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:
- The science of what is causing global climate change or warming is clearly not settled and never has been.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Empirical evidence shows that Earth is currently “greening” significantly due to additional CO2 and a modest warming.
- 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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
Good reply Anthony. I said some time back that Mosher changed fundamentally after his break from blogging a year or 2 back. He has become a pain in the ass troll whose contributions diminish he statue lump by big lump. He totally disappoints.
Steven Mosher says:
January 23, 2013 at 12:17 pm
“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.”
They did not claim to have “settled the science.” They claimed that there is no evidence for the claims of climate alarmists. That is true. See my response to Joel Shore above.
“No threat? no threat whatsover? absolutely certain there is no threat?”
Right, there is no threat. The only reason anyone has for believing that there is a threat is the transparent propaganda carried on under the name of science by Al Gore, James Hansen, and all alarmists. If the government were interested in warming because millions of farmers (or truck drivers or anyone who works with nature) had been complaining about genuinely unprecedented conditions for decades then there would be some reason for alarm and some reason for investigating the reported threats. But climate science is based entirely on the work of academics who have no instinct for the empirical, propaganda minded NGOs, rabid tree huggers, and likely criminals such as GreenPeace.
The “threat” is no different than the so-called threat from “extreme weather.” All extreme weather conditions are down in number. There has been no serious hurricane in the US for seven years, an all time record. Yet Al Gore and others continue to trumpet that “extreme weather” is increasing and that it is because of global warming. Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense.
philjourdan says:
January 23, 2013 at 12:26 pm
@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.
Shore like all good greenie beenies misses everything but that it wishes to see.
S. Mosher writes: “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?
It’s become an avocation of mine, disagreeing with Steve Mosher, at least privately. BUt in this case it seems to me he has half a point. BUt then he loses that half point for not making the same complaint about Mann et al. Perhaps you have elsewhere. I hope so.
Max 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.”
Just because they were rebels doesn’t mean they were ever, ever openminded.
Henry@bw
Thx. Next five yrs will show cooling of ca -0.2K. Is that a lot?
‘“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?’
To make a slight adjustment to the sentiment, how about having that money stay in the pockets of the hard-working people all over the world who earned it?
Americans getting ripped off is bad enough, but the people getting hit hardest by the global warming scam are the desperately poor people, who are quite literally starving to death. What we are dealing with here are a weird variety of crypto-pagan Gaia worshippers who believe that they can control the weather via human sacrifice. And the people getting killed — rather than merely made poorer — are the already desperately poor in the third world.
(Everything is related. Example — a big contributor to the revolution in Egypt is the doubling of food prices in a country which imports 1/2 of its food supply. The food prices have lots to do with biofuels and other wonky rich-people religious rituals.)
Joel Shore:
What do you think of John Cook and Skeptical Science? I ask you because he is our litmus test of decency. What do you think of the AGU which invited John Cook as a featured speaker at its last annual meeting? Do you approve?
@JoelShore – they have degrees in fields as applicable as the Climate crew. I challenge you to list a single leader of the Alarmist movement with a degree in Climatology. The closest is meteorology. Which the NASA group possesses as well. Along with degrees in all the other fields that the leaders of the climate alarmists have.
And Publications? Please! That just proves that any moron can get published in a field they have no clue on – by your standards.
In other words, you did miss that. If you have nothing to say to back up your lies, please refrain from commenting. If you have anything substantive to say, that does not involve your ignorant opinion, please provide it.
But your opinion is worthless. You do not have the qualifications – by your own standards – to have one.
Reply: Can we back off a bit on the personal attacks? Ad Hom just gets so tiring to a mod… -ModE]
philincalifornia says:
January 23, 2013 at 11:51 am
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
The “null hypothesis” is not scientific, but statistical. Failing to falsify a null hypothesis doesn’t necessarily falsify a scientific hypothesis. Translating a scientific hypothesis into a statistically testable proposition is considerably more difficult than simply forming a lab-testable hypothesis. That’s one reason there’s such a spectrum of opinion over this issue. As regards “onus of proof,” that always resides on a positive assertion, since a negative assertions are not logically falsifiable. AGW has consistently asserted a positive and strong influence of CO2 on climate. This was known to be empirically false since it was first advanced. The assertion simply doesn’t match the geological evidence and without torturing the geological record in the same way the USHCN data has been, it never will..
Pathway says:
January 23, 2013 at 11:20 am
“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?
Amen to that brother.
Amen. Somebody get to them and tell them. The only thing that abysmal scream-homemade page is missing is blinking stars. (Although on a Safari browser, clicking on the report on their homepage lights up the Reader, but you have to know to lick on that far right blue tab in the URL bar.)
Forecast = Snow Flurries Toronto area.
Actual in my neighborhood 2cm off Lake Huron/ Georgian Bay streamers.
http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/radar/image.php?time=22-JAN-13%2012.40.27.466339%20PM&site=WKR
Over here in England lowly Bradford City who play in the 4th tier of the leagues have beaten the mighty Aston Villa of the Premier League to reach the League Cup Final at Wembley. The winning goal for Bradford was scored by James Hansen, so there is something he is good at.
