NASA and the Deep State Creation of Alarmism About Climate and Environment

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

NASA and its subsidiaries have a history of involvement in alarmism and political exploitation of fear. Apparently, it is part of being in an agency that faces danger and requires precise science but was always actively conscious of the public relations aspect of their role.

I know through personal communication that there was early concern about their role in adding gases, especially water vapor, to the lower Stratosphere from their vehicles and causing warming. Some argue the increase in Noctilucent clouds are a result of this activity (Figure 1).


Figure 1 Noctilucent Clouds

There was also the concern about accurately determining the height of the Tropopause, mostly a result of global temperature, to calculate the frictional effect on satellites in lower orbit. I understand they misjudged with Skylab and were unable to go up and reboot it into a higher orbit with disastrous but, fortunately, not fatal consequences. There was the decision in 1986 to launch Challenger even though they were warned that “O” rings might fail at low temperatures.

NASA scientists, engineers, and administrators operate in an environment like few others. You would think that would make them more aware than most, of the dangers of practicing alarmism, of making scary predictions of doom and global collapse without solid evidence. Sadly, that is not the case, and despite an open revolt by 50 former NASA employees, including astronauts, who signed a letter protesting the misuse of science for a political agenda, it continues. Here is what they wrote in part.

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.

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.

Those are blunt, damning, and necessary statements, required to address the deliberate and shameful use of an important agency and science for a political agenda. How did it happen? Why aren’t people being held accountable? Why is it continuing?

The biggest involvement, especially of the subsidiaries, was in the deception that human CO2 is causing global warming (AGW). It is clear, particularly with the exposure of corruption exposed by Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, that more and more people are aware of the deception and the science created to push the agenda.

The problem for deep-state players like NASA and its subsidiaries is the basic weakness of bureaucrats, generally, and especially scientist bureaucrats. Once you create a government agency to examine and resolve a problem, you guarantee it will not happen. The agency will almost immediately begin expanding the problem and ensuring it is not resolved. As Upton Sinclair said,

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

It is even more difficult if they are using their position to push a political agenda. If the demise of your existence is inevitable, people will create new somewhat parallel problems. This has been happening for some time with the global warming deception. In 2013 I wrote an article titled, “Water is replacing Climate as the next False UN environmental Resource Scare”

NASA provides further proof that this is underway. They just released a study claiming humans are responsible for major changes to Earth’s water availability. Published in that discredited journal for its role in Climategate, Nature, we learn,

“What we are witnessing is major hydrologic change,” said co-author Jay Famiglietti, of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, Calif., in a statement.

“We see a distinctive pattern of the wetland areas of the world getting wetter – those are the high latitudes and the tropics – and the dry areas in between getting dryer. Embedded within the dry areas we see multiple hotspots resulting from groundwater depletion.”

He cannot know this because the current and historic records are inadequate to reach such a conclusion. It is more likely that what he is describing is a natural trend because that is the case with all government claims about change. Apparently, he doesn’t know that global temperature data is inadequate for any reasonable measure of pattern and trends, but that the precipitation data is much worse. As recently as 2008 Tapio Schneider and Simona Bordoni proposed,

“…an overhaul of a theory about the cause of the seasonal pattern of heavy winds and rainfall that essentially had held firm for more than 300 years.”

A 2006 study published in Science of model predictions of monsoons in Africa found,

“Climate scientists cannot say what has delayed the monsoon this year or whether the delay is part of a larger trend. Nor do they fully understand the mechanisms that govern rainfall over the Sahel. Most frustrating, perhaps, is that their prognostic tools— computer simulations of future climate— disagree on what lies ahead. “The issue of where Sahel climate is going is contentious,” says Alessandra Giannini, a climate scientist at Columbia University. Some models predict a wetter future; others, a drier one. “They cannot all be right.”

The study concluded,

“One obvious problem is a lack of data. Africa’s network of 1152 weather watch stations, which provide real-time data and supply international climate archives, is just one-eighth the minimum density recommended by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Furthermore, the stations that do exist often fail to report.”

The NASA claim ignores the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assumes that the amount of water humans add to the atmosphere is of no consequence, so has no impact on climate. The IPCC acknowledges that their models are unable to determine the role of clouds in energy balance, but, of course, that means they cannot determine precipitation. The IPCC used tree ring data as a proxy for temperature, witness the ‘hockey stick,’ when its original and more accurate proxy measure is of precipitation. The authors of this Nature article should study the work of A.E. Douglas and the Laboratory of Tree Ring Research at the University of Arizona he established in 1937.

