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 says: @ur momisugly April 12, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Jan P. Perlwitz says: @ur momisugly
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.
_________________________________
The real life experiment fails.
Anthony shows Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment (Hilarious screw up of a simple science experiment)
The experiment can be done at home: http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/archive/index.php/thread-1466.html
I was taking a beating for not “believing” in the climate change model. This is such sweet vindication I must email it around.
Gail Combs,
“The assumption is made that there is NO VARIABILITY and the data is adjusted to reflect that.”
I had no idea this was how they recorded CO2 levels. I wonder if there is any statistical justification for doing this?
Gail Combs says:
April 13, 2012 at 8:22 am
Whaaaaaatttt????? How is this possible?! It is HERESY! CO2 *MUST* warm the atmosphere! It must, I tell you! Oh, the HUMANITY!!!!
PS: Thanks, Gail Have a great weekend!
I’ll listen to these engineers,scientists, and astronauts instead of various English, History, and other liberal arts professors who have signed petitions and letters over the years supporting the AGW premise.
One of the main emperical evidence sources that could be used was destroyed….er….lost….by the ‘climate’ scientists when creating their models. The data was massaged, important conflicting pieces thrown out, and modified to fit their desired theory, which is the antithesis to the scientific process that has been in place for decades. The fact that these AGW alarmists had all the data, modified it to fit their theories, and then based their models off each each others results or theories without benefit of peer review is pretty much like giving the fox the keys to the hen house.
Gail Combs says:
April 13, 2012 at 8:22 am
I would like to sincerely thank you, Gail Combs. I have no idea who you are but every post you make is concise, polite, accurate as far as I can tell and filled with relevant links for further reading. This is very helpful to those of us who are interested but have no horse in the race. I find the science of assertion without evidence as practised by some really frustrating.
Jan P. Perlwitz:
I have really enjoyed this thread because I have rarely laughed so much at a flock of trolls desperately trying to justify blatant nonsense. For example, at April 12, 2012 at 7:54 pm you provide a gem in response to Babsy saying to you;
…”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.”
Your response is a classic example of assertion, evasion, straw man and blatant falsehood all included in only 33 words that say;
“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.”
Your assertion says “Of course” you can’t explain the matter “here”. Of course you can’t? Really? Do you understand so very little of what you proclaim?
You then evade the issue by asking a question which claims you do not know how to answer a simple scientific question.
The straw man is your assertion that this is an “opinion blog” and not (as it is) a scientific blog.
And you conclude with the blatant falsehood that you and everybody else can only provide “opinion” and not scientific argument here. That is so wrong that it is risible. For a recent example of a scientific argument supported by referenced data on this blog see my post of today at April 13, 2012 at 6:42 am in the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/pat-michaels-on-the-death-of-credibility-in-the-journal-nature/
That recent example enables others to challenge my evidence and my argument which is why I posted it. And I always like it when a challenge proves I am wrong because then I learn. However, I am a scientist and, therefore, I am not an advocate so I like to learn.
Trolls are advocates. And that is why they assert and pretend that “Of course” they can’t justify their assertions.
Richard
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
April 12, 2012 at 7:54 pm
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.
========
Don’t you know? Perhaps one of your colleagues might know? Surely, someone pushing this must know..?
Please, ask around if you don’t know because this is your, generic AGWs, basic claim:
”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.”
Because until you do produce this, why should any of us take you seriously as a scientist?
I can’t stand it. After reading the new Roy Spencer article on USHCN “adjustments”, it is clear that the climate charlatans are busy in every part of the federal government. Time to de-fund these deceivers!
And it looks like Mr. Perlwitz has skedaddled back to his profession of being a tax sponge. We want scientific debate here, and welcome it from any point of view. But Mr. Perlwitz is clearly incapable of giving any reasonable explanations for his True Belief that he has some sort of climate “theory”. He has not been able to answer even one of the questions put to him, and has admitted as much. The only thing these pseudo-scientists are really good at is writing grant-generating papers that get hand-waved through Pal-Review so long as they support the climate alarmist narrative. Perlwitz will get respect here only if he engages in an honest, scientific, fact-based debate. But as we’ve seen, Perlwitz is incapable of defending even the simplest of his conjectures, and now he’s hightailed it out of Dodge.
