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.
OOps: My prior post contained duplicated data. Could the moderator please ignore it and post this one instead? TIA.–RK
Anthony wrote:
“I’ll leave it to you to figure out what I’m speaking of, the answers are here on my blog and at CA. Look it up and report back in 24 hours.”
Anthony: When your $10M WUWT-earmarked-slice of the recent appropriation for climate research reaches you, I suggest the following project: set up a sister site, or a portion of this site, that contains the best posts, including point/counterpoint exchanges, from WUWT’s threads, organized by topic. Topics would be such things as:
Antarctic
Arctic Ice
Glaciers
Urban Heat Islands
Temperature Records
Siting Problems
Hockey Stick
Sea Level
Ocean Oscillations
Computer Climate Modeling
Hansen’s Intemperance and Crusading
CO2’s posited feedback cycle with water vapor
Soot
Etc., etc. The editing could be a minimalistic rough cut (eliminating small irrelevancies, for instance), and no segues or commentaries need be inserted (at least initially) to smooth transitions between segments within topics, or to provide introductions–and yet the result could still be fantastically educational in getting new visitors up to speed. It would also simplify the task of responding to posts by naive AGW-ers: They could simply be referred to the appropriate thread in the Summary Section (as I hereby dub it).
George,
Shame on you for trying to pull down the curtain that climate “science” has been hiding behind lo these many years. We are to bow and scrape to climate scientists, or any scientists for that matter. The new administration will give science it’s due, and we, the lowly peasants must do what we are told. Gone are the days when common sense ruled the land. Now we will rely on the mutterings of those who have the keys to the Global Climate Models, the repository of all knowledge, past and future. We are entering a new order of scientocracy. Everything that you think you know must now be discarded and replaced with the output of the GCMs.
Get back in line and keep your mouth shut. The new elite knows what is best for each and every one of us.
Mike Bryant
I marvel at the intelligence that some of you have when it comes to scientific equations and such, I truly wish I had the aptitude.
I guess I try to look at sceince a little simpler then trying to over complicated things, someone said ” Sometimes the simplest things are the ones that give us the most insight” and I do belive that it true sometimes.
I’ve been working on a paper about the mechanism in forming a raindrop from a cloud, you’d think there would be thousands of papers on such a simple natural happening. No.
What I’ve deducted(if I have it right) is that to form a raindrop you need a nuclei or salt. Salt is found in ever raindrop and even snow, also trapped in ice along with CO2. This got me wondering how the salt got up there in the first place? This lead me to how ozone is formed in our atmosphere through an electro chemical reaction, not only creating ozone, but NO2, carbon 14, and yes CO2. Ozone also is more prevalent in the summer month and less being formed in the winter, curiosity when times are cold the hole opens up making less ozone, it doesn’t get depleted, it gets formed from what ever chemical reaction that is taking place from in coming partials and gas from our sun and the galactic partials/rays/gas encroachments into our atmosphere at times of lower out put of our sun.
So here’s what I think is going on, the hot gasses from earth, mainly water vapor, meet up with the in coming solar and galactic gasses/dust/? and through a electro chemical mixing gives the nuclei or salt to feed the formations of clouds. As this process is going on also the other residual like CO2 are dissolved into the rain drop and is carried to earth and makes its way to our oceans.
Meaning CO2 is coming down dissolved in the rain and is a natural thing from our solar system. This would explain the lag behind and build up after the heat has stopped. So if we could study how the solar conveyor reaches from the sun to earth, you may be able to see how the different fazes of the sun inter act with our atmosphere.
In stalagmite or stalactites you can see the mineral build up from the water and I’m starting to think that most of these minerals are coming from the rain.
And here’s another abstract thought I had after thinking about it, could the continental plates be pushing themselves apart from the weight of the accumulated water in our seas and in its self, our planet is expanding to accommodate the build up of pressure ever so slowly and could we be wrong about glaziers building up a miles thick in the ice ages. I’d like to know why they think they were so thick ? Could it just of been a deep freeze not a ice world?