I know about Douglas’s work because I found, as he did, a very high correlation between the 22-year sunspot cycle and droughts on the Great Plains of North America. Of course, Douglas’s work is anathema to the IPCC and its adherents at NASA GISS because it looks at variables of climate change that don’t fit their politically distorted human CO2 obsession. A quote from Douglas illustrates their problem.

Thus astronomy, meteorology, and botany join in a study to which each contributes essential parts and from which, it is hoped, each may gain a small measure of benefit.”

But this was the good old days when science and especially climate science were not perverted to a political agenda. Few government agencies were more complicit in the perversion of the AGW deception than NASA.

NASA and especially subsidiaries like NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) were major players in the massive deception of human-caused global warming (AGW) almost from the start. I say almost because exploitation of NASA GISS and the powerful public credibility of the NASA agency really began in 1988, but moves were afoot before then. This was an interesting point in the deception of what still occurs across government today, but especially NASA. A politician, then-Senator Timothy Wirth, was seeking a scientist who would say what he wanted to hear. He found James Hansen at NASA GISS.

In a 2007 PBS Frontline interview Wirth was asked, (Question and Answer not italicized are my inserts).

Question: The one thing that Hansen didn’t do that day in front of your committee is use the term “global warming.” He said, “Gentlemen, I’m 99 percent sure that human beings are contributing to climate change,” but he didn’t quite have the nerve, because he was outside scientific consensus at the time. …


Oh, Hansen went a long way. This was a very, very brave statement. He was on the edge of the science and almost 20 years younger than he is today, so he’s relatively new in the field. He’s working for the federal government, and certainly this was not cleared far up the line, what he had to say. So the summary of what Jim Hansen had to say that year, plus the fact that it had gotten so much attention from the [press] — it was on every channel, Hansen was widely reported. He went as far as anybody could possibly have expected him to go, I think. Again, it was a very brave thing for him to do.

Hansen proceeded to use the power of the NASA name to push his obsession with getting rid of fossil fuels, with particular attention to coal. Like many deep-state people, he broke every part of the Hatch Act including being arrested for protesting outside the White House. He retired, as most have done to date with full pension and no accountability for their misuse of their workplace. Hansen’s replacement as head of NASA GISS, Gavin Schmidt was apparently chosen for his biased views and involvement in the global warming deception scandals exposed by the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), collectively known as Climategate. A series of articles at WUWT put his work in perspective.

The NASA auxiliary agencies were set up to develop expertise in areas impinging on the basic objective of going into space. Not usually a good source, but Wikipedia provides a good summary of what they are supposed to do.

Research at the GISS emphasizes a broad study of Global Change; the natural and anthropogenic changes in our environment that affect the habitability of our planet.

I recall the early days in the late 1960s before the agency became politicized in the 1980s. They were producing excellent publications such as Herman and Goldberg’s 1978 volume, “Sun, Weather and Climate. Since then, the combination of an agency overly aware of its public image, the need for knowledge about weather and climate for their work in space, became a fertile ground for politicians like Timothy Wirth to find pliant scientists. Remember, Wirth also said,

“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing …”

Wirth was apparently so committed that he left the Senate sinecure to become President of the United Nations Foundation an agency reportedly mostly funded by a $1 billion personal donation from Ted Turner.

It appears the letter of 50 had no effect. Hansen retired at 72 after 46 years of pushing his political views on carbon dioxide and flaunting the Hatch Act governing political activities of bureaucrats with no consequences. Gavin Schmidt carries on with a similar agenda. Despite their efforts, the AGW deception is failing, so a new human-caused disaster is required.

It follows the same route as the phony CFC/ozone issue to the even bigger fake issue of CO2 / global warming. It claims an environmental problem is threatened because of human activity and goes from academia, usually from a US west coast institution to government. There the creation of false science occurs by unaccountable bureaucratic scientists. They control the politicians and direct them to produce draconian, enormously costly, and completely unnecessary, rules and regulations. This was the function of Working Group III incorrectly titled “Mitigation of Climate Change.” It doesn’t do that. It only attempts to mitigate the false claim of CO2 induced global warming. The illusions and distortions are reinforced by exaggerated and misleading data in the Synthesis Report (Summary for Policymakers).

This time the issue is water, as the JPL paper confirms. Water became an exploited issue at the Pacific Institute founded by Peter Gleick in Oakland California.

