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.
Regarding Mosher’s comment- Although I frequently disagree with Mosher, he is correct.
It is inaccurate to state that there is no threat. It would be more accurate to state that there is currently no reliable evidence to support the conclusion that warming is posing a significant threat. There is no reliable evidence to demonstrate that the net long term benefits will not exceed the net long term harms.
Anthony- You site is more valuable by having comments such as Mosher’s posted.
… but, I can give you situations where the ‘hot’ air will not rise and where water will ‘run’ up hill (even considering while in earth’s gravity and with no additional external energy (like electricity) input for running a pump.)
(There is actually quite a bit more to physics that most ppl realize.)
.
Rob Starkey says:
January 24, 2013 at 7:59 am
You overlook one thing. The people claiming that there is evidence for a threat know that there is no scientific evidence for the threat.
Hmmmm … but isn’t that what happened when management (literally: management-level personnel perhaps more interested in schedules, milestone ‘accomplishments’ and PR vs safety concerns) made a decision countermanding the conclusion (informed, knowledgeable decision?) by the in-the-know technical types (i.e. the rocket-motor engineers) at Morton Thiokol?
… good to know …
Now, let’s get back to looking at the numbers, reviewing the legitimacy and veritable sanity of the processes et al being invoked …
.
Reply: Can we back off a bit on the personal attacks? Ad Hom just gets so tiring to a mod… -ModE]
================================================================
Are homonyms really in such low demand that they need to advertise?
Richard Feynman and others found that the Challenger disaster was a management issue not an engineering issue.
Steven Mosher is one of the most respected names in the climate debate but he hasn’t done his reputation any good with this thoughtless post.
Rob Starkey wrote;
“It would be more accurate to state that there is currently no reliable evidence to support the conclusion that warming is posing a significant threat.”
And that is indeed my “takeaway” from the work presented by this group.
Right how a “Killer Asteroid” looks like a bigger threat and nobody is calling for all of us to burrow underground to a “safe” level of 1 or 2 miles below the surface.
I’m sure I could come up with a “projection” that the only safe elevation should a ”Killer Asteroid” strike New York would be 10,000 feet below the surface.
Cheers, Kevin.
Yep, it is global cooling that is melting the ice caps and glaciers at an astounding rate and breaking high temperature records all over the world – in addition to climate records being broken worldwide almost weekly for the last few years. Um hum.
MBS says
Yep, it is global cooling that is melting the ice caps and glaciers at an astounding rate and breaking high temperature records all over the world – in addition to climate records being broken worldwide almost weekly for the last few years. Um hum.
Henry@MBS
Um hum. Indeed. What you (we) are seeing is the “lag’ from the global warming period.
By studying the correct parameter i.e. maxima instead of means, I could see that global warming stopped in 1995 and turned to global cooling. Obviously that is looking at energy-in. Earth has big places where it stores energy and I was surprised to see that it would take almost 2 decades before you could actually see the trend in the means:
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
note that we can clearly see that, on average, the trend for means is down from 2002. That is 11 years: the equivalent of one solar cycle. But we already know (by looking at the maxima) that this cooling trend will continue on a path of about 44 years, counting from 1995:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
So counting back 88 years i.e. 2012-88= we are in 1924. now look at eye witness reports of the ice back then?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
Sounds familiar? By 1945 all that ‘lost” ice had frozen back.
So, from the trend as reported earlier I can see that earth has now started cooling down. However, you will have to wait for 2 more decades to see the arctic frozen up again.
Let me know if you don’t understand it. Count on it that the world is going to get cooler in the two decades ahead of us…..
There is no threat from CO2, imminent or otherwise. Only benefits.
Henry says
Interesting, note the last sentence in that newspaper report of 1922 that I quoted earlier. They showed (proved) that the arctic ice melt was due to warmer waters from the Gulf Stream. But they called the condition ‘”favorable” hoping it would continue. How the world has changed. I think that the AGW crowd and some shipping- and oil co’s still think that the north west passage will open up, or become largely free of ice, but I will place a bet on it that it won’t happen. I would not put any money on oil and gas coming from there either. It will all freeze up there in the coming 2 decades.
philjourdan says:
They have degrees in fields that give them a very good grounding in the work that they do…But, more importantly, they have a record of publication of peer-reviewed scholarly articles in the field in well-recognized top journals in the field. And, even then, their opinions as individuals don’t carry that much weight alone; rather, it is the opinion of the recognized bodies who review the whole of the peer-reviewed scientific work that carry the most weight because they represent the best summary we have of the current state of the science in the field.
@joeldshore – still moving the goal posts. I do not care if they have degrees in basket weaving. You alleged, with absolutely no basis in fact, that none of the signatories had the credentials to challenge the ruling of the elites. Yet none of the elites have those credentials either. In other words, the elites are no more qualified to say there is a crisis than the NASA scientists are to say there is not.
ALL OF THEM (NASA and the Warmists) have degrees, which may or MAY NOT help them in the study. All we can say for sure is that both groups possess the same qualifications. Ergo, your original statement is false.
Are you prepared to retract it? Or are you going to maintain that a degree in Economics qualifies you to be head of the Alarmist camp?
philjourdan: I’m not moving the goal posts. I originally said, “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.”
You are the one who then interpreted “expertise in the field” in a certain way and now you are accusing me of moving the goal posts. If you had asked me what I meant by “expertise in the field”, I would have told you (which is what I did once you wrongly assumed what I meant).