Apparently Perlwits is also ignorant of the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified, and which in turn falsifies his alternative CO2=CAGW conjecture. These overpaid charlatans actually take Lacis’ ridiculous position that CO2 is a control knob that runs the climate! Too bad the planet disagrees.
Government propagandists like Lacis and Perlwitz hide out from any debate, and they’re hiding out now. In any open debate their runaway global warming nonsense would be promptly deconstructed. They’re too chicken to debate, but they keep both front feet in the taxpayer trough, incessantly “adjusting” the temperature record on land, sea and satellites.
At least Hansen has the excuse of being a certifiable lunatic who has been consistently wrong for the past 30 years. But most of these other fakirs are simply self-serving tax sponges feeding at the public trough. And I, for one, am getting tired of being the meal ticket for these public
servantsswindlers riding the climate gravy train.Smokey says:
April 13, 2012 at 5:52 pm
Government propagandists like Lacis and Perlwitz hide out from any debate, and they’re hiding out now. In any open debate their runaway global warming nonsense would be promptly deconstructed. They’re too chicken to debate, but they keep both front feet in the taxpayer trough, incessantly “adjusting” the temperature record on land, sea and satellites.
For me, there’s really nothing to deconstruct as they haven’t yet made any testable hypotheses.
User “Babsy” wrote:
“The experiment has been run, or it has not.”
What “experiment”? It is the first time that you talk in the context here about an “experiment”. Before, you requested to provide “evidence” and “to show” here that CO2 warms the atmosphere. Wasn’t it your comrade “Smokey” who said words matter?
Do you mean an experiment like this?
http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/globalwarmingexperiment.html
“…the warmists would be screaming it from the bloody rooftops.”
The “warmist” are screaming from the rooftops about basic knowledge in physics like why CO2 in the atmosphere makes the surface temperature and the troposphere warmer as much as they are screaming about that the Earth isn’t flat.
Robert E. Phelan wrote:
“Jan … works as a modeler at GISS and has even been published…
Seems to “know” everything about aerosols and nothing about science.”
That is the funniest statement what I have read here so far, coming from the fake skeptic parallel universe where the facts that someone works in science and “has even been published” are criteria for being disqualified from knowing something about science. The utter absurdity of your “argument” is stunning.
Gail Combs wrote:
“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.”
Apparently, you are under the delusion you can dismiss a scientific study just in a sentence after you have read something about it in second or third hand sources. I recommend to read the original paper instead, try to understand the content and to what the term “Control Knob” refers. Little hint: It does not refer to that CO2 was allegedly the only factor that determines the state of the Earth system on any time scale, and certainly not on short time scale like from year to year.
When you have done this then it may be that you won’t draw such a nonsense conclusion like the one above, the next time. Maybe.
Richard S Courtney wrote:
“Your assertion says “Of course” you can’t explain the matter “here”.
You should try to read carefully. You already have made your first mistake by asserting a claim I haven’t made. Nowhere did I say I couldn’t explain it here, couldn’t tell you what my understanding was how it it works. I said I can’t “show” it here after some other user requested “evidence”. Scientific proof is not possible in a comment section of opinion blogs. For anything. Scientific proof for scientific theories can only be found in the scientific literature. YOU do not produce science here. You ONLY produce OPINION. And when I write HERE, I also only produce opinion, perhaps in the field of climate science a better educated one than the average person has to offer, but still opinion, not science. I do science somewhere else, not here.
“Do you understand so very little of what you proclaim?”
I certainly do believe that I understand how the greenhouse effect of CO2 works, the reality of which is here clearly doubted. If you do not understand it, are you asking me to explain to you what is taught in High School today, some basics?
