Team of Ex-NASA Scientists Concludes No Imminent Threat from Man-Made CO2

More counterpunch to Obama’s recent speech.

Rocket scientists -vs- James Hansen, “in God we trust, all others bring data”

WASHINGTON, Jan. 23, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A group of 20 ex-NASA scientists have concluded that the science used to support the man-made climate change hypothesis is not settled and no convincing physical evidence exists to support catastrophic climate change forecasts.

Beginning in February 2012, the group of scientists calling themselves The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) team received presentations by scientists representing all sides of the climate change debate and embarked on an in-depth review of a number of climate studies.

Employing a disciplined approach of problem identification and root cause analysis honed from decades of dealing with life threatening safety issues in successfully sending astronauts up through Earth’s atmosphere and returning them safely home, the TRCS team concluded that no imminent threat exists from man-made CO2.

TRCS team is comprised of renowned space scientists with formal educational and decades career involvement in engineering, physics, chemistry, astrophysics, geophysics, geology and meteorology. Many of these scientists have Ph.Ds. All TRCS team members are unpaid volunteers who began the project after becoming dismayed with NASA’s increasing advocacy for alarmist man-made climate change theories.

H. Leighton Steward, chairman of CO2isGreen.org as well as the educational non-profit, PlantsNeedCO2.org, makes the following comments regarding the TRCS posting, which can be found at www.therightclimatestuff.com:

  1. The science of what is causing global climate change or warming is clearly not settled and never has been.
  2. There is no convincing physical evidence to support the man-made climate change hypothesis. The standard test of a hypothesis is whether it is supported by real observations, which seems to have been ignored by climate alarmists.
  3. Claims made by proponents of catastrophic man-made warming are dominantly supported by non-validated computer models and the output of these models should not be relied upon by policy-makers. Some TRCS team members have been making critical decisions using complex computer models for decades.
  4. There is no immediate threat of catastrophic global warming even if some warming occurs. The sea level is not going to suddenly begin a steep acceleration of its 18,000-year rate of rise. Global sea level rise is not currently accelerating despite what climate change alarmists claim.
  5. The U.S. Government has overreacted to a possible catastrophic warming. The probable negative impacts to the economy, jobs and an increased cost of food, transportation and utilities will be severe and hurt the poor and middle class the most. Real experiments show that Earth’s habitats and ecosystems could be damaged if CO2 levels are actually reduced. Environmentalists have been grossly misled to believe CO2 is a pollutant.
  6. Empirical evidence shows that Earth is currently “greening” significantly due to additional CO2 and a modest warming.
  7. Money saved by abandoning a premature rush to lower CO2 emissions could be better spent by continuing research on alternative energies that are not currently competitive or reliable.

Dr. Harold Doiron, team leader for TRCS and former NASA scientist, along with H. Leighton Steward, will be participating on The Hard Question panel debate on climate change tonight at 5:00pm at The National Press Club, Holeman Lounge (13th floor) , 529 14th Street, Washington, DC.

More information can be found at www.CO2isGreen.org.

Supporting scientific information can be found at www.PlantsNeedCO2.org.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

therightclimatestuff needs a professional to clean up the page otherwise it just won’t be taken seriously.

Len

This gives us a picture of how NASA used to be and how much we have lost.

Jay

Spot on – the Right Stuff indeed. A very useful piece of analysis.

Excellent! I knew the REAL scientists at NASA wouldn’t just sit back and just let the CAGW scam continue. The villains in all this must be greatly disturbed at how much information is getting out there now, they just can’t keep the lid on it.

Bloke down the pub

Politicians have chosen not to believe the truth when it has been presented to them in the past, so there’s no guarantee they will listen this time. The only thing that will make a difference is when they realise they’re losing votes over it.