The larger point is this: On any politically-contentious scientific issue of this sort, you are always going to be able to find scientists who do not believe the conclusions of the scientific community of scientists who is actually actively working in this area. And, when you self-select scientists who are not experts in the field and already have identified themselves as highly inclined to not believe the conclusions even before they started to investigate it, what conclusion do you expect them to reach?
@JoelDShore – nice Projection. I interpreted nothing. I read your statement. After slamming the signatories, and having it pointed out that your high priests also lack said qualifications, you attempted to equivocate and change the thrust of your statement.
I assume nothing, and interpret nothing. I merely read what is written and research (a foreign concept for someone who thinks that belief is science) to find out the facts – and then report them.
Next time, stop projecting and start reading.
philjourdan,
joelshore says: “On any politically-contentious scientific issue of this sort, you are always going to be able to find scientists who do not believe the conclusions of the scientific community of scientists who is [sic] actually actively working in this area.”
joelshore does not have the science to support him [the planet itself is deconstructing his beliefs], so he reverts to politics. But politics ≠ science.
joelshore continues:
“…when you self-select scientists who are not experts in the field and already have identified themselves as highly inclined to not believe the conclusions even before they started to investigate it, what conclusion do you expect them to reach?”
Scientists are supposed to be skeptical. Their hypothesis is that AGW is mostly, if not completyely, nonsense. So, let’s fix joel’s sentence to reflect the current belief system:
“…when you self-select scientists who are not experts in the field and already have identified themselves as highly inclined to
notbelieve the skeptics’ conclusion even before they started to investigate it, what conclusion do you expect them to reach?”There. Now you have the exact attitude of the “consensus” scientists.
joelshore doesn’t see what a parody he has become. The tanks are in downtown Bagdad, but he still doesn’t believe it.
D B Stealey: Apparently, or so the story goes, one of Abraham Lincoln’s favorite riddles was “How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg.”
The answer, of course, is “4” because calling his tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.
Similarly, the fact that you and other call yourselves “skeptics” doesn’t make you skeptics. You, my friend, are probably the least skeptical person I have ever run into when presented with anything that agrees with what you want to believe.
It is not particularly a challenge to be “skeptical” of things you are strongly ideologically inclined to disagree with.
I see the truth has hit home with joelshore. According to joel, this is all “politically-contentious” politics. That’s what passes for science with joelshore.
But me? I am interested in what the planet is telling us. And the planet is directly contradicting joelshore’s belief. That’s why poor joel is so unhappy. ☺
If Planet Earth was telling us that AGW is a problem, I would be sounding the alarm. But the planet is telling us exactly the opposite: CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
Sorry about joel’s failed conjecture. We scientific skeptics have it right. There is nothing to be alarmed about.
D.B. Stealey says:
Well, I will say one thing about you…You are certainly not cursed with any degree of self-awareness whatsoever. If you had some, you might realize the extent to which your ideological blinders prevent you from objective analyzing any sort of reality (which is why your conclusions are at complete odds with nearly every scientific organization on the planet). There is more chance that you would determine that the planet is made of green cheese than you would ever determine that AGW is a problem.
You are so well-insulated from reality that even after an election showed you undeniable evidence in contradiction to your worldview and in agreement with the worldview of people in touch with reality like Nate Silver, you label his website “far -Left” ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/09/a-post-election-oddity-im-noticing/#comment-1142776 ) because he had the gall to actually correctly predict an election would go exactly the way it did down to the vote in each state (and all but one Senate race)…but in contradiction with the way you wanted it to go.
joelshore responds to my scientific post [“If Planet Earth was telling us that AGW is a problem, I would be sounding the alarm.”] with: “…Senate race…” “…ideological blinders…” “…after an election…” “…predict an election…” “…vote in each state…”.
As I have repeatedly shown, the climate alarm scare is nothing but politics to reprobates like shore. He cannot refute my statement with facts, so he politicizes the science. Thus, his position is based on pseudo-science.
I’ll be happy to admit I am wrong, if joelshore posts testable, verifiable, falsifiable, empirical scientific evidence showing specific measurements quantifying AGW. I have repeatedly asked for such measurements, to no avail. The reason that neither joelshore nor anyone else has been able to provide such measurements is because AGW is too insignificant to measure. He can’t answer the question, so he reverts to politics. joelshore is a Communist, and that is how they operate. Honesty is not part of their makeup.
There is no justification for spending another dime of public money on “climate studies”. AGW is not worth another wasted dime. Because joelshore has decisively lost the scientific argument, he bases his comments on politics. With joelshore, it is all politics. Science is just a mendacious veneer for that political scientist.
D.B. Stealey says
I’ll be happy to admit I am wrong, if joelshore posts testable, verifiable, falsifiable, empirical scientific evidence showing specific measurements quantifying AGW
henry@D.B. Stealey
I asked him the same thing, a long time ago, after asserting that there is no such evidence:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011/
No reply on that either.
I also doubt that he can explain why we are cooling (last solar cycle period)
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
whilst CO2 is still rising
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1993/to:2013/plot/esrl-co2/from:1993/to:2013/trend
We have to conclude that his income probably depends on this AGW scare being true.
Don’t waste your time on him. Here is something interesting:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/01/24/our-earth-is-cooling/