Dr. Gleick’s work has redefined water from the realm of engineers to the world of sustainability, human rights, and integrated thinking. Gleick pioneered the concept of the “soft path for water,” developed the idea of “peak water,” and has written about the need for a “local water movement.”

The IPCC ignored the scientific method of disproving a hypothesis. They created computer models, even though there was inadequate data.

They programmed the models to show temperature increases with a CO2 increase when the empirical data shows exactly the opposite. They produced predictions and later projections that were consistently wrong, yet still told the world to totally change its behavior at massive financial and social cost. These were all the things the 50 ex-employees condemned. Now, NASA, through JPL, continues the same distortion of science with their claims about global freshwater.

They are doing what Gleick advocates, words that echo those of Timothy Wirth. Ignore the engineers and the data because you will be doing the right thing. It is time to shut these agencies down, or at least direct them to do something useful like collect data. They should at best be restricted to what Hubert Lamb advocated when he set up the CRU,

“…it was clear that the first and greatest need was to establish the facts of the past record of the natural climate in times before any side effects of human activities could well be important.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 20, 2018 1:08 pm

Thank you Dr.Ball for all your hard work.

Reply to  TG
May 20, 2018 2:14 pm

Deep State? What next. Fake news? OMG this site is starting to sound Trumpish.

Reply to  Trebla
May 20, 2018 3:41 pm

(Trumpian, not Trumpish)…

Reply to  Trebla
May 20, 2018 4:04 pm

“Trumpish” will do
You refer to “deep state people”. Not sure what that means. Sounds like conspiracy theory fodder.
Over at Climate, etc. there’s talk about the “intellectual dark web”.

charles nelson
Reply to  Trebla
May 20, 2018 5:23 pm

OMG! Trebla…
Thanks for dropping by to police our language.
(not hard to tell which side of the spectrum you’re on!)

Reply to  Trebla
May 20, 2018 7:38 pm

Hanson as an employee of NASA has broken and exceeded the Hatch Act…. As a Public Servant he has abused his position and thus could be guilty of malfeasance. A permanent bureaucracy abusing and ignoring its charter is a very dangerous thing. You should take it seriously.
Hanson is an activist who abused his position of public trust.

Reply to  Trebla
May 20, 2018 9:43 pm

“Hanson is an activist who abused his position of public trust.”
Who is Hanson? Oh, you mean Hansen. I can see why that’s so difficult.

Tom Schaefer
Reply to  Trebla
May 21, 2018 5:56 am

It is very disturbing to the left that the American people are onto them, and how since the 1930’s they’ve made their “long March” through the American Government and institutions (including science and academia). If you are uncertain about the Deep State, suggest you read “American Betrayal” by Dianna West.

Reply to  Trebla
May 21, 2018 6:56 am

“Deep State” = government bureaucrats whose primary goals
are protecting their jobs, and expanding government powers.
A false boogeyman, such as the coming climate catastrophe,
creates jobs for bureaucrats with science degrees, and
opens the door for new taxes and regulations on energy,
which would increase government control over the private sector.

Scott Koontz
Reply to  Trebla
May 21, 2018 7:31 am

Whatever it is, it isn’t rational. Can you imagine any of these blog posts or comments being used in a college-level science class? They would be laughed out of the room.

Reply to  Trebla
May 21, 2018 8:06 am

“Deep State” is easier to write than “The Whole Raft Of Unelected Unaccountable Regulators With The Impact Of Law Who Can’t Be Fired With a Political Agenda”. (There is most assuredly a misplaced modifier or dangling participle in there somewhere.) Bureaucrats, in other words.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Trebla
May 21, 2018 8:52 am

Scott Koontz ==> This isn’t about science, it is about scientists being bureaucrats and doing what bureaucrats do. God, I learned about this in two political science courses on bureaucracy back in 1970. Nothing here is new. Bureaucracies look for problems, made up or not, and add people in order to grow the organization while trying to solve the problems (more power to those above them). Then recycle for the next budget cycle, Problems never get solved since that would require reducing power, control and subordinates in the bureaucracy.
Anyone who thinks the government will of their own accord admit that man-made catastrophic global warming is not happening is crazy. The models will just keep forecasting the same results 40 – 100 years out. We will reach the year 2100 and they will still be forecasting the same old stuff. We will be in the middle of the next age with the same models projecting CAGW in 40 – 100 years and who could say they are wrong!