Does ANYONE get the delicous irony of the concept that the “ir-religious”, i.e. people who generally would describe themselves as agnostics, humanists, and or atheists, will dismiss this group of bright, well qualified, technical (notice I did NOT say the “magic” word, “scientists”…because a lot of these folks are ENGINEERS in training and background. THINK the last AIRLINER you were on was designed by ENGINEERS not “Scientists”….) as non-sequitors as they are not “hoity toit scientists”. AKA, “priests” sanctioned by the church.
It is SUCH a delicious IRONY that the REBELS of th 60’s and 70’s NOW HAVE BECOME THE CONFORM OR DIE PEOPLE OF THE 2000’s.
In the case of “Don’t trust anyone over 30!” I think it now applies to HEIGHT not age.
Max

John Blake

“The TRCS team is composed of renowned space scientists with formal educational and (decades-long credentials)” in a whole panoply of technical disciplines. And if this magical team was not so reverentially qualified, so what? Hot air still rises, water flows downhill… as ever, such an argumentum verecundiam cuts both ways.

pat

Someone please tell Obama.

Ron

So. One must leave NASA before one can speak the truth? What an indictment of that organization!

Peter Crawford

Yes, Max. I have long maintained that most alarmists are bald, bearded midgets with a grudge against the world on account of other people not being bald, bearded, or midgets. Look at Michael Mann or Gavin Schmidt. Both of them are only 2’9″ even in their cuban-heels.
Of course I have no scientific proof of this but my Institute in the bowels of Holyhead Mountain is working on the problem.

Pat Moffitt

When dealing with Hansen a slight change is in order “in God we trust, all others bring the raw data.”

james griffin

Just posted the main parts on facebook…it is to be hoped that it is not lost on those snowed in
on our tiny island of Britain. Our climate change is extrordinary at times and the MET Office is the most laughed at institution in the country. Last night I was driving back to my home in Ross-on-Wye with weather reports of snow in the SW of England and SE Wales which includes us as Ross is right on the border. I was prepared for it but not when it started snowing just past Oxford….60 miles from where the snow should be. Love to know what the MET Office factor in for error bars! If they and their mates can’t do something simple over a timescale of a few hours how on earth can they predict 100 years hence?
Answer is they can’t.
Thanks you ex NASA staffers…great stuff.

I dutifully went to http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/ and poked around.
Observations:
The Current TRCS Overview Assessment & Tentative Conclusions ( http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/CurrentOverview.html ) reads like an incomplete rough draft. Typos abound. No author indicated. ~12 pages of basic atmospheric physics, then a bunch of “conclusions” that are really just questions.
Are the studies listed on http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/StudiesReports.html inputs or outputs? If inputs, I would submit that they might be missing a relevant paper or two (thousand)!
The SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY REPORT ( http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/SummaryPrelimReport.html ) is all standard skeptic trope, and doesn’t seem to foot to the Overview Assessment & Tentative Conclusions document at all. Where’s the preliminary report?
To aid the TRCS’s mission, here are some answers to the numbered questions in http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/Documents/Current%20Overview%20Assessment%20of%20How%20The%20Earth-Atmosphere%20Heat%20Balance%20Works-Rev1h.pdf :
1. Well known.
2. Important.
3. Re: ” It’s probably a strong message as to the complexity of the issue that, after ~33
years and significant money/effort, little progress has apparently been made in this area (or they
were pretty good estimators back before 1979.) ” I’ll go with the latter.
4. Among other things, this contains a false assertion: “All of their scenarios, including their “best case”, assume zero attempt to reduce greenhouse gases for global warming’s sake.” Did the author never see results for “what if all emissions stopped now?” scenario?
5. Weather, plus variations in other external forcings, e.g. the sun.
6. Significant over short and medium timescales. No.
7. Because changing climate rapidly is a very risky thing to do. And the more uncertain we are (or claim to be) about the impacts, the more we should be cautious…
Is anyone other than James Visentine willing to attach their name to this? This is amateur hour stuff, in content and form.
If someone can convincingly demonstrate, with observation and verified physical mechanisms, that climate sensitivity to CO2 is, for sure, with high probability, really low, then we can revisit “the overwhelming judgement of science.” Everything else (tree rings, cosmic rays, Gore, Hansen, etc.) is a side-show.

theduke

Sounds like an “overwhelming consensus” to me.
I call this “reactivism.” It’s a reaction to the corrupt, ideologically driven, post-normal science conceived and promoted by activists on the international political left.