(Sorry for the hack job of explaining, the document (with links) I’ve been writing is unavalable because of computer problems, I’ll post it when I have it fixed 🙁 )
Cheers
Lance
James Hastings-Trew (16:18:10) :
anna v (12:42:44) :
This is where I found the Gerlich paper most persuasive – Table 7 on Page 10 that compares the thermal diffusivity of the air to a supposed doubling of CO2, and finds the difference negligible. Is that a reasonable “take-away” from that paper?
Most skeptics are convinced by similar arguments that this is so, that the role of CO2 in warming has been widely and wildly exaggerated by the IPCC models, mainly by using an unphysical feedback with vapor mechanism. The rest think that CO2 plays no role and some even a cooling role !
Gerlich et al think there is also double counting in the game, which may be true but I am not well versed in thermodynamics to argue for. I suspect it may be true, because the models use a mix of classical and quantum physics in their modeling and justifications, and it is easy to lose sight of double countings in such cases.
I don’t know Anthony, did this one set a record? 500ish comments, ain’t too bad.
Joel Shore
I could debate with you virtually every point you make above in your criticism of Richard Lindzen who you refer to as “on the fringe”. Interestingly he wasn’t considered on the fringe when he was selected as lead author of the IPCC AR3. He became fringe when he decided that the process was flawed and the summary did not reflect the true situation. Hmm.. same thing happened to Dr. Landsea and AR4.
Leaving all that aside just do one thing. Prove that the “feedback effect” from increased CO2 will be positive. It is clear from the paleo record it never has been before, so you are apparently assuming man made CO2 is magically different from any other CO2 in the last 600Myears. Here you are busy arguing about Lindzen disagreeing about how large it is when the data so far doesn’t even prove it is positive. Now I do not consider proof to be some computer generated fantasy that assumes it to exist from the start.
Also if you are so sure that Miloy is full of it, why didn’t you profit from his recent challenge.
Hello again Robert,
You say: “I further suspect that when he wrote that email that he did not expect you and me to be parsing the subject line!”
As I understand it (I could be wrong) John Theon released these emails himself, or permitted them to be released, so I’m assuming he stands by them.
I’m also assuming he’s talking about Hansen when he says:
“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. … This is clearly contrary to how science should be done.”
He believes Hansen’s work was fraudulent through and through, yet when it was his job to evaluate it and allocate funding, he funded it.
He was employed by the taxpayer to ensure that taxpayers’ money was spent wisely. If he was unable or unwilling to do the job he was paid to do, he should have found himself another job. I’ve seen some weak managers pleading that “I was just trying to keep by job”, or “Don’t rock the boat”, or “I was just trying to agree with everyone, that way everyone’s happy”, but I really have no patience for them. Where I work, everyone is expected to do the job they are paid to do, even when it gets difficult, if fact especially when it gets difficult.
Wondering Aloud,
I doubt that you will get specific answers to your questions. Only someone whose purpose is to obfuscate the issue would refer to the head of M.I.T.’s Atmospheric Sciences department as being on the “fringe.”
It appears that a handful of posters here have decided to argue every possible point incessantly, in an effort to confuse the issue. Why else would this small group of individuals try to convince everyone else that black is white, down is up, evil is good… and CO2 causes runaway global warming?
The facts speak for themselves. CO2 is beneficial, not harmful. More CO2 is better because the atmosphere is starved of carbon dioxide. Plants grow much faster with higher concentrations of CO2.
Ice at the poles can not melt with a one or two degree warming, because that ice is still far, far below its freezing point. The sea level is static, not rising. Glaciers advance and retreat due to precipitation, not temperature.
Droughts and floods come and go, they have nothing to do with a 0.6 degree change in the planet’s temperature over an entire century — a normal change that has been almost completely reversed over the past decade. The climate’s current fluctuations are well within normal historical parameters; nothing, I say again nothing unusual is occurring.
