Looks like another GISS miss, more than a few people are getting fed up with Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt and their climate shenanigans. Some very prominent NASA voices speak out in a scathing letter to current NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr.. When Chris Kraft, the man who presided over NASA’s finest hour, and the engineering miracle of saving Apollo 13 speaks, people listen. UPDATE: I’ve added a poll at the end of this story.
See also: The Right Stuff: what the NASA astronauts say about global warming
Former NASA scientists, astronauts admonish agency on climate change position
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Blanquita Cullum 703-307-9510 bqview at mac.com
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence
HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.
49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.
The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.
H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.
“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”
Select excerpts from the letter:
- “The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
- “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
- “We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”
The full text of the letter:
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
(Attached signatures)
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
===============================================================
hat tip to to Bob Ferguson, SPPI
UPDATE: I’ve added this poll:
Babsy, you write:
“A Lacis says:
April 12, 2012 at 12:10 pm
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…………………
Evidence?”
If you are interested in the scientific evidence, what about you start with reading A. Lacis’s peer reviewed papers, he has published in the field of climate science?
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
April 12, 2012 at 4:05 pm
How about you show us how you added CO2 to a volume of air and increased its temperature. That is your premise, isn’t it?
Bart Denson says:
“Where are the bodies?”
Where are the bodies, indeed. The entire climate scare is an international head-fake, built on always-inaccurate models but with no empirical, testable evidence to support it. It is a monster fed by federal grants totaling around $100 billion so far. That is 100 billion motives to spread climate false alarmism.
Tax sponges like Mr Lacis would have to get honest jobs if the funding for the Big Lie were cut off, and false alarm spreaders like Phil Clarke would have to find another baseless fairy tale to believe in.
All the evidence points to the same fact: at current and projected levels, CO2 is completely harmless. Where is there any global harm from CO2? Answer: there is none. And of course, CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere, as the OISM Petition makes clear.
Folks, the CAGW crowd is lying to you through their teeth. CAGW is a scam. That’s why there are no bodies.
For those of you who don’t want to read through this very long thread, allow me to offer a précis.
Phil: Who?
Monty: What Phil said. I want a list! Oh, and what empirical data? I’ve never seen anything that doesn’t confirm conclusively that CO2 has a large impact on the climate system.
Others: These people.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/
http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore
http://www.petitionproject.org/
and, also try Lawrence Solomon’s book “The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud.”
Monty: I’m still waiting.
Others: Here ya go, Monte.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html
http://facweb.bhc.edu/academics/science/harwoodr/GEOG101/Study/Images/Entire_Earth_History_Record.gif
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf
Monty: I’m still waiting.
Phil: I know about these people but I see no evidence that the signatories to this letter are similarly informed. Please confirm through first-hand knowledge that the letter writers are referring to these people. Oh, and I want credentials.
Others: Credentials are here:
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
Phil: Ok looked at a list. Seems small to me. There’s a spelling error, which once corrected, is a celebrity gardener. You fools!
Joel: There should be more signatures on this letter. Who didn’t sign it and why didn’t the people who didn’t sign it not sign it? Oh, and the people who signed it are not really saying anything anyway.
Monty: I’m still waiting. I am a climate scientist so I know a climate scientist when I see one and I don’t see anybody on these lists that I know, i.e. people with PhDs in a relevant science, peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals. No, wait (yikes, maybe that means I’m not a climate scientist) – “A climate scientist is someone who studies the climate.”
Others: Hurray! We are all climate scientists.
Monty: Your lists are rubbish. Steve McIntyre hasn’t audited them.
Nate: I have a PhD. I know something about climate science. I don’t know enough. I do know that because I don’t know enough, neither do any of these people. You are all a bunch of anti-intellectuals. Isaac Azimov says so. (Aside: I’ll see your Isaac Azimov and raise you one Bertrand Russell. “One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision”. PS – The Dunning-Kreuger door swings both ways, Nate.)
Peter: These guys are old. Old people aren’t young. I am young. Only young people know anything.