The basic principle is really not as complicated. You can start with an atmosphere, which is transparent for solar and thermal radiation. The system is in radiative equilibrium with the surrounding space. Incoming solar radiation, which is absorbed by the surface equals outgoing longwave radiation, which is emitted from the surface. Then you introduce a greenhouse gas in an atmospheric layer above the surface, which absorbs and emits longwave radiation. It’s still transparent for the incoming solar radiation, but longwave radiation radiated from the surface upward is absorbed by the greenhouse gas. This diabatic heating source warms the atmospheric layer with the greenhouse gas. Longwave radiation is emitted from this layer in all directions, i.e., about 50% is emitted back toward Earth’s surface. Due to this there is a perturbation of the radiative equilibrium with the surrounding space. The system is in disequilibrium with the surrounding space now. Less energy leaves the system than comes in. The surface and the atmosphere warm due to the heating, which increases the outgoing longwave radiation, until radiative equilibribrium is restored once the system has adjusted. In reality, it’s a bit more complicated, since there are also turbulent, sensible and latent energy fluxes, and there is convection, there is a vertical lapse rate of the temperature, the atmosphere has different strata with different properties. But that’s the basic principle.
“The straw man is your assertion that this is an “opinion blog” and not (as it is) a scientific blog.”
So please explain to me what are the supposed criteria, which are allegedly fulfilled, that makes this blog a “scientific blog”? There are no valid scientific standards here. Anyone can assert anything and its opposite, w/o being mandated to back up assertions, to bring proof of source, or, generally, follow the rules of a real scientific publication. Nothing of what is here produced is put under real scientific scrutiny by scientists. How can this be a “scientific blog” then? It can’t.
“And you conclude with the blatant falsehood that you and everybody else can only provide “opinion” and not scientific argument here.”
You can try to approximate a scientific argument here, and base your arguments on results from real scientific studies. This make your argument a qualitatively better argument, but it doesn’t make your comments science. Or this blog a “scientific blog”. As I said. There are no valid scientific standards here, and nothing what is produced here is put under real scrutiny by scientists. And this is the difference between an opinion blog like this one here and the peer reviewed scientific literature.
“That recent example enables others to challenge my evidence and my argument which is why I posted it. And I always like it when a challenge proves I am wrong because then I learn. However, I am a scientist and, therefore, I am not an advocate so I like to learn.”
Good for you. And since you seem to make the assertion I was an “advocate” you certainly can tell here what I’m advocating and you certainly can back up your assertion. Otherwise, according to you, you are just a troll.
Btw: Considering all the personal attacks against climate scientists here, the libeleous assertions, baseless accusations from the fake skeptic crowd, the blunt hatred, with which this forum is filled, your singling out of my comments for your ad hominem indicates a certain bias in your perception and opinion.
Myrrh wrote:
“Because until you do produce this, why should any of us take you seriously as a scientist?”
If someone announces to me to not take me seriously, if I don’t help him/her with overcoming his/her lack of education with respect to basic physics of the workings of the climate system, which is nowadays already taught in school, is this supposed to bother me? You really can do what you want.
Smokey wrote:
“I can’t stand it. After reading the new Roy Spencer article on USHCN “adjustments, it is clear that the climate charlatans are busy in every part of the federal government. Time to de-fund these deceivers!”
Roy Spencer? Isn’t this the guy who had distributed false temperature data derived from satellite measurements, using seriously flawed algorithms for years, until other scientists found out that those weren’t right?
Just saying.
“But Mr. Perlwitz is clearly incapable of giving any reasonable explanations for his True Belief that he has some sort of climate “theory”. He has not been able to answer even one of the questions put to him, and has admitted as much.”
You seem to be hallucinating, if you have seen that I had “admitted” such a thing.
“The only thing these pseudo-scientists are really good at is writing grant-generating papers that get hand-waved through Pal-Review so long as they support the climate alarmist narrative. ”
An assertion without evidence like many others. According to Mr. Courtney, you are a troll.
“Perlwitz will get respect here only if he engages in an honest, scientific, fact-based debate.”
Says one of the biggest jokers here whose “arguments” against scientific findings published in peer reviewed journals have mostly consisted of personal attacks against the scientists, libelous smearing, hate mongering. What about you start with 1. posting under your real name; 2. disclose your credentials, before you talk about “honest debate”. This is very likely the last thing in which you are interested. I do not care about “respect” from the likes of you.