Those here arguing that AGW is a problem never go on record to answer the critical question: do they personally believe that a rise in CO2 will cause irreversible, runaway global warming leading to climate catastrophe?
They will not be pinned down to answering that basic question. Instead, they run daily interference, hoping to muddy the waters enough to allow those using the AGW scare to implement their agenda to jack up taxes and solidify their control in the name of reversing the use of the evil “carbon.” The Western world has produced an astonishingly beneficial standard of living. Unlike emerging economies, we have greatly reduced industrial pollution. We have become enormously wealthy due to economic freedom. That freedom and wealth are now being threatened by the dishonest CO2/AGW claim, which does not stand up to scrutiny.
We are made of carbon. Carbon is not evil, it is good. The only way to make people think carbon [by which they really mean carbon dioxide] is evil, is to lie about it. This site is growing exponentially, and has won the Best Science award, because more and more people are becoming aware that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a lie. As CO2 levels rise, the planet is cooling, not warming.
Rather than constantly nitpick, split hairs and attack anyone who points out that there is absolutely nothing to be alarmed about, the nay-sayers here who run their daily interference refuse to ever take a stand on the central issue in the entire AGW debate: whether imminent runaway global warming and climate catastrophe will result from rising levels of a minor trace gas. The fact that they argue anything else rather than answer that essential question exposes their mendacity and their agenda, which is based on their political philosophy and their egos, not on science.
Until they state that Yes, CO2 will lead to catastrophe, they are being duplicitous. Because if they admitted that CO2 will not cause runaway global warming, they would be admitting that CO2 is not a problem that justifies spending vast sums to mitigate, and their AGW issue goes up in a puff of smoke.
Those promoting the “carbon” scare are lying to you. Eventually, the truth will emerge; in fact, it is already happening. Let’s hope it is not too late, for the sake of our standard of living and our freedom.
Allan M (07:18:10) :
‘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?’
To put it a differnent way.
Did Venus ever have oceans or is this notion just an another assumption made by Hansen?
———
Where in nature is wapor vapor a positive feedback to “heat”?
leif
I agree with you that the AGWersdo not have an argument . If they say that the 1910 -1940 global warming is due to solar activity, during those 30 years the average annual sunspot number was 47. The average sunspot number for the so called global warming period was 70 or nealy 1.5 times higher, indicating that this period had even higher average solar activity and the so called global warming of 1976-2007 must be due to solar activity even more than the 1910 -1940 period. In addition there have been other periods in the past where global temperatures dropped and rose with no similar pattern in the CO2 levels . Prof. EASTER BROOK has listed at least 10.
Joel Shore (04:48:17) :
As noted by Flanagan, Arthur Smith (who was actually a colleague of mine in physics grad school) wrote an excellent refutation
Not peer-reviewed…
And he refutes nothing. He just rehashes what you find in climatology book.
Smokey (03:39:10) :
Yet another ad hominem rant from you, Smokey, in which you accuse those who disagree with you of being liars, politically motivated, evasive, etc. How you have the chutzpah to accuse others of ad hom I do not know, nor do I know how you have the cheek to celebrate the ‘courtesy’ of this site when you show none of it.
If your intention is to drive away the commentary of those who disagree with you by such ad hom attacks then, in my case, you may succeed. I would like to discuss matters with those who have different views to mine, but I have better things to do than to be writing this response to you (and I am not of a nature to avoid responding to such misrepresentation when it’s in my face).
You state:
Those here arguing that AGW is a problem never go on record to answer the critical question: do they personally believe that a rise in CO2 will cause irreversible, runaway global warming leading to climate catastrophe?
1. I think that rises in Co2 will be reversible. I think the effects of such rises are likely to be reversible eventually, but that might take a very long time. I’m certainly concerned for my children and their children, at least.
2. If by ‘runaway’ you mean a runaway positive feedback (that is, a feedback equal to or in excess of input) then personally I do not consider that at all likely in the foreseeable future. Before such a stage would be reached I think the consequences of warming would be so severe that it’s rather a moot point anyway, in my opinion.