Reply to  Trebla
May 21, 2018 11:13 am

Jim! How can you say that the Climate bureaucracy will still be making the same ‘projections’ (not predictions, those can be proven wrong) nearly a hundred years from now, an never admit they were wrong?
Haven’t the Alarmists always admitted when they were wrong? Like with the Population Bomb? Or Peak Oil? Ozone Hole? Anything?
Well, surely they have finally admited after 200 years that Malthus was wrong?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Trebla
May 21, 2018 1:04 pm

They are never wrong about the outcome, only the timing!

Bryan A
Reply to  Trebla
May 21, 2018 2:20 pm

Would Big State / Big Green ring Truer?
Probably would at that

Robert B
Reply to  Trebla
May 22, 2018 12:55 am

“Can you imagine any of these blog posts or comments being used in a college-level science class? They would be laughed out of the room.”
Considering what gets discussed, that would be only if it didn’t play along with the groupthink. As long as PC, you could discuss and write a paper on a feministic approach to understanding glaciers.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
Reply to  Trebla
May 22, 2018 3:06 am

You are part of the problem.

Reply to  Trebla
May 22, 2018 6:55 am

@Trebla WUWT hasn’t just STARTED sounding like Trump’s mouthpiece. It’s been this way for a while. It gets harder and harder to take this site’s science seriously when its political bias is so clearly on display. Even if Climate Change™ is a psy op, its critics do themselves and the rest of us a real disservice by conflating its “science” and their politics — and I don’t care if that is EXACTLY what the alarmists do (as their critics continually point out on this site). It’s wrong.
Oh and btw, Trump’s political “career” is as much a product of a “deep state” as anyone’s. Don’t think Putin and pals didn’t break out the champagne on election night. There is an internationalist deep state that’s been in the making for at least as long as the homegrown American structure identified by Peter Dale Scott. Now trojan horse Drumpf has secured for the European neo-fascist “deep state” a beachhead in the GOP. Someday, soon maybe, they will try to provoke the war needed to overthrow our tattered and unprotected democracy. Divide and conquer. Simple as that. And it is working.

Reply to  TG
May 20, 2018 3:26 pm

I agree.
Thanks indeed to Dr. Ball.
No kudos to Trebla – a troll, perchance.
Much here – not quite all – is good.
Certainly thought provoking.
Trebla – I am sure that that ‘thought provoking’ is familiar to you.
Your comments are, therefore, appreciated.

Reply to  Auto
May 21, 2018 12:22 am

Agree the article was a really good read. But I do also wonder what, ‘The Deep-State’ meme means, as it sounds a bit like, “The Hidden Hand” meme. Problem is, asking for a sensible definition of deep-state can bring out inner-wacko views, and away OT we go.
I don’t think it’s trolling to sift/define subjective ‘zeitgeist’ type erminology, when it’s so ill-defined as a baddie thing.

Reply to  TG
May 20, 2018 6:11 pm

Tim Ball makes one erroneous assumption in assuming that ALL NASA “is part of being in an agency that faces danger and requires precise science”. This is true for that part of NASA involved with human space flight. It is only partly true for that part of NASA involved in robotic missions. It is has little truth for that part of NASA involved with other activities, including those running climate models and predicting results. For that part this rest of his comment is more true “conscious of the public relations”.

Reply to  TG
May 20, 2018 7:35 pm

The best thing about this article is that it was never top posted so not as to get rid of the Ridd.

May 20, 2018 1:10 pm

First you need a boogeyman.
Then you tell everyone else how to live,
and what to believe.
You cut off debate with character attacks.
It’s the “progressive” way:
The Boogeyman List:
Acid rain
Hole in ozone layer
Global cooling
Global warming
Exploding silicone breast implants
GMO foods
One false boogeyman after another,
since the 1960s!
Leftists should just wear T-shirts that say:
“I’m Smart Like Forrest Gump”
My climate change blog
Over 17,000 page views

Reply to  Richard Greene
May 20, 2018 1:12 pm

Let me add the most important comment:
– Yet another good post from Dr. Ball,
the resident expert on climate change history
and politics

Reply to  Richard Greene
May 21, 2018 5:53 am

peak oil, population bomb, food shortages etc.