“These overpaid charlatans actually take Lacis’ ridiculous position that CO2 is a control knob that runs the climate! Too bad the planet disagrees.”
You obviously don’t have a clue what A. Lacis’s position is and to what this term “control knob” refers. You are not informed about the content of this publication, or about what the scientific arguments are. But you believe to know it is nonsense. You cluelessness can be seen from your belief that the graphic would contradict what A. Lacis says. Or that it generally would be in contradiction to the statement the CO2 increase in the atmosphere leads to global warming. It is not in contradiction. Not at all. You showing the graphic only demonstrates once more how fake skeptics resort to logical fallacy for their pseudo refutation of global warming and the anthropogenic causes for it. The “argument” is logically fallacious because 1. the time period is too short. The temperature variability is dominated by natural variability on such a short time scale, the largest contribution comes from the variability related to ENSO. 2. The start point is cherry picked. This is so typical. What Smokey others accuses of he himself practices. He conveniently chooses a start point so that it looks like there wasn’t a trend. It’s telling that the temperature time series in his plot starts at 1995, but he choose 1996.83 as start for the trend calculation. If he had chosen 1990 as start point for the temperature series and trend calculation, it already would have looked quite differently. Or for 1979 even more.
Now a little exercise. Plot the data from 1980 to 1995.
So much for “honest” debate from user “Smokey”.
“but they keep both front feet in the taxpayer trough, incessantly “adjusting” the temperature record on land, sea and satellites. ”
And more libelous smearing from user “Smokey”. Using cowardly the cover of anonymity for this.
Oops, the last quote I commented wasn’t from anonymous user “Smokey”, it was from anonymous user “Babsy”. But since they are lookalikes, and “Smokey’s” comment does similar smearing, it doesn’t really matter.
Rocket scientists are more familiar with thermodynamics than climate clairvoyants!
Jan P. Perlwitz:
Thankyou for your reply at April 14, 2012 at 12:49 am to my comment to you at April 13, 2012 at 2:34 pm. However, it is an understatement to say that I am underwhelmed by your reply.
Taking your last point first, you say to me;
“…your singling out of my comments for your ad hominem indicates a certain bias in your perception and opinion.”
Say what!?
I made no ad hominem; none, zilch, nada. Anybody can see that I deconstructed your comments.
However, your unfounded suggestion that I have “bias” in my “perception and opinion” is an ad hominem. Indeed, it is an unjustified insult which tells much about its provider (i.e. you) and nothing about its target (i.e. me).
You babble about the difference between the words “show” and “explain”. This is semantic obfuscation because I quoted you accurately and in full. Importantly, your semantic quibble has no meaning in the context of what I wrote.
Then you assert;
“Scientific proof is not possible in a comment section of opinion blogs.”
Let us be clear. “Scientific proof” IS NOT POSSIBLE period.
There is scientific evidence, scientific argument and scientific conclusion but “proof” is a mathematical concept and is NOT a scientific possibility.
However, you assert;
“Scientific proof for scientific theories can only be found in the scientific literature”.
NO! It can not! Scientific “proof” does not exist and, therefore, cannot be “found” anywhere.
If “scientific proof” were possible then an existing scientific understanding could not be overthrown.
Your comments concerning “scientific proof” demonstrate that your understanding of the difference between science and pseudoscience is severely lacking (n.b. this is a factual statement and not an ad hominem).
Science obtains as much evidence as possible and assesses it all in attempt to discern the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’.
Pseudoscience assumes something is ‘true’ and seeks evidence to confirm (i.e. to prove) it.
And your assertions that “science” is not conducted here but only “opinions” are expressed are further evidence that you have little if any understanding of how science is conducted (n.b. again, this is not an ad hominem).
Science consists of assessing all available evidence in attempt to discern the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’. Your claim that consideration should only be afforded to information you like that is only available in or from sources you like is a proclamation of pure pseudoscience.
And you say;
“I do science somewhere else, not here.”
Yes, I noticed that. Please stop presenting pseudoscience here and present science instead.