Marcos

the Warmist response when I point out the contrary opinion of these ex-NASA scientists is usually, “engineers and rocket scientists dont understand the science as well as climate scientists do…”

The target audiences are not like John Cook’s ‘settled’ science faithful.
The target audiences are the supporters of an openly transparent scientific process and of a critical public analysis / debate.
John

pat
Mark and two Cats

This aint rocket science, it’s climate “science”. These guys are way over-qualified.

Rhoda R

Mr. Blake, I suspect the point that statement makes about their qualifications is to prevent warmies from dismissing them out of hand, You know, that old: “You’re not a scientist so you have no business commenting on our work” nonsense.

Duster

The disturbing part is that they are all “ex-NASA.” Hierarchical systems have a tendency to require members to toe the mark or leave. This sounds like NASA has not yet recognized any alternative view as even potentially worth considering.

Dr. Jean Dickey of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, has promoted natural variability based on changes in the Earth’s magnetic field’s intensity.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm

RockyRoad

John Blake says:
January 23, 2013 at 8:54 am


Hot air still rises, water flows downhill… as ever, such an argumentum verecundiam cuts both ways.

No, John: Your excuse that it’s “an argumentum verecundiam” (An argument from authority) is not supported by your examples “Hot air still rises, water flows downhill”.
In the case of current “climate scientist” bozos (Mann, Hansen, Jones, and everybody at NASA), they use argumentum verecundiam when telling us that hot air falls and water flows uphill.
They’re as illogical as your arugment.

Max Hugoson says:
January 23, 2013 at 8:49 am
Does ANYONE get the delicous irony of the concept that the “ir-religious”, i.e. people who generally would describe themselves as agnostics, humanists, and or atheists, will dismiss this group…

Max. Whoa whoa whoa! Hold on there! That’s a pretty big brush you’re tarring people with!
I am an atheist, AND I also do not believe humans cause global warming/climate change/nasty weather. Good on these ex-NASA guys, I say!

All of this is fine,
except that they are not addressing the next issue, which is that global warming is over. The sun is going to take a nap.
GLOBAL COOLING IS HERE
Off late, I am aware of a flurry of reports and efforts by biased media and un-informed presidents, governments and various funding-dependant institutes to scare people about “climate change” due to global warming and that we have “to do something” to curb the use of fossil fuels. These reports claim that “thousands” of scientists support the “certainty” of climate change being due mostly to atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Sceptic scientists that challenge this position are mocked or vilified (or should be).
Some of these reports blatantly show CO2 going up together with temperature, as if (all) warming is caused by more CO2. Any (good) chemist knows that there are giga tons and giga tons of bi-carbonates dissolved in the oceans and that (any type of) warming would cause it to be released: HCO3- + heat => CO2 (g) + OH-. This is the reason we are alive today. Cause and effect, get it? Smoking causes cancer, but cancer does not cause smoking.
I am not saying climate change is not happening. Climate change is happening, because global warming is over. We have started to cool globally. All data sets measuring the average air and sea temperatures, including my own, now show that we have started cooling down for the past 11 years (which is the equivalent time of one full solar cycle).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend
Furthermore, my own dataset, where I have also been monitoring global maximum temperatures, shows that all warming in the past was almost entirely due to natural reasons and that global cooling will now accelerate further. In my opinion, it will only be 4-5 years max. before this cooling effect will be felt by just about everyone in the whole world.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Indeed it is this global cooling that is generally causing more rain, more snow and cooler weather, globally, on average, whilst some places might get less precipitation.
(Namely, assuming equal amounts of water vapour in the air, remember that when water vapour in the atmosphere cools more, you get more clouds and more precipitation, at certain places, depending on latitude and wind factors).
As the farmers in Anchorage (Alaska) have noted,
http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html
the cold weather is so bad there that they do not get much of any harvests.
And it seems NOBODY is telling them there that it is not going to get any better. My own results show that this global cooling will last until ca. 2038.
There are many results from sceptical scientists that support my position and results, e.g.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/
http://www.landscheidt.info/
The sad story is, that where the world should prepare itself for climate change due to (natural) global cooling,
for example, by initiating more agricultural schemes at lower latitudes (FOOD!), and providing more protection against more precipitation at certain places (FLOODS!),
the media and the powers-that-be are twiddling with their thumbs, not listening to the real scientists,
i.e. those not making any money and nice journeys out of the gravy train that “global warming” has become.
So here we are, it is 2013, and nobody is addressing the real problems that we face due to climate change and the coming cold.
Henry