Monty: I’m still waiting. What Nate and Phil said. I can’t build a rocket, ergo these guys know nothing about climate science.
Joel: Good quote, Nate. Azimov is was wise. So are you for posting it.
Monty: I’m still waiting.
Amen Bart Denson & Smokey.
Here is a copy of a letter I sent to my local paper.
Assume Monty, Phil, Nate, etc. are the recipients:
Harvey Ginsburg suggests that scientists, and folks like me, who are skeptical of human induced global warming are lying. I noticed Mr. Ginsburg used a lot of words like deceive, lies, debunked, false, and distort, but no facts. This is pretty typical of what the end of the Global Warming Scam looks like – name calling and hysterics. Like linking someone to Exxon/Mobile as if that proves someone is lying. What difference does it make who someone works for? Show me where their science is wrong, not where they work. And so what if it is warmer now. Would you rather it be cold? Good luck with that. There is no evidence that current warming is abnormal or that it is being caused by humans. None. The only evidence warmists possess are their computer models that predict runaway global warming from increasing man-made C02 emissions. Warming pretty much stopped 15 years ago. Seems a little awkward to keep screaming the sky is falling when everyone can see it isn’t. http://www.nipccreport.com
More than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). http://www.realeenvironmentalnews.com
James Hansen, the “father of global warming” predicted temperatures would soar by 2000. Oops! Perhaps one of the enlightened scientists out there can tell us what the “correct” temperature of the Earth should be, how much will it cost to correct it, and how long will it take to change it.
Jan,
Good job and accurate. People like Monty, Joel, Phil and others of their ilk do not want to read information that contradicts their narrative. It causes massive cognitive dissonance, and it could possibly make their heads explode. So instead, they fall back on their usual, time-tested tactic.
Babsy, you wrote:
“How about you show us how you added CO2 to a volume of air and increased its
temperature.That is your premise, isn’t it?”
What are you asking? That I prove to you the validity of a scientific theory in the comment section of an opinion blog like this one here?
You asked A. Lacis to provide evidence for what he said. Do you even know who you are asking? As if he hadn’t already delivered his share of evidence in his publications.
If you want to know the scientific evidence for a scientific theory (do you really?) then you will have to rely on the peer reviewed scientific literature. That’s the place where the evidence is provided and where the scientific debate takes place. Not in opinion blogs like this one here, not in Forbes, WSJ, or opinion letters authored by former NASA astronauts and program analysts. Or an alleged meteorologist who apparently hasn’t published anything in climate science. Or in any field of science, for the matter of fact. At least I haven’t found anything by him indexed in Thomson Reuter’s Web of Knowledge. So, in addition to that the letter is just opinion disseminated by laymen (whose education may be above average and who have expertise in their fields, but they are still laymen in the special field about which they are talking in the letter), the press statement which is quoted in the posting above is also based on deception of the public, since it is sold as a letter by people who allegedly have expertise, although there is none on their side in the field of climate science.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
April 12, 2012 at 6:06 pm
I know what your premise is. Your premise is that increasing levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is causing said atmosphere to warm up. I say show me the mechanism that produces this phenomena. And you cannot.
Jan Perlwitz says:
“What are you asking? That I prove to you the validity of a scientific theory in the comment section of an opinion blog like this one here?”
1) We are not discussing a scientific “theory”. This article is about corruption surrounding the catastrophic AGW conjecture. Proper terminology is important at the internet’s Best Science site, so kindly get educated. Words matter.
2) Your appeal to authority [“You asked A. Lacis to provide evidence for what he said. Do you even know who you are asking?”] is ridiculous. Lacis is just another tax sponge IMO, nothing more. And:
3) The onus is on the one proposing a
theoryconjecture or hypothesis. The fact that you’re being an apologist for someone who will not show valid support for his paper is typical of the tap dancing that the alarmist crowd is constantly engaged in. They have lost all credibility, and they still hide out from open debate. They’re not stupid, they know they get slaughtered in scientific debates, where facts rule. So they hide out.Finally, when you were asked, “How about you show us how you added CO2 to a volume of air and increased its temperature. That is your premise, isn’t it?” …you set up your strawman arguments and appeals to authority. Because if you tried to answer that question, you would be in way over your head in short order.