Importantly, you were asked to “show” and you were not asked to “prove” your premise. And this distinction is NOT a semantic quibble. You were asked for an explanation and/or evidence (which is how something is shown scientifically) of your premise: you were NOT asked for “proof”.
And your reply to me does attempt to explain your premise saying;
“I certainly do believe that I understand how the greenhouse effect of CO2 works…” etc.
Sorry, but you have failed the assignment. Few doubt the radiative properties of dipole molecules or the mechanism of the radiative greenhouse effect. But that is not an answer to Babsy who wrote;
…”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.”
It is a fact that CO2 is a GHG so – all other things being equal – an increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration would increase radiative warming of the Earth’s surface. But so what? That is not what you were asked because all other things would NOT be equal if atmospheric CO2 were to increase. Indeed, you admit that all other things would not be equal when you write;
“In reality, it’s a bit more complicated, since there are also turbulent, sensible and latent energy fluxes, and there is convection, there is a vertical lapse rate of the temperature, the atmosphere has different strata with different properties.”
The “mechanism” you were asked to show was how the entire climate system would respond such as to cause the atmosphere to warm up. You have not done that, and so it seems Babsy was right to claim “you cannot”.
Please note that the above three paragraphs are science and not merely opinion.
And you ask me;
“So please explain to me what are the supposed criteria, which are allegedly fulfilled, that makes this blog a “scientific blog”? There are no valid scientific standards here. Anyone can assert anything and its opposite, w/o being mandated to back up assertions, to bring proof of source, or, generally, follow the rules of a real scientific publication. Nothing of what is here produced is put under real scientific scrutiny by scientists. How can this be a “scientific blog” then? It can’t.”
The criteria are that evidence is presented, challenged, debated and evaluated with a view to obtaining better understandings (i.e. knowledge). Incidentally, this IS conducted by “scientists” (your claim otherwise merely demonstrates that you have not read the blog). Simply, much science is conducted here which falsifies your assertion that science “can’t” be conducted here.
And what “standards” are you asserting exist elsewhere. Do you want WUWT to devolve to the mendacious behaviour of ‘The Team’ as revealed by the ‘climategate’ emails? I and others would oppose the reduction of standards here to that level.
Your claim of “rules of real scientific publication” is baloney. I give a few examples which show it is baloney.
The Editor of Nature published two papers by third-rate patents clerk without putting those papers to peer review because he knew the reviews would be negative. But those papers (on what their author called relativity) revolutionised physics.
Two bicycle salesmen published their seminal paper on aviation in a journal on bee-keeping because the ‘rules of scientific publication’ made it impossible for them to publish in more appropriate journals. And the existence of the aviation industry shows the value of that paper: where it was published, its lack of pre-publication peer review, and the credentials of its authors do not alter its value in any way.
Similar examples are legion.
I repeat, your claim that consideration should only be afforded to information you like that is only available in or from sources you like is a proclamation of pure pseudoscience.
The remainder of your reply to me is merely ad hominem and so is not worth the bother of a response.
Richard
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
April 14, 2012 at 1:01 am
Myrrh wrote:
“Because until you do produce this, why should any of us take you seriously as a scientist?”
If someone announces to me to not take me seriously, if I don’t help him/her with overcoming his/her lack of education with respect to basic physics of the workings of the climate system, which is nowadays already taught in school, is this supposed to bother me? You really can do what you want.
I was educated pre the AGWScienceFiction fisics being introduced into the education system, your claim so it should bother you, it would bother a real scientist. Go fetch, educate me – here, now on this blog for discussion on stuff scientific – show and tell the science claim you claiming to be a scientist are actively promoting as science fact. Until you do so, no one in their right mind could take you seriously as a scientist.
Answer clearly Smokey’s succinct question or you prove him right, you cannot…
”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.”
You cannot because it doesn’t exist, you can’t find it to fetch and show and tell.
”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.”
Go fetch.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
April 13, 2012 at 10:33 pm
“Do you mean an experiment like this?”
No. I meant a real experiment. And the Earth is flat. Thanks for playing!