Reply to  Richard Greene
May 21, 2018 9:04 am

I agree about the false boogeymen you cite. However, I’d argue, as noted above, that “deep state” has become our boogeyman…no different than cries of “racism” by the left at any and everything.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  ripshin
May 21, 2018 12:02 pm

Deep State refers to a group of unelected bureaucrats in our supposed security and intelligence organizations who conspired to see that a Democrat candidate was elected at any cost — any — while using their power as unelected bureaucrats to attempt to destroy the Republican candidate at any cost. Once Trump was elected that same machine of unelected bureaucrats then set out to unseat a Constitutionally elected President of the United States. We are seeing police-state tactics laid bare before our very eyes. Some connections have been exposed and there are obviously many more to come. It has been done with the complicity of what is jokingly called main stream media. Get the police-state tactics.
It is inevitable that the same words would be applied to those scientists who conspired to make policy with phoney scientific claims designed to destroy America and all that goes with that. The aim was to ensure a permanent fascist state with the elimination of our human rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The media, the United Nations, government agencies worldwide, and many corporations were part of that conspiracy. Emails and reports have laid bare that scam. It failed due to a lack of interest on the part of most people outside of that circle.

Reply to  Ernest Bush
May 21, 2018 1:29 pm

Look, I get it! Nobody despises the grubby little bureaucrats more than me…but…using the term “deep state” has become essentially meaningless. And, I strongly believe now, is functionally equivalent to “racism”. You can’t just throw it around every time you encounter someone following a different set of ideals than you.
Furthermore, as a term, I find it mostly silly. There’s no single entity that conforms to this idea of deep state. There are tens of thousands of unelected bureaucrats who individually believe they’re doing the right thing by vigorously advancing the power and authority of the central government. But it’s not like they all signed on to some secret manifesto to wage guerilla warfare against the righteous and holy people of the right. And since there’s no single “intelligence” governing the actions of these bureaucrats, to label them with something that conveys that is misleading.
And frankly, most of all…it just makes us conservative and libertarian types sound like a bunch of conspiracy theorists. We don’t need to invoke the spectre of a Hydra-like institution to raise the warning flag against governmental overreach. The “regular” state is scary enough on its own!

Rich Davis
Reply to  ripshin
May 21, 2018 3:09 pm

And frankly, most of all…it just makes us conservative and libertarian types sound like a bunch of conspiracy theorists. We don’t need to invoke the spectre of a Hydra-like institution to raise the warning flag against governmental overreach. The “regular” state is scary enough on its own!

I agree with you. Thank you for bringing it up. Skeptic credibility is very much worth defending, protecting, and curating.
It’s important to me that this stuff that’s really important to the world and my kids’ future will eventually be taken seriously.
Nobody likely misses that I’m a libertarian wisearse and I’m sure I go overboard and keep diving deeper on too many occasions. Sorry about that to any I have offended. I’m passionate about this stuff as many others are.
I sincerely believe that the vast majority of people act thinking that they are doing good. Very few knowingly act selfishly. That doesn’t stop a lot of people from letting the ends justify the means, using unfair, unreasonable, disruptive tactics. Most of the CAGW side is just sincerely wrong and are being manipulated. Even the CAGW trolls are probably motivated by thinking that they are doing a good thing “disrupting us evildoers”. Its good to recall that most of them are people too. (Pretty sure some of them are chatbots though, I’m looking at you Ivan – joking!!!?)
Anyway thanks for the thoughtful comment.

Reply to  ripshin
May 21, 2018 6:21 pm

I sincerely believe that the vast majority of people act thinking that they are doing good. Very few knowingly act selfishly.

The majority of people on at least decent salaries are for the most part paranoid that someone will discover that they are moderately incompetent and fire them.
They will run with the hare or the hounds depending on what their bosses say. They will say what they need to say to keep their salaries and their houses and their pensions.
Not knowing the truth, or how to tell what it is, they assume that either no one else does or that people who speak out strongly and passionately do. Truth for them is not a matter of conscience, or rational evaluation of the evidence, it is a matter of faith – a fond hope that in utter ignorance they have backed the winning horse.
For every Feynman there are a hundred Manns – third rate minds with egos the size of Uranus. Wannabe geniuses who can’t cut it in science, so grow vain little beards and go in for politics instead.

Vic Pearson
May 20, 2018 1:20 pm

Excellent article.Can you send it to the new
head of NASA ?

