Anatomy of a climate witch-hunt letter from U.S. Representative Raúl M. Grijalva

Research must be funded or it will not happen. Research is a good thing not a bad thing. Spending money researching important scientific issues should be encouraged not blocked. Discussion of research results concerning important scientific issues and policy issues should be encouraged not blocked.
Pharmaceutical companies pay for research which ultimately benefits the general public and pharmaceutical companies. Peer reviewed analysis and making the data and the analysis details available so that it can be verified/checked by other interested parties helps to protect against possible biases. Public discussion of the details of research and the logical implications of research is a new thing and will lead to breakthroughs.
The warmists are resorting to witch hunting as they will lose the policy debate if the debate is base on science.
The warmists are actively, forcefully, trying to block scientific investigation and discussion of the research results concerning the key questions to determine if there is or is not an extreme AGW problem. This action is inappropriate, is not in the public’s or country’s best interest.
Trillions of dollars has been spent on green scams. What has changed due to the trillions of dollars spent on green scams? Does spending on green scams significantly reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions? How important is it to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions? There are important policy questions that need to asked and answered concerning the climate war issues.
1) Multiple peer reviewed analysis results support the assertion that there is no extreme AGW problem to solve. The planet resists forcing changes (negative feedback by an increase or decrease in cloud cover) rather than amplifies forcing changes. Assertion 1 partially explains why there has been no warming for 18 years.
2) It appears that a significant portion of the warming in the last 50 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes. Assertion 2 explains why there has suddenly been an increase in sea ice both poles and what causes cyclic warming and cooling in the paleo record. Observational proof of assertion 2 would be cooling of the planet.
3) It appears that a significant portion of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to natural causes, not due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The NASA first issued CO2 satellite data supports previous peer reviewed data that supports assertion 3.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. The present analysis accounts for the 72 day precession period for the ERBE satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper. We develop a method to distinguish noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation changes that are forcing SST changes from those radiation changes that constitute feedbacks to changes in SST. We demonstrate that our new method does moderately well in distinguishing positive from negative feedbacks and in quantifying negative feedbacks. In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. ….
…The heart of the global warming issue is so-called greenhouse warming. This refers to the fact that the earth balances the heat received from the sun (mostly in the visible spectrum) by radiating in the infrared portion of the spectrum back to space. Gases that are relatively transparent to visible light but strongly absorbent in the infrared (greenhouse gases) interfere with the cooling of the planet, forcing it to become warmer in order to emit sufficient infrared radiation to balance the net incoming sunlight (Lindzen, 1999). By net incoming sunlight, we mean that portion of the sun’s radiation that is not reflected back to space by clouds, aerosols and the earth’s surface. CO2, a relatively minor greenhouse gas, has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial age from about 280 ppmv to about 390 ppmv, presumably due mostly to man’s emissions. This is the focus of current concerns. However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct. Methodologically, this is unsatisfactory. Ideally, one would seek an observational test of the issue. Here we suggest that it may be possible to test the issue with existing data from satellites.