You have still not responded to the questions I raised in reply to your post – see
PaulHClark (09:55:23) 28-01-2009
It would be good to have a response unless, of course, you feel unable to substantiate your comments?
Robert:
This is the standard (controversial) explanation. However, if water vapour, with its own greenhouse effect, had a +ve feedback it would have driven itself into oblivion by now, without CO2.
I am looking at a copy of “Langmuir’s Laws of Bad Science,” courtesy of John Brignell, and they seem relevent:
1 The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
2 The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the low level of significance of the results.
3 There are claims of great accuracy.
4 Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
5 Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
6 Thr ratio of supporters to critics rises to somewhere near 50% aand then falls gradually to zero.
The AGW crowd seem either to have adopted these as a modus vivendi, or have fallen into the suggested traps.
———–
On another tack, I read a quote from Hansen on here that “Venus would never again have oceans.” (What tears are jerked!) This implies that it once did. What evidence (not speculation) can he have for this?
Surely he can’t (as an astronomer, not a “climate scientist”) call this science. And yet he feeds the Gore with this sort of rubbish. Now I know personal relationships are as complex as the climate, but doesn’t this show that Hansen has a deep-down contempt for the man, and the rest of us?
——-
In the talk of all this efficiency, which is said to be a good thing, it seems to be lost that in fact Nature is profligate, without any inefficiency. I reckon the belt tighteners don’t like people.
Can anyone find for me a Malthusian or Eugenicist who believes themselves to be from the “inferior” part of the human race?
James Hastings – Trew asks:
First of all, it is more correct to say that it radiates (or “re-radiates”, modulo the pedogigical objections in the link I give below) than to say that it reflects the radiation.
But, on to your question, yes the radiation occurs in both (actually all) directions; but, no, it doesn’t cancel out because the fact that any gets back to the earth means there is more warming than in the case where you do not have an IR-absorbing atmosphere and none of the energy that the earth radiates into space would get back to the earth.
Here is a website by a retired meteorology professor who tries to state the greenhouse effect in the simplest and most pedagogically-correct way: http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html The statement that he comes up with is simply this: “The surface of the Earth is warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere because it receives energy from two sources: the Sun and the atmosphere.” He is a bit militant about the pedagogy for my taste, but his basic points about the science are correct.
James Hastings-Trew (06:02:28) :
Maybe a physicist can set me straight on this one – if you have a gas in the atmosphere that reflects long wave radiation from the ground, won’t this effect be balanced out by the fact that it will also be reflecting long wave radiation from the sun back into space? Won’t these two terms balance out to null? Explain it to me in ways my simple mind can grasp. 🙂
Ah,the magic of modeling.
It is true that part of the sun energy arriving on the surface is in the infrared, and it plays ball with the molecules in the atmosphere. Note “part”.
Most of the radiation though that hits the ground finally heats it, and heat means infrared radiation ( and convection and evaporation ). There is a lot more infrared radiated from the surface, than comes in from the sun, since a lot of the higher energy light goes into heat. How much? this is where models have to come in, because the sun spectrum is known, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png but the atmosphere/earth system is guessed at.
To have a balancing effect as you ask for, the two quantities should be equal, in some sort
re; allister duncan (06:48:29) :
“I see that, but John Theon didn’t just “influence” Hansen’s work, he signed off on Hansen’s budget. It’s his management decision.”
No it is not his management decision. I am in software development. The customer occasionally asks me to build something that I think is dumb, or to build it in a manner with which I disagree. I am fortunate to work in an organization where I can freely express my opinion. However, after the discussion and I am overruled, I create the budget to do the work, get it approved through the chain, sign off on it and do the work. This is the way effective organizations work. I also have to admit that I have frequently been wrong.
IMHO, to get to the position that you take, you have to believe that Drs. Hansen and Theon worked in an organization that included just the two of them and that Dr. Theon believed that his opinion on this matter was absolutely correct. This is manifestly not the case.
John Galt says:
Yes, in fact they do. Do they model it perfectly? No. I don’t know of any models of a physical system that model it perfectly in all of its complexity. However, the evidence is they they get enough correct to give credible projections of future climate change in response to a forcing. Besides which we have independent evidence of what the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is from past events and their effects on the climate (ice ages, volcanic eruptions, …) and these empirical estimates agree with the estimates obtained for the ECS from the climate models.
David Ben Ariel,
“what will be the new messianic mission to pursue and promote?”
Here’s a possible theory;
“Barack Obama has only four years to save the world.”
– James Hansen
Supercomputer models ‘predicting’ our future is manufactured ‘prophesy’. Got that?
prophesy ~ verb., 2. To predict.
From a logical perspective (considering all known and unknown variables) this prophesy is most likely… false.
Analogy: It is impossible to sail from Halifax to Nassau, without taking course corrections or “fixes” along the way. Regardless how many supercomputers are compensating for set and drift, you will NEVER reach your destination by steering your predetermined course.