JC

Mann is working on legal paperwork as we speak.

Louis

Ron says:
January 23, 2013 at 9:07 am
So. One must leave NASA before one can speak the truth? What an indictment of that organization!

Yet, Hansen is the one who complained about having his free speech curtailed by NASA and the Bush administration while he jetted around the world giving speeches and accepting awards.

Brian R

What about the threat from Mann made CO2?

Max,
“It is SUCH a delicious IRONY that the REBELS of th 60′s and 70′s NOW HAVE BECOME THE CONFORM OR DIE PEOPLE OF THE 2000′s.”
Not all of us did.

Mindert Eiting

Max Hugoson said ‘ It is SUCH a delicious IRONY that the REBELS of th 60′s and 70′s NOW HAVE BECOME THE CONFORM OR DIE PEOPLE OF THE 2000′s.’
On 3 December 2012 Old Ranga from OZ wrote at CA: ‘Some day someone will write a book/make a film/do both about the extraordinary group of geriatric resistance fighters, major and minor, who have fought the good fight for the exposure and dismantling of the Great Scam. (Apologies to Anthony Watts, who perhaps should be welcomed as an honorary geriatric in this context.) ‘

Pathway

“Money saved by abandoning a premature rush to lower CO2 emissions could be better spent by continuing research on alternative energies that are not currently competitive or reliable.”
How about that money staying in the pockets of the hard working American people?

@ Bryan Hunt:
“therightclimatestuff needs a professional to clean up the page otherwise it just won’t be taken seriously.”
In these days where presentation tends to trump content, you might be right 🙁
The webpage looks like mine, eg in existence since 1993, days of HTML1, AARNet, CRT screens, black background so the viewers’ hair doesn’t stand on end due to the static.

syphax says:
“If someone can convincingly demonstrate, with observation and verified physical mechanisms, that climate sensitivity to CO2 is, for sure, with high probability, really low…”
You have the scientific method exactly backward. The onus is on those putting forth the CO2=CAGW conjecture to provide convincing scientific evidence that sensitivity to CO2 is high. But they have failed. There is no such evidence.

I guess it really does take a rocket scientist! 😉

RockyRoad

JC says:
January 23, 2013 at 10:41 am

Mann is working on legal paperwork as we speak.

If it’s as good as his “climate science”, we have nothing to fear.

george e. smith

Well these NASA engineers need to be ‘splained about how the system works.
You see; if you predict; excuse me, that’s project, NO immediate threat; well the gravy train spigot just slams shut.
All climatism horror stories are predicted; sorry projected, to happen 100 years in the future; well at least one SI climate time unit of 30 years. That gives me time to retire, before they find out it was a misprojection ! Why did we let these naive engineers send our people up around the moon, when they don’t understand where grant money comes from, and how to tap into it.
So when you are on the backside of the moon; ‘scuse me; that’s side B, and you say “Burn baby, burn !” That’s space ship terminology, not a terrorist threat. So assuming it worked at the time, so you do get to retire, rather than emigrate to Moonside B, you need to keep supporting the current crop of Post-Doc fellows, trying to keep the cash stream flowing.
So get with the program, and no more of this “No immediate threat.” radicalism. Besides, our new Emperor needs to work on his Legacy; and I don’t mean change the spark plugs, in its 4-banger Boxter Engine.