3. How do you define “catastrophe”? The word generally suggest sudden calamity. Yes, I think there would be sudden calamities associated with unmitigated GHG increase, against a background of gradual degeneration in the life of the planet.
Is that “on record” enough for you?
Have a nice weekend.
Wondering Aloud says:
I am almost sure that Lindzen’s skeptical views were well-known when he was selected to be a lead author for one of the IPCC assessment reports. I am positive that these views were well-known when he was chosen to be one of the authors on the 2001 NAS report. He was chosen to do so because he is a respected atmospheric scientist who, at that time, was still publishing (or at least had recently published) some interesting hypotheses…and presumably also because these organizations were bending over backwards to be inclusive. However, this doesn’t change the fact that he is at one edge of the scientific debate and, at least to my knowledge, he seems to have pretty much given up publishing in the peer-reviewed literature on climate change, instead publishing op-eds in the Wall Street Journal and screeds that Smokey likes to link to, and giving testimony to the House of Lords.
I think that Landsea went off the handle in regards to AR4. (If he thought they should be admonishing Trenberth when he expressed his scientific views and it was even mentioned that he is an IPCC lead author, I don’t see why he doesn’t think they should be admonishing Lindzen when he does the same.) However, I wouldn’t call Landsea “on the fringe” in terms of the science because the scientific debate regarding the effect of global warming on hurricanes is considerably less resolved.
After saying “I could debate with you virtually every point you make above in your criticism of Richard Lindzen,” you seem to actually be basically ignoring what I wrote. I have no idea how you have come up with your own unique interpretation of the paleo record but it certainly doesn’t seem to be in accord with the interpretation of the scientists who actually study that record, like the two who wrote this “Perspective” piece in Science ( http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;306/5697/82 ):
Just as a concrete example, what large forcing do you think they are underestimating or missing entirely that could explain the ice age – interglacial transition in a world where the feedback effect is not positive?
That’s an easy one. As I understand it, Milloy asked for “proof” of AGW. Since science is inductive and doesn’t deal with proof, that is an impossible thing to ask. Science deals with only with evidence and one can always claim that the evidence is not sufficient. This is why there are still people claiming that there is no “proof” that the Earth is more than 10,000 years old. If people are willing to ignore the truly overwhelming evidence that the Earth is much older than that, how can I possibly expect to convince Milloy about AGW if he wants to believe otherwise?
Anthony, what a great article and, wow, almost 500 comments — more from around the world than from the U.S., if I read the stats right.
I second Roger Knight’s brilliant proposal (18:01:17, 1/29)– it is not like you have anything else to do! But — such an undertaking attached to the respected banner of WUWT would give great confidence to readers.
I would like to add topics:
atmospheric physics
data gathering (under which the topics of UHI and site problems would go?)
forecasting (sub-head under modeling?)
statistics (sub-head under modeling?)
THE SUN
omit Hansen
Just something for a cold, rainy day. If only we could have more of these in Southern California. I miss our California “winter” even though I know: a warm planet is a happy planet. My “winter” plants are not too happy about the incessant heat.
Lief Svalgaard (17:21:21, 1/29), Isn’t it possible to view the sun’s heating of the earth on the scale of “climate” (100 years, 172 years, or longer?), whereas “weather” depends on a multitude of factors, earth’s topography, ocean circulation patterns, behavior of the atmosphere, etc.? Don’t these “weather” factors represent what our earth “does with” that energy? I read the respect for your solar physics on this blog, but where does the “heat” come from except from the sun and the planet’s interior? I apologize if you have explained this many times before.
The old construction worker asks?
“Where in nature is wapor vapor a positive feedback to “heat”?”
That was my “Ah ha!” moment reading the Gerlich and T paper. I have been stewing over the kitchen pot metaphor ever since. I’m leaning towards the heat sink at night, cooling by day atmospheric model. Blaming all this on trace gas forcings seems wildly imaginary.