@smokey – :-))
Babsy, you wrote:
“I know what your premise is…”
Are you psychic?
…”Your premise is that increasing levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is causing said atmosphere to warm up. I say show me the mechanism that produces this phenomena. And you cannot.”
Of course, I can’t show that here. How could this be shown in the comment section of an opinion blog? I only can disseminate opinion here, like you, Anthony Watts and everyone else.
April 12, 2012 at 1:46 am
Smokey – the list most certainly was collated by Morano, who has to re-classify …
Similarly the ‘Petition Project’ includes medical doctors, nurses, chiropracters and vetinarians and the like in its ‘tens of thousands’….
Contrast this with, say, IPCC …
________________________________________
Yes Lets bring in the IPCC and their reliance on gray literature from WWF and the Climatologists doing anything to keep out “skeptic” papers.
UN’s Climate Bible Gets 21 ‘F’s on Report Card
all 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined
5,587 are not peer-reviewed
Climatologists on “skeptic” papers – in their own words.
Michael Mann e-mail on what “the community” should do to punish a journal that dared to print dissenting views on climate
Michael Mann email to Phil Jones: “I have a top lawyer already representing me…Wei Chyung needs to sue them, or at the least threaten a lawsuit…The threat of a lawsuit alone my prevent them from publishing this paper, so time is of the essence”
Oh and these e-mails are real beauts (From WUWT 250 noteworthy Climategate e-mails)
Don’t miss this devastating criticism of the IPCC from a guy who contributed to all five IPCC Assessment Reports: “I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions)…I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes”
Michael Mann on keeping up with the scientific literature: “I don’t read E&E, gives me indigestion”
It’s about Politics not Science
Mike Hulme agrees that “the debate around climate change is fundamentally about power and politics rather than the environment…There are not that many “facts” about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal”
von Storch: “We should explain why we don’t think the information robust yet. Climate research has become a postnormal science, with the intrusion of political demands and significant influence by activists driven by ideological (well meant) concerns.”
And To push the politics they make up numbers
<a href="http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/phil-jones-much-of-sh-between-40-and.html"Phil Jones: “For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there”
Ray Bradley: “I am as guilty as the rest–I made up something from a corner of my brain on p.33 of my paleoclimatology book!”
Sorry dude I prefer people with REAL scientific training like “.. medical doctors, nurses, chiropractors and veternarians”ians…”
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
April 12, 2012 at 7:54 pm
I pity you.
Smokey, you wrote:
“1) We are not discussing a scientific “theory”. This article is about corruption surrounding the catastrophic AGW conjecture.”
You are not entitled to impose on me what I’m discussing. I discuss what I find appropriate. I replied to the request directed at A. Lacis to provide evidence for the statements on the physics behind the role of CO2 in the climate system.
“Proper terminology is important at the internet’s Best Science site,”
And what makes this the “Best Science” site? I ask this because you seem to believe this is of some importance for what is said here, or why are you pointing to this? Majority opinion of some anonymous voters? It’s still just an opinion blog, and not a science site. And you yourself just negated one sentence before that this was about science here.
And where you see an article and discussion about “corruption” and “conjecture” I see name calling, smearing, inciting, hateful statements, and fantasies of punishment and violence against climate scientists in an opinion blog from people who don’t have the arguments on their side to refute findings of science on scientific grounds.
“2) Your appeal to authority [“You asked A. Lacis to provide evidence for what he said. Do you even know who you are asking?”] is ridiculous.”
I point to the fact that A. Lacis has published many peer reviewed articles in the field. Thus, the suggestion that he first would have to provide evidence for his statements is baseless, since he has already provided his share. What does this have to do with “appeal to authority”? Nothing. Instead it’s an appeal to get informed.