William Astley

The following is a link that compares electrical power costs for the US to other countries include UK, Denmark, and Germany.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151459451198968&set=a.221758208967.168468.146605843967&type=1&theater
The US consumer can look forward to an increase by a factor of three in electrical prices if we follow the Germans implement the green scams. The increase in the cost of electricity will be larger if there is a massive increase in electric cars.
Spending billions of deficit dollars on “green” scams will obviously bankrupt Western Countries and make their industries less and less competitive with Asia. As tropical cloud cover in the tropics increases and decreases to resist forcing changes (negative feedback) a doubling of atmospheric CO from 0.028% to 0.056% will result in less than 1C warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which will result in an expansion of the biosphere.
Carbon dioxide is not a poison. Commercial greenhouses inject carbon dioxide into the greenhouse to maintain 1000 ppm to 1500 ppm to increase yield and reduce growing time. Cereal crop yields increase 30% to 40% with a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is beneficial to the environment. A slight increase in high latitude temperature is beneficial to the environment.
The wheel is turning. A scam is a scam. Deficit spending on scams is not job creation. The question is not if but rather when the mania will implode.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361316/250bn-wind-power-industry-greatest-scam-age.html
Why the £250bn wind power industry could be the greatest scam of our age – and here are the three ‘lies’ that prove it … …Scarcely a day goes by without more evidence to show why the Government’s obsession with wind turbines, now at the centre of our national energy policy, is one of the greatest political blunders of our time…. ….Under a target agreed with the EU, Britain is committed within ten years — at astronomic expense — to generating nearly a third of its electricity from renewable sources, mainly through building thousands more wind turbines….
…The first is the pretense that turbines are anything other than ludicrously inefficient.
The most glaring dishonesty peddled by the wind industry — and echoed by gullible politicians — is vastly to exaggerate the output of turbines by deliberately talking about them only in terms of their ‘capacity’, as if this was what they actually produce. Rather, it is the total amount of power they have the capability of producing. … ….The point about wind, of course, is that it is constantly varying in speed, so that the output of turbines averages out at barely a quarter of their capacity.
This means that the 1,000 megawatts all those 3,500 turbines sited around the country feed on average into the grid is derisory: no more than the output of a single, medium-sized conventional power station…. ….Furthermore, as they increase in number (the Government wants to see 10,000 more in the next few years) it will, quite farcically, become necessary to build a dozen or more gas-fired power stations, running all the time and emitting CO2, simply to provide instant back-up for when the wind drops….
When a Swedish firm recently opened what is now the world’s largest offshore windfarm off the coast of Kent, at a cost of £800million, we were told that its ‘capacity’ was 300 megawatts, enough to provide ‘green’ power for tens of thousands of homes.
What we were not told was that its actual output will average only a mere 80 megawatts, a tenth of that supplied by a gas-fired power station — for which we will all be paying a subsidy of £60million a year, or £1.5billion over the 25-year lifespan of the turbines….
The third great lie of the wind propagandists is that this industry is somehow making a vital contribution to ‘saving the planet’ by cutting our emissions of CO2.
Even if you believe that curbing our use of fossil fuels could change the Earth’s climate, the CO2 reduction achieved by wind turbines is so insignificant that one large windfarm saves considerably less in a year than is given off over the same period by a single jumbo jet flying daily between Britain and America… ….Then, of course, the construction of the turbines generates enormous CO2 emissions as a result of the mining and smelting of the metals used, the carbon-intensive cement needed for their huge concrete foundations, the building of miles of road often needed to move them to the site, and the releasing of immense quantities of CO2 locked up in the peat bogs where many turbines are built….. ….When you consider, too, those gas-fired power stations wastefully running 24 hours a day just to provide back-up for the intermittency of the wind, any savings will vanish altogether…

joeldshore

All TRCS team members are unpaid volunteers who began the project after becoming dismayed with NASA’s increasing advocacy for alarmist man-made climate change theories.