Alan Tomalty
May 20, 2018 1:23 pm

Here is the difference between Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman.. Stephen Hawking believed in global warming. Richard Feynman would have destroyed global warming in a 2 page treatise. Richard Feynman not only did his physics as thought processes; He actually worked at Los Alamos on the Manhattan Project, the making of the atomic bomb. He was a giant. I believe that the date was no coincidence that James Hansen went before Congress in the summer of 1988 to “warn” of global warming. He had to wait until Richard Feynman died of cancer in February 1988. He knew who Richard Feynman was and he knew that Feynman would have destroyed him if he was still alive when Hansen gave his talk to Congress. Unfortunately today there is no great physicist of Feynman.s stature to stand against the group think of global warming.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
May 20, 2018 1:27 pm

Every time I look at one of Feynman’s lectures or part of his life story my eyes tear up as to how great that man really was. He seemed to intuitively understand how the universe worked but in his own words intuition is a false prohecy. YOU MUST CONTINUALLY EXPERIMENT. NOTHING IS EVER SETTLED.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
May 20, 2018 7:35 pm

+100 …never heard that before, but your point makes great sense.

Chris Wright
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
May 21, 2018 3:58 am

If only Richard Feynman were alive today…..

Pat Frank
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
May 21, 2018 9:43 am

Alan, there’s Freeman Dyson, who is both a great physicist and is extremely critical of AGW. But he’s 95 now, and no one listens to him.

May 20, 2018 1:27 pm

NASA = “No time for Aeronautics and Space Administration”

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
May 20, 2018 1:51 pm

(Never A Straight Answer)…

Meridan Bennett
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
May 20, 2018 2:45 pm

Not About Space Anymore 🙂

Alan Tomalty
May 20, 2018 1:34 pm

Clearly the FBI must launch an investigation into the fraud at NOAA and GISS and produce charges of treason against the top officials. My only fear is that climate alarmism has infiltrated the FBI.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
May 20, 2018 11:18 pm

The FBI? Produce charges of treason against another government agency? In D. C.? Surely you jest.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Wrusssr
May 21, 2018 11:35 am

What if they hear that the Trump admin has been colluding with the Russians on ISS?

May 20, 2018 1:36 pm

“They produced predictions and later projections that were consistently wrong, “….
The theory of CO2 is over 100 years old……it is actually the theory of global warming
For over 100 years they have been trying to convince people that they are right.
….that’s not science

Reply to  Latitude
May 20, 2018 2:58 pm

All good points Latitude.
To be clear, Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming is not a Theory, it is a Hypothesis, and it is a FAILED Hypothesis because it has been repeatedly disproved.
The argument is about one parameter – the sensitivity of climate to increasing CO2. Let’s call that TCS.
There is ample Earth-scale evidence that TCS is less than or equal to about 1C/(2xCO2).
There is no credible evidence that TCS is 3C to 10C/(doubling of CO2), as warmists have falsely claimed now and/or in the past.
At TCS less than or equal to 1C/(2xCO2), THE GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS DOES NOT EXIST, except in the fevered minds of warmist fanatics.
Examples of evidence of low TCS:
1. Prehistoric CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were many times today levels, and there was no runaway or catastrophic warming.
2. Fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2 strongly accelerated after about 1940, but Earth cooled significantly from ~1940 to ~1977.
3. Atmospheric CO2 strongly increased after ~1940 , but the warming rates that occurred pre-1940 and post-1977 were about equal.
4. Even if you attribute ALL the warming that occurred in the modern era to increasing atmospheric CO2, you only calculate a TCS of about 1C/(2xCO2). [Christy and McNider (1994 & 2017), Lewis and Curry (2018).]
There are many more lines of argument that TCS is low – these are just a few.
Scoundrels and imbeciles continue to advocate that increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing dangerous global warming, wilder weather, etc. These warmist claims are not only unproven, they are false. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is beneficial to humanity and the environment – plant and crop growth is enhanced, and any resulting warming will be mild and beneficial.
Regards, Allan

Reply to  Allan MacRae
May 20, 2018 3:32 pm

I have probably posted this to you before. Apologies if so.
What I find extraordinary is that, very roughly, around the time atmospheric CO2 dropped to 180ppm or so, humankind appeared.
We discovered how to make fire, burn stuff to cook and heat with, then discovered fossil fuels, naturally, but accidentally sequestered CO2 from, largely, the mass laying down of centuries of vegetable matter.
Having started slowly, as evolution is inclined to do, we have now contributed a tiny amount to help the planet drag it’s atmospheric CO2 levels to something a little above critical.
My unscientific belief is that 1,500ppm wouldn’t be harmful to mankind even if it did cause warming, which I don’t believe a trace gas can, in statistical terms, 0.04% of anything is usually written off as inconsequential.
Quite apart from the astonishing development of mankind over a mere few thousand years, it strikes me as almost miraculous our progress has coincided with the re introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Were I a religious man, I would consider this somewhat miraculous.
But I’m not religious, so consider it just the most extraordinary coincidence the planet has possibly witnessed.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
May 20, 2018 4:45 pm