President Obama pledged to “restore science to its rightful place.”
With the help of supercomputers, the false prophet is predicting our future. Clearly many sheep, worldwide, are following this shepherd.
prophet ~ noun., 2. The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause.
Movement? Which powerful movement could that be? The environmental movement? Save the world? Such a “Nobel” cause, isn’t it?
Our false prophet may have arrived?
This is just a theory, like AGW. Now go ahead and use your super computers to prove me wrong 🙂
“The customer occasionally asks me to build something that I think is dumb, or to build it in a manner with which I disagree.”
It’s not a customer here, it’s the management hierarchy within a single organisation. When I sign off on a company document, it’s my signature and it’s my responsibility. There are people above me, and there are people below me, they all bring their opinions and I take those opinions into account, but at the end of the day I have to take personal responsibility for my own decisions. If I signed off a grossly defective piece of work, I’d be fired.
“that Dr. Theon believed that his opinion on this matter was absolutely correct. This is manifestly not the case.”
He’s called Hansen’s work “useless”, and he’s gone on record with that. He seems pretty sure of his opinion to me. If I was in his place, I’d refuse to sign off Hansen’s budget.
E.M.Smith (16:13:41) :
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
Hell, Norway also frozen 🙂
http://www.yr.no/place/Norway/Nord-Tr%C3%B8ndelag/Stj%C3%B8rdal/Hell/
Leif Svalgaard (20:30:18) :
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.
Of course, that is what you claim, anyway. As I said, there is plenty of evidence proving otherwise. It’s been given on numerous threads, and will surely be given in the future, where appropriate. Of course, more work needs to be done. But, there is certainly more to solar variation besides TSI, which is where you come up with “0.1 degree or less”.
PaulHClark says:
Sorry…It is not always easy for me to keep up with all the questions / responses to my posts.
I am talking about the radiative forcing due to a doubling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The accepted value is ~3.7-4.0 W/m^2.
Here, for example, is a statement from his testimony before the House of Lords ( http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20051201/20051201_04.html ):
PaulHClark says:
What Spencer (and Lindzen) are questioning are the feedbacks that determine how the radiative forcing translates into a certain temperature response. This page is probably the best one on his website for explaining his basic views on the matter: http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
anna v (07:20:45) :
Most of the radiation though that hits the ground finally heats it, and heat means infrared radiation ( and convection and evaporation ). There is a lot more infrared radiated from the surface, than comes in from the sun, since a lot of the higher energy light goes into heat. How much?
Ok, thank you. Now my wondering brain goes through this question process (please bear with me as I fumble through this):
1) Some of the radiation from the sun hits the surface of the earth (dirt, water, ice, vegetation) and this energy warms the surface. I would imagine that some of this energy is absorbed completely, and some of it is radiated outwards as infrared energy.
2) Some of this radiated energy interacts with water and CO2 in the atmosphere, and is re-radiated in all directions, some of it back to the surface, which causes additional warming. (I think I saw somewhere that CO2 re-radiates at a different spectral band than it absorbs at so I think this feedback is – in the parlance of computer graphics that i am more familiar with – a single bounce).
3) Currently CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 385 or so parts per million. Therefore, I would imagine that most of the radiated infrared energy from the surface simply escapes into space, with only some of it interacting with CO2 in the atmosphere.
So it seems to me we are talking about hugely diminishing returns. Something along the magnitude of the thermal properties of Moonlight? Or am I confused again?
Re: allister duncan (07:44:26) :
“It’s not a customer here, it’s the management hierarchy within a single organisation. When I sign off on a company document, it’s my signature and it’s my responsibility. ”
1. I have no detailed insight into the workings of the NASA enterprise at that time. I treat all of the recipients of my work products as customers with all of the respect and privileges accruing thereto.
2. Ditto for me. When I sign off on a budget, I am agreeing that it is reasonable and can be executed. I am not signing off that I think that whatever the budget funds is wonderful. I have authorized, supervised, and executed software work that I knew would never be used. In many cases, the customer does not understand what they have asked you to build until you put it in front of them. Not exactly the same situation as Dr. Theon’s but similar. If I fell on my sword over every organizational disagreement, I would certainly have a checkered employment history!
Dr. Theon was also Spencer’s boss:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/another-nasa-defection-to-the-skeptics-camp/
Steve Milloy at FoxNews did his weekly opinion piece on Gore & Venus Envy, mentions the John S. Theon story…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,485064,00.html
Joel Shore:
However, the evidence is they they [the Models] get enough correct to give credible projections of future climate change in response to a forcing.
But the Models don’t make “forecasts” or make “predictions”, right?
In other words, the ipcc’s substantial m.o. is to produce an “output” of propagandistic mumbo-jumbo.