So a bunch of people with scientific training (many even with Ph.Ds…how impressive!), but no expertise in the field, who knew what they wanted the answer to be supposedly looked at the data and get an answer in agreement with their preconceptions. I am shocked! shocked!
Maybe next, we can have a bunch of NIH retirees who are dismayed with NIH’s increasing advocacy for evolutionary theories look at the evidence for evolution vs intelligent design. I imagine that they would conclude, as Roy Spencer did ( http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005/08/faith-based-evolution.html ), that ” intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.”
Apparently, that is all it takes to overturn a scientific consensus.
REPLY: Joel, your opinion is a real foot in mouth moment. And I thought about snipping it to prevent you from making a fool of yourself, but decided otherwise. This same description applies to you sir and the paper you published about climate. It applies to Al Gore, it applies to Bill McKibben, it applies to Joe Romm, and it applies to hundreds of people involved in the IPCC and the NGO’s like Greenpeace.
So while your opinion is OK to express here, let me say with all sincerity, that you can take the merits of it and shove it up the bodily orifice of your choice. – Anthony Watts

@Joelshore – I guess you missed the “meteorologist” listing. And I guess you missed the fact that neither Jones, Mann, Trenberth, Schmidt, or Hansen (et. al.) have degrees in the applicable field either?
I guess you missed that.

philincalifornia

D. B. Stealey says:
January 23, 2013 at 11:28 am
syphax says:
“If someone can convincingly demonstrate, with observation and verified physical mechanisms, that climate sensitivity to CO2 is, for sure, with high probability, really low…”
You have the scientific method exactly backward. The onus is on those putting forth the CO2=CAGW conjecture to provide convincing scientific evidence that sensitivity to CO2 is high. But they have failed. There is no such evidence.
————————————————
So, if you’re still here syphax, the null hypothesis den!er, would you please do what you ask of others.
Could you please convincingly demonstrate, with observation and verified physical mechanisms, that climate sensitivity to CO2 is, for sure, with high probability, really high …
… or measurably positive even

Nigel S

ex-NASA TRCS v Mike’s Nature Trick… very good, a sense of humour is important however smart you are. Often missing in people who merely think they’re smart of course…

Reposted from Steve Milloy’s Junk Science site reacting to a complaint that these were “disgruntled ex-employees.”
Not “…disgruntled ex-employees..” at all. For one thing, EVERY ONE of them, no exceptions, cares enough about current climate (mis)representations to continue utilizing the expertise and knowledge gained during their lifetimes to focus on climate reality vs fiction.
Their talents are uniquely available for this purpose and will benefit all who care to venture into this fascinating field!!!

“therightclimatestuff needs a professional to clean up the page otherwise it just won’t be taken seriously.”
The problem is, if they do that, its “evidence” of a deep pocket. In fact, maybe the amateurishness MEANS that it is, in fact, a Koch front group.
Yeah, yeah, that’s it…

WilliamAstley…what if we install large amounts of uranium electricity…really large amounts.
With accounting depreciation over 60 years, the price comes in at 1.7c per KWh.
What then? We are in heaven.

looking at the site and the rough draft it seems pre mature for them to announce that they have settled the science and concluded that there is no threat. No threat? no threat whatsover? absolutely certain there is no threat? Their rough draft ( a review of two web sites ) says basically.. “we dont know” very different from a scientific conclsuions that there is no threat whatsoever. We are geo engineering the atmosphere. Good skeptics would not “go with throttle up”. Then again, nasa has a record of taking risks that dont turn out so good.
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwipEpNT6Qw ]
REPLY: Steve, I think you are out of line here. You’ve aligned yourself with Muller et al, who has made grand claims and grandstanding before Congress without even having submitted papers for peer review at the time.
As a friend, I’m embarrassed for you, because this isn’t the thinking of the Steve Mosher I’ve known. Maybe you are having a bad morning. I suggest you re-examine and walk-back a bit from your position. Thank you for your consideration. – Anthony