ANH says:
January 23, 2013 at 2:10 pm
Over here in England lowly Bradford City who play in the 4th tier of the leagues have beaten the mighty Aston Villa of the Premier League to reach the League Cup Final at Wembley. The winning goal for Bradford was scored by James Hansen, so there is something he is good at.
James (own goal) Hanson plays for Aston Villa?
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!
—————————————————————————————————-
Understood! Please note: Max’s best friend is an AGNOSTIC, and Non-AWG believer. He’s a member of a local “skeptics” club, with a lot of Atheists and Agnostics. That club is defiently on the WUWT side of the issue. I’ve watched them “eviserate” a retired meteorology professor from the very “left leaning” U. of Wisc. a couple years ago.
I AM making the observation, which I know from my “interactions” that many of the “I’m so well educated and I have a POSITION at such and such University, or such and such Government agency” AND, “I make sound science decisions and judgements based on facts” that really, the actions are more akin to “religion” than “science”.Truth is, the actions of these people…many of whom ARE agnostics, a-religious, etc., shows the hallmarks of “blind faith” and “belief”. Perhaps we should note also the “religious aspects” of the old Soviet/Communist system? There was a similar dicotomy. As such, I would have to qualify your “atheism” and your “climate skepticism” as being refreshingly consistent.
Duster: Maybe I’m misreading your comment…But; my understanding of the null hypothesis is that it is written in such a way as to be incompatible with the hypothesis, ie. either the alternative hypothesis is true or the null is true. If you cannot falsify your null I don’t see how you can claim the hypothesis is true.
Whois data for PlantsneedCO2.org leads to Quintana Minerals. So why should I listen to H.Leighton Astroturf puff up another organization he also belongs to?
Perhaps TRCS should pay attention to the conclusion of one of their own NASA Alumni League presentations:
http://www.nal-jsc.org/Lefer_20111028_Historical_Climate_Change.pdf
I disagree with point 7 in this article. 7.Money saved by abandoning a premature rush to lower CO2 emissions could be better un-spent.
Max Hugoson:
The corruption was inevitable. They criticize other people’s faith (i.e. a perspective exceeding a limited frame of reference where a hypothesis can be tested and and an experiment reproduced) while denying their own. They reject religion because of its articles of faith, and fail to judge it by the principles engendered. They corrupt science by conflating it with philosophy or their personal brand of religion (i.e. philosophy derived from articles of faith). They fail to acknowledge that they are motivated by dreams of material, physical, and ego instant (or immediate) gratification. That they outsource fulfillment of their greed to elected politicians (i.e. government), which expands an authoritarian monopoly, and through a progressive dissociation of risk sponsors corruption of individuals and institutions. The sponsorship of a dysfunctional society, in particular where there is an election to exchange liberty for submission with benefits, makes them especially objectionable, and an imminent threat to the viability of civilized society. The latter issue is exacerbated in a society where democratic (i.e. majority) leverage is wielded by a minority interest to direct its development.
Unfortunately, this class of people includes atheists, agnostics, and theists — everyone. This proves that material (and sentient) needs and desires take priority over philosophical considerations (and principles) for a majority of men and women.
“…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…”
Meanwhile, the “climate scientists” are trying to gather the names of 660 scientists (the 97%) to counter the arguments of 20 scientists (the 3%) – they’ve got to prove this group of ex-NASA scientists are not part of the “sacred ninety seven percent” club.
Isn’t consensus grand? All of it based on a single group, and one well-crafted survey.
Reblogged this on RubinoWorld.
Steven Mosher says:
January 23, 2013 at 12:17 pm………….
Yes, that was both a terrible tragedy and a spectacular failure. You might want to note that the engineers that designed/built/tested the solid rocket booster that failed STRONGLY recommended against launching at temperatures that where CLEARLY outside the design specifications of the unit that failed. Sadly, they were overruled and the rest is as they say; “history”. Of course NASA has had MANY MANY other spectacular successes. The temperature predictions made by some NASA folks over decades are currently NOT in the success column.
So the climate science community might what to take a deep breath and tally up their collective “success” versus “failure” columns. A prediction (or projection, guess, hunch, belief, etc.) is NOT A SUCCESS unless it matches the empirical observations over a long enough time interval to know that the “match” was not just by chance.
So, right now the climate science community has a rough total of ZERO in the “success” column, and several hundred in the “failure” column. So any rational engineer would take any of the predictions as just WAGS (WILD ASS GUESSES). And any taxpayer should be rightly concerned about wasting billions of dollars on a “science” with a success/failure ratio of ~0:100.
Just came in from shoveling about a foot of snow up here on the “North Coast” (south shore of Lake Ontario) and I have to tell you my plans to wait until the global warming hits to sell my residence as the New Miami Beach of the North look pretty doubtful.
Cheers, Kevin.
Steven Mosher says (January 23, 2013 at 12:17 pm): “No threat? no threat whatsover? absolutely certain there is no threat?”
Well, I’m not absolutely certain the earth won’t be eaten next year by a mutant star goat, but I wouldn’t spend a penny on mitigating the threat.
Gary Hladik says:
January 23, 2013 at 10:22 pm
Maybe we should send the AGW chaps off on the B Ark to find a suitable planet to retreat to, just in case.