If you want to read a quote where appeal to authority is used, here is one:
“Some very prominent NASA voices speak out in a scathing letter to current NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr.. When Chris Kraft, the man who presided over NASA’s finest hour, and the engineering miracle of saving Apollo 13 speaks, people listen.” (Anthony Watts)
“Lacis is just another tax sponge IMO, nothing more.”
Well, at least you are aware that this is just an opinion, not a factual statement, nothing more.
“The onus is on the one proposing a conjecture or hypothesis. The fact that you’re being an apologist for someone who will not show valid support for his paper”…
“His paper”? To what paper of the many do you refer here? And your claim that his papers are not based on “valid support” is based on what, except on your wishful thinking grounded in your preconceived views? If you have more to offer than your scientifically irrelevant assertions just point me to your scientific publications where you have refuted on scientific grounds the findings A. Lacis has presented in his scientific papers.
I also don’t know what “apologist” is supposed to mean in the context here.
…”is typical of the tap dancing that the alarmist crowd is constantly engaged in.”
As I said. Just point me to your scientific publications where you have refuted A. Lacis’s papers, so you can back up your bold claims, you expert. Or are you just pounding the table?
“They have lost all credibility, and they still hide out from open debate. They’re not stupid, they know they get slaughtered in scientific debates, where facts rule. So they hide out.”
That must be it. That is why they are published in the specialist journals where the scientific debate takes place, whereas you mostly have to resort to opinion blogs like this one.
Do you know what the difference is between this blog here, or any opinion blog, and a peer reviewed scientific publication in a specialist journal?
“Finally, when you were asked, “How about you show us how you added CO2 to a volume of air and increased its temperature. That is your premise, isn’t it?” …you set up your strawman arguments and appeals to authority. Because if you tried to answer that question, you would be in way over your head in short order.”
If it makes yourself feel better to believe that. And now it’s about science after all? So what is it? How it is convenient for you at the moment? Even if you contradict yourself in one and the same comment?
Gail Combs,
FYI, Morano may have collated the list, but my link was from years ago. I almost never click on Climate Depot; this was the first week in at least a year that I visited their site.
Mr Clarke was making baseless assumptions, as usual.
@Jan Perlwitz:
“I discuss what I find appropriate.” …The use the correct scientific terminology is appropriate, if you don’t mind. Here, this may help you. And Lacis is still a tax sponge. You, too. If you had a real job, you would have to produce, no?
You ask: “And what makes this the “Best Science” site?”
I already gave you the answer, Grasshopper. But maybe you’re hoping RealClimate will rise in the ratings? Heh.
And it’s fun to deconstruct your comments: “How about you show us how you added CO2 to a volume of air and increased its temperature. That is your premise, isn’t it? “…you set up your strawman arguments and your appeals to authority. Because if you tried to answer that question, you would be in way over your head in short order.”
YOU never answer the question, do you? As a tax sponge/modeler, how do YOU justify feeding at the grant gravy train? Just wondering.
Smokey,
You obviously don’t know the difference between deconstructing and mere assertion.
You obviously don’t know the difference between opinion and science.
Of course, you don’t have to offer anything that could refute A. Lacis’s findings from his scientific publications. I suspect you never have contributed anything to science. All you have to offer: Name calling, smearing, hatred toward him. And now toward me. Toward climate scientists, generally, who publish findings of their research you don’t like for whatever economical, political or ideological motivations you have. You use the cover of anonymity for this. (I’m waiting for the call to order by the moderation here toward you for doing so. I guess I can wait forever. Because here it goes against those evil climate scientists who want all that “power” and “budget”. Since everyone knows, the best way to become rich and get power in this society is going into academia). Since the scientific findings can’t be refuted on the grounds of science, the scientists are instead being attacked in opinion blogs like this one and the discussion forums of those blogs by people like you. Like it is the case with the fake skeptics, generally, whereever you go.