Bart

Steven Mosher says:
January 23, 2013 at 12:17 pm
This post is deeply offensive. You don’t make jokes about great tragedies to score rhetorical points.

bw

Good responses. Esp Henrys view. Wise people know the AGW claims in the media are a scam.
No one can reliably predict the global temps in the next 5 years. The actual past trend in the instrument era is actually flat, zero warming. We know for sure that little ice ages exist on something like the century scale of time. We know that periods between ice ages that are warmer are of something like the same time scale. On the millenial scale, temps are certainly cooling for the last 7000 years. Based on my observations, it is likely that the next century scale trend will be cooling from the current peak. If anything, the next 5 years might very well be a sudden large cooling, but the null hypothesis prevails until proven otherwise.
There is no point of speculating, just keep watching the temps and be prepared for anything. Those calling for reduced CO2 emissions should be put in jail, same as yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Basic observations of how the atmosphere operates shows that adding CO2 has no real impact on the IR physics, but does benefit biology/crops.
As in Henrys link, Glassman’s page is very good
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

Theo Goodwin

joeldshore says:
January 23, 2013 at 11:51 am
“So a bunch of people with scientific training (many even with Ph.Ds…how impressive!), but no expertise in the field, who knew what they wanted the answer to be supposedly looked at the data and get an answer in agreement with their preconceptions.”
There is no field, Joel. Climate science is in its infancy. Anyone who wishes to prove me wrong need produce only one (that’s right: 1) reasonably well confirmed physical hypothesis that can be used to explain and predict some global warming phenomenon in nature. The hypothesis that CO2 retards Earth’s heat loss does not qualify because it must be supplemented by hypotheses about forcings. Got any well confirmed physical hypotheses which show that cloud behavior is a positive forcing, Joel? You do not. Neither does anyone else. Climate science is in its infancy. In a hundred years or so, we might have a climate science worthy of the name science that can provide useful information to policy makers.

Bart

Steven Mosher says:
January 23, 2013 at 12:17 pm
Seriously, Moderators, could you remove the video in Mosher’s post? It’s like looking at a newsreel of Nazi atrocities being carried out, and there is no merit to Mosher’s attempt at guilt by association. If there were, we could as easily point to Hansen and Schmidt as being members of the same organization.
People died there. Watching them die again serves no purpose here.
REPLY: I’m offended by Mosher’s comment too, but he won’t learn anything if we don’t allow others to comment on it. – Anthony

Bart

Ah, I see you have. Thanks.

joeldshore

Anthony Watts says:

This same description applies to you sir and the paper you published about climate. It applies to Al Gore, it applies to Bill McKibben, it applies to Joe Romm, and it applies to hundreds of people involved in the IPCC and the NGO’s like Greenpeace.

That’s a red herring. How many times have you heard myself, Al Gore, Bill McKibben, or Joe Romm say that you should trust what we have to say about the science over what is said by the IPCC, NAS, the Councils of the various professional societies, etc., etc. who are most qualified to review the peer-reviewed science (which is what these NASA retirees are saying)?
As for the paper that I published: That is how the game works. People submit papers to peer-reviewed journals and if the journals decide to publish them then they are out there for the scientific community to consider and pass judgement on. In the case of the particular paper that I was involved in, we weren’t really concerned about the scientific community because the paper that we commented on was so obviously flawed that it was not going to be taken seriously by scientists. (I think even you would agree with that.) However, we wrote our comment so that people outside the scientific community could not claim that the paper had not been debunked. And, I think the contributors to our comment were well-qualified to discuss the aspects of basic physics that were the subject of the discussion although clearly, as with all work, it is the broader scientific community that will ultimately pass judgement on it.
REPLY: LOL! You really need some self examination and reflection Joel. take a break for a day or two – Anthony