Perlwitz says:
“The ‘warmist’ are screaming from the rooftops about basic knowledge in physics like why CO2 in the atmosphere makes the surface temperature and the troposphere warmer as much as they are screaming about that the Earth isn’t flat.”
Wrong. The Tropospheric Hot Spot [the widely predicted “Fingerprint of Global Warming”] has been completely falsified. Too bad pseudo-scientist Perlwitz didn’t get the memo. Empirical evidence from thousands of accurate radiosonde balloons and satellite measurements has decisively falsified the “Hot Spot” prediction, but grant trolls like Perlwitz keep flogging that dead horse. Let’s be clear: the non-existent ‘tropospheric hot spot’ prediction has failed; it is one of numerous alarmist predictions that never happened. How many failures does it take to cut the wasted funding of this baseless climate scare?
Richard Courtney has ably deconstructed Perlwitz. But to test Perlwitz’ putative intellectual ability, I propose a simple and testable hypothesis for falsification, if Perlwitz can handle the challenge:
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
Any attempted falsification must be according to the Scientific Method — a concept foreign to the alarmist tax sponge cult. It must be testable, replicable, and based on empirical evidence [and note that computer models are not evidence].
Perlwitz must show verifiable global harm due to the rise in beneficial CO2, or admit that the CO2=CAGW conjecture is simply a scam on the hard-bitten taxpaying public.
Finally, I note that Perlwitz is still complaining about the fact that there are different opinions expressed here. That is in stark contrast to the outright censorship practiced by alarmist pseudo-science blogs like Mann’s RealClimate. Here, factual opinions are separated from garbage opinions like wheat from chaff; thus the truth is winnowed out, and readers can decide for themselves the value of each argument.
Unlike RealClimatePropaganda, Skeptical Pseudo-Science, Closed Mind, and similar alarmist blogs, this Best Science site does not censor different points of view. That is why WUWT has well over 100 million unique hits, and more than 800,000 reader comments, while blogs like RC and sPs have very little traffic. That also explains Perlwitz’ and Lacis’ posting here, because they know they get a very wide readership.
But their problem is obvious: they are desperately trying to support the false narrative that runaway global warming is happening. It isn’t, as millions of WUWT viewers know. Just read this thread to see how badly they have been b!tch slapped around the block regarding their falsified conjectures and their failed predictions.
The falsified CO2=CAGW conjecture is simply a scare tactic based on federal grant money. It is past time to cut off that wasted funding, because it is based entirely on the repeatedly falsified, pseudo-scientific CAGW scam. Nothing unusual or unprecedented is happening with the climate, as the null hypothesis shows. The climate alarmist crowd is losing the argument for one reason: because the planet itself is contradicting their money-grubbing scare story. And what better authority is there than planet earth?
Jan P. Perlwitz says: April 13, 2012 at 10:41 pm
I see you have something of a comprehension problem as well. Nowhere did I write that working in science or publishing in scientific journals disqualified one from knowing something about science. Rather, I was lamenting the fact that there are some people who know nothing about science who are mistaken for scientists and actually get published in scientific journals. The fake universe is the one where computer simulations are mistaken for empirical evidence, the science is settled and scientific skepticism is a mental illness that needs to be treated.
Dr. Perlwitz, your Ph.D. and your shabby little cubicle at GISS are not proof that you understand science. Your arrogance and mistaken notion that skeptics are ignorant mouth-breathers are not proof that you understand science. Many of the commenters here that you are deriding were doing science and engineering before you were born. It is people like you that have taken one of the most liberating institutions the world has known and turned it into a tool of oppression. When the peasants come for you with their pitchforks and torches, you will have brought it on yourselves.
Yes!
This is why I read WUWT.
People like me who work too much, have big families and limited free time can come here and quickly absorb scientific concepts, arguments and data regarding the climate drama.
About twice a month I get a gold nugget thread like this one where heavy hitters mix it up and a lot of digestible information is presented.
Thanks to all you regulars who climb into the ring here. It has been a lot easier for me to learn from your sparring than from my reading of science papers.
Best,
RR