Awesome summary of the issue Allan MacRae.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
May 20, 2018 5:06 pm


Reply to  Allan MacRae
May 20, 2018 5:08 pm

Scot… does have divine guidance stamped all over it

Reply to  Allan MacRae
May 20, 2018 5:27 pm

You are not far off the mark, HotScot my friend.
The only real threat is CO2 starvation, and it is very real, but in the order of hundreds of thousands of years…
I’ve written abut this since ~2009:
Yours aye, to all you carbon-based life forms out there, from your most dedicated fan,
Allan MacRae of the Clan MacRae
1. Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high; in fact, it is dangerously low for the survival of terrestrial carbon-based life on Earth. Most plants evolved with up to 4000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, or about 10 times current CO2 concentrations.
2. In one of the next global Ice Ages, atmospheric CO2 will approach about 150ppm, a concentration at which [most] terrestrial photosynthesis will slow and cease – and that will be the extinction event for much or all of the terrestrial carbon-based life on this planet.
3. More atmospheric CO2 is highly beneficial to all carbon-based life on Earth. Therefore, CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
4. As a devoted fan of carbon-based life on this planet, I feel the duty to advocate on our behalf. I should point out that I am not prejudiced against non-carbon-based life forms. They might be very nice, but I do not know any of them well enough to form an opinion. 🙂
The global cooling period from ~1940 to 1975 (during a time of increasing atmospheric CO2) demonstrates that climate sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO2 is near-zero – so close to zero as to be insignificant.
This and other evidence strongly supports the conclusion that there is NO global warming crisis, except in the fevered minds of warmist propagandists.
There is overwhelming evidence that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans is not dangerously high – it is dangerously low, too low for the continued survival of life on Earth.
I have written about the vital issue of “CO2 starvation” since 2009 or earlier, and others including Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, have also written on this subject:

Reply to  Allan MacRae
May 20, 2018 5:36 pm

Thank you KT66.
If you want to get into the details, these posts show that we understand climate pretty well, and atmospheric CO2 is NOT the primary driver of climate, rather is is a minor follower.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
May 20, 2018 5:38 pm

correction of typo:
rather IT is a minor follower

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Allan MacRae
May 20, 2018 7:23 pm

Hot Scot
Please dont lean too hard on the meagreness and incosequentiality of 0.04% of CO2. This remarkable compound punches away above its weight. Need I say that this wisp of gas supports the magnificent biosphere, the green planet, and all the creatures that live on it and in the oceans. You yourself are ~ 20% carbon and if you were converted to carbon dioxide its mass would be ~70% of your body weight. I hope you kerp it in its present sequestration for many decades to come.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
May 20, 2018 9:48 pm

“Scot… does have divine guidance stamped all over it”
Not really, considering all the other times CO2 was very high and we weren’t around. What you’re seeing is confirmation bias.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
May 21, 2018 7:09 am

The point isn’t that CO2 is high. It isn’t.
The point is that CO2 is dangerously low and that man is doing something about it.

Tom Halla
May 20, 2018 1:40 pm

Good work, Dr Ball.

Alan Tomalty
May 20, 2018 1:52 pm

Do you realize that there is no correct radiative transfer equation that can be solved for anything except for the simplest very restrictive 1 dimensional situations? I will simply quote Michael Modest in his textbook “Radiative heat transfer”. ” Exact analytical solutions to the radiative transfer equation are exceedingly difficult and explicit solutions are impossible for all but the very simplest situations. ”
In addition those calculations require assumptions that the absorption coefficient of photons, the scattering coefficient, and phase function are constant across the electomagnetic spectrum. This is clearly not the case with our earth’s atmosphere. I further quote Modest. ” Radiative heat flux………….must be evaluated…….will always involve the guessing of a temperature field”
You must note that the above quote is even only valid for a gaseous mixture that is bounded by walls. Modest doesn’t even attempt to discuss the actual atmosphere which doesn’t have walls except for the earths surface. SO IN THE END ANY ATTEMPT TO USE RADIATIVE TRANSFER EQUATIONS TO ANALYZE THE EARTH ATMOSPHERE IS JUNK SCIENCE.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
May 20, 2018 2:00 pm

So if you cant correctly model the atmosphere using radiative heat transfer equations; where does that leave the Global warming theory. A COMPLETE GUESS. We are spending trillions of dollars on a complete guess.????????????