Having said that we are probably running into a greater problem with the dimishing finite resources that produce CO2 than with any of the effects of burning it. Call it peak oil or whatever, if Al Gore can get everyone’s tail in a knot over some inexplicable and unprovable theory about global warming and CO2, what could a good communicator do with the inconvenience of a world with virtually no gas or oil at all? It’s as if we were all arguing over the pollution coming from the exhaust of our ship, while the ship was sinking.
Re: allister duncan (03:09:04) :
Hello Allister. I think Dr. Spencer’s post (link above) gives a more clear picture of the evolution of the view of Dr. Hansen. Back when the work was being approved, Dr. Hansen was a “loose cannon” in terms of his public pronouncements. Getting the additional satellites and the accumulation of 20 additional years of data have allowed him (and others) to form additional conclusions. Nothing I see above indicates that he thought that the work was fraudulent at the time he approved budgets. Indeed, he does not use fraud. The indictment of the work since he left NASA is:
“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. ”
So the most negative term is manipulated …. data.
I might have used “massaged ..data” instead. We should all be very careful with accusations of fraud. And excruciatingly careful with putting accusations of fraud into the mouths of others.
anna v (22:01:28) :
Gerlich et al think there is also double counting in the game, which may be true but I am not well versed in thermodynamics to argue for. I suspect it may be true, because the models use a mix of classical and quantum physics in their modeling and justifications, and it is easy to lose sight of double countings in such cases.
Anna, thank you for your patient answers to my questions. This is why I came to this site. I have been a AGW skeptic for a long time, but every so often (generally after being called stupid on a public forum) I start to question if my belief is reasonable. There are a lot of people like me who are not scientists, have no expertise in mathematics, and therefore must rely on the wisdom of others to help form or fortify their beliefs. I realize a proper skeptic should work things out for themselves, but with my head already full of the things I need to do my job, there’s no room left for working out thermodynamic equations.
The scientific community needs scientific answers to questions – bolstered by proper physics, chemistry, mathematical proofs and so on. A layman like me needs a reasonable “verbal” explanation that does not bend the limits of plausibility. For me, the theory of AGW bends those limits because, time and again, the claims made by it’s supporters do not line up with what is actually happening in the world. And I have an instinctive distrust of anyone who tries to buttress their argument with patently ridiculous doomsday scenarios.
Thanks again. This is why WUWT is such a valuable resource on the web.
Simon Evans-
I hope you stay and continue your POV. There is great value in your jousts. Try to transcend those remarks you find ad hom. Remember to “¡Ole! the bull!”
Hello Robert,
John Theon does not give the name of the scientist he is referring to. I am assuming he means Hansen when he refers to “some scientists”, but I don’t know.
However, the statement
is a clear accusation of scientific fraud. If someone manipulates data to get a desired result, that is scientific fraud. If I altered a test result to get a defective product through a quality check, it’s likely to be a criminal offence. If my defense in court was “I didn’t fake the data, I just massaged it”, my chances of acquittal would be pretty slim.
Joel Shore says: “…this doesn’t change the fact that [Lindzen] is at one edge of the scientific debate and, at least to my knowledge, he seems to have pretty much given up publishing in the peer-reviewed literature on climate change.”
Sorry about the state of your knowledge: click
Note that the esteemed Dr. Lindzen of M.I.T. has been publishing steadily right up through 2008. Is your criticism because he hasn’t published in January, 2009?
Face it, the UN/IPCC is composed entirely of political appointees from various countries who make a pretense of being scientific, when in fact their real agenda is to separate taxpayers from large amounts of their money, and move the UN toward world government. If you don’t see this you need new glasses. The IPCC has been so wrong, so often, that the only credibility they have left is with governments, NGOs, and the diminishing number of believers in scary AGW.