BTW: RealClimate is an opinion blog too. A high quality one, maintained by climate scientists who know what they are talking about, but the scientific debate does not take place there, either. And nice to see how you use appeal to majority to score points.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
April 12, 2012 at 9:07 pm
I wrote:
“Babsy says:
April 12, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
April 12, 2012 at 6:06 pm
I know what your premise is. Your premise is that increasing levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is causing said atmosphere to warm up. I say show me the mechanism that produces this phenomena. And you cannot.”
Gleick! Set! Match!
Jan P. Perlwitz,
RealClimatePropaganda is a thinly trafficked climate alarmist echo chamber with no credibility. It is owned by the mendacious Michael Mann and blogged by your juggler pal Gavin Schmidt on taxpayer time. The last 2 years it didn’t even make the final cut in the Weblog Awards. Pathetic, like all of you.
And I note that you are still avoiding Babsy’s question. You know, if you and your tax sponge pals got real jobs instead of feeding at the public trough, it wouldn’t make a speck of difference to anyone or anything, except the hard-bitten, overtaxed public that pays for the alarmist propaganda emitted by you layabouts.
The dogs bark, but the caravan of science goes on.
Bark away, tax sponge.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
April 13, 2012 at 4:11 am
BTW: RealClimate is an opinion blog too.
Opinion is a matter of belief, it is not science.
Thus, RC is not a science blog. It is a indoctrination site to build a political base of followers to aid in securing continued government funding for climate scientists. It exists to benefit the parasites that feed off public funding.
RC employs cult indoctrination techniques (censorship, god-head) to identify and indoctrinate those that have been conditioned by their upbringing to follow authority, as a means to build a base of “believers” to lobby politicians.
This has been well documented by others. Go to RC and question AGW with scientific facts – not opinion – scientific facts. Unless you fit the profile, you will be quickly censored and your posts removed retroactively. Lest your heresy contaminate the minds of the believers. Cultism 101.
Smokey says:
April 13, 2012 at 5:37 am
Jan P. Perlwitz,
And I note that you are still avoiding Babsy’s question.
Smokey, he won’t answer me. There are only two possible scenarios here. The experiment has been run, or it has not. If the experiment hasn’t been run it begs the question of why not. If the experiment has been run, and the result was more CO2 in a given volume of air raises its temperature, the warmists would be screaming it from the bloody rooftops. That hasn’t happened.
ferd berple says: April 13, 2012 at 7:13 am
ferd, you are wasting your time. Jan is a full-time card-carrying cultist who works as a modeler at GISS and has even been published, co-authoring with The Gavin and The Hansen.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/janperlwitz.html
Seems to “know” everything about aerosols and nothing about science.
Jan P. Perlwitz says: @ur momisugly April 13, 2012 at 4:11 am
…You obviously don’t know the difference between deconstructing and mere assertion.
You obviously don’t know the difference between opinion and science….
_________________________________
When a supposed scientist make a statement like the one below, I know he is blowing smoke. If CO2 was a “Control Knob” then it would be simple to predict the climate for next year and to “adjust” the climate. Since the predictions and adjustments are not forth coming, that is the applied science, then the guy is talking out his rear. And yes I have had forty years of watching theoretical PhDs make these types of pronouncements that fall flat on their face when scaled up into production. Forty years of cleaning up the messes while the PhDs are off on the next project and “Don’t have the time to talk” about their failures.
That was a statement for public consumption.
This is more like reality.
To me this is the real killer when combined with the Australian temp record, New Zealand temp record, and of course the US temp record.
To a chemist who has wrestled with mixing for forty years the CO2 record is even more laughable, especially when you are dealing with a system with large additions and removals and sporadic mixing from the wind. This statement from Mauna Loa kills any credibility of the recent record.
The assumption is made that there is NO VARIABILITY and the data is adjusted to reflect that. This is the same assumption that is used to reject Ernest Beck’s work on historical CO2 measurement.
So Lacis is basing his statement of fact on a dicey world temperature record, a dicey world CO2 record and fantasyland computer models with no real honest data or experimentation in sight that isn’t disputed.