And Simon Evans, I just don’t know how to make you happy. I was thinking of a couple of others when I wrote my
rantessay above. But you put on the hat, it fit, so now you say it’s your hat. OK.And:
That’s a very wishy-washy response, which certainly doesn’t answer my question. But again, OK.
Now to answer your question [“How do you define “catastrophe”? The word generally suggest sudden calamity.”]: The climate moves slowly, so ‘sudden’ doesn’t apply in nominal human terms — any more than in the AIDS catastrophe. Which is a catastrophe, no? But a slow moving one.
I define climate catastrophe as Al Gore and James Hansen define it: a few more years, and we may destroy “creation.” We only have four more years, right? After your fence-sitting answer about CO2 [“rises are likely to be reversible eventually”], I won’t try to pin you down. But I will point out two things:
First, we can reverse rises in CO2 by abandoning our modern standard of living. We won’t do that, therefore there is no climate catastrophe. QED. If Al Gore, and the UN climate appointees partying hearty in Bali truly believed that their “carbon footprint” was contributing to climate disaster, they would be traitors to the human race for their profligate waste. Wouldn’t they? But of course, they’re in on the scam, and they know they’re selling a pig in a poke.
Finally, AGW is not about the climate, or science, or who is right or wrong. AGW is about money and power. The demonization of “carbon” is being used as a pretext for unethical entities and individuals to get their hands deep into our pockets, and to control our lives. You can believe that AGW is proven, and that it’s all about science. But it’s not.
tmtisfree says:
How is he supposed to get a peer-reviewed publication out of something that is simply refuting a paper that is itself not peer-reviewed? As Arthur notes, nothing in his paper is particularly new. The point is simply to put what is already known in context to refute of the confusion (or deception) of G&T. What Arthur did is quite selfless in writing up such a refutation of a paper that hasn’t and won’t ever see the light of day in any real peer-reviewed journal.
He actually shows exactly where their claim is wrong. And, as noted, I could give a problem to first-year physics students that would show exactly where G&T’s argument of the greenhouse effect violating the 2nd law is wrong. But, it would probably just fall on deaf ears here.
This is actually really sad. You “skeptics” are continuing to marginalize yourselves better than anybody else could possibly do it to you. Until you are willing to actually do the hard work of distinguishing between real science and garbage, you will find that there is almost nobody in the scientific community who is going to take you seriously and you will continue to be puzzled when your view of reality isn’t embraced by the scientific community and policymakers.
Joel Shore (14:34:49) :
Thank you for taking the time to respond in such detail – I greatly appreciate you taking the time to explain your point of view – it has helped me as I progress upon my learning curve.
Having been educated at MIT myself I think it is rather harsh to suggest Professor Lindzen is at the fringe of the scientific debate – no-one gets tenure at MIT at his level without being outstanding in their field.
I recognise what you are saying but I still do not see where there is real world evidence to support the forcing and suggested feedbacks postulated in the AGW thesis – your note is not specific in its support of the projections and the question therefore remains.
Dr Leif Svalgaard is an excellent contributor to this site and is always extremely clear on ensuring that people have good evidence to support their particular theories. In a similar vein the challenge to you is to support the AGW thesis with real world data that clearly shows the proposition to have supportable merit. I simply have yet to see that.
Your final paragraph is, I would suggest, below the standards of the writer.
matt v. (05:24:27) :
I agree with you that the AGWers do not have an argument
If we believe the Sun is the main driver [in normal times – the last 30 years excepted] the AGWers have a very strong argument: Solar activity and temperature follow each other rather closely during 1880-1975, but not thereafter, thus CO2, QED.
[just calculating average sunspot numbers over half a century is too crude].
pyromancer76 (07:48:22) :
where does the “heat” come from except from the sun
The ‘turn off the Sun’ argument is not valid. what is important are the VARIATIONS of the solar output, or even more important, the complicated interactions between all the elements of the climate. The latter mostly not controlled by the Sun.
But, is most likely largely controlled by the Earth’s aspect to the Sun at any given time (day and night, seasons, etc)