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
May 20, 2018 6:22 pm

Tell Modest that his textbook is JUNK SCIENCE.Maybe he’ll give you a tutorial on radiative heat transfer to cure your misconception. Or listen to Prof. Essex explain how the greenhouse effect works (start at 12-minute mark) To quote Essex, “this is a completely certain outcome because we completely understand the radiative transfer in this sense… Fluid dynamics is a completely different beast than radiative transfer… This is still the biggest scientific problem”
The real problem is fluid dynamics that can compensate the greenhouse effect (radiative heat transfer)

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
May 20, 2018 10:29 pm

Stangelove wrote
“Tell Modest that his textbook is JUNK SCIENCE.Maybe he’ll give you a tutorial on radiative heat transfer to cure your misconception. Or listen to Prof. Essex explain how the greenhouse effect works (start at 12-minute mark) To quote Essex, “this is a completely certain outcome because we completely understand the radiative transfer in this sense… Fluid dynamics is a completely different beast than radiative transfer… This is still the biggest scientific problem”
The real problem is fluid dynamics that can compensate the greenhouse effect (radiative heat transfer)”
Let us take Strangelove’s sentences 1 by 1.
1) Modest is a world authority on radiative heat transfer despite what you claim. You don’t have any degree in any science discipline or else you would have listed that on your site Science of Doom. You don’t even give your name on your site. You hide behind an alias/handle Your site is a cut and paste site. You scour the internet for everything about science of climate and repaste it on your site. Your site has no original science except what you copy from other sites.
2) Even though Modest mentions the problem of global warming 3 times with a total of 4 sentences he doesn’t even attempt to delineate it with a chapter or section on possible equations or structure. He doesnt even give an opinion. The reason is that it is too complicated and most of it is outside the boundaries of radiative heat transfer itself. He doesnt even talk about radiative heat transfer in the context of the atmosphere. My 2nd to last post said that Modest only talks about radiative heat transfer in an enclosure because you can run experiments. You can’t run experiments with the earth.
3) Essex is agreeing with me .Climate science is junk science. However Essex’s quote about the greenhouse effect only pertains to an actual greenhouse. You made it seem as if Essex understood everything about the earth “greenhouse” which actually doesn’t exist.
4) Climate science models are junk science for 2 major reasons. The Navier Stokes equations and the Radiative heat transfer equations. Neither can be solved. Fluid dynamics has nothing to do with radiative heat transfers. They are separate issues and both are not well represented in climate models even though they try. Essex gave 14 other reasons why the models are junk. I suggest you relook at the video and see if you can come up with those 14 reasons yourself. Maybe that will be your next cut and paste job for your site. At least you will actually have to do some work and think this time cause you cant directly cut and paste from a video. Your last sentence proves that you dont understand anything about these 2 topics.
I will finish with these final comments. Your site is a cut and paste site and you have no real science background and you are sitting on the fence on this issue. For the previous reasons, that makes your site dangerous because you are cutting and pasting from thousands of sites. Your site makes it seem as if you agree and put your stamp of approval on everything you cut and paste. The problem is that in the thousands of articles; many of them may be wrong and contradictory. So readers of your site will end up confused and end up holding many wrong assumptions of the knowledge.

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
May 20, 2018 11:39 pm

You deny the greenhouse effect. Your nonsensical argument is since you don’t understand and can’t calculate the GHE, therefore it doesn’t exist LOL Educate yourself Dragon Slayer. You give skeptics a bad name

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
May 21, 2018 3:03 am
Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
May 21, 2018 2:45 am

Alan T
I have two quibbles with your read-worthy comment about the transfer of heat. The first is to you calling disciplined and cautious attempts to calculate something to the best of our ability ‘junk science’. Just because phenomena are understood well enough to know the limitations of a method does not give them ‘junk’ status. By that standard, landing on the moon was accomplished by junk science. That’s not generous enough.
The second is an omission. The temperature everyone talks about is that of the atmosphere about five ft above the ground: the air temperature humans experience almost all the time. While most, practically all, discussion concentrates on radiative heat transfer, there is a second air heating mechanism which is convective heat transfer. I can refer you to one of my favourite Mech Eng authors Adrian Bejan and his book, for example, ‘Convection Heat Transfer’.
Heat energy is transferred to the atmosphere by three mechanisms: radiation, convection and conduction. The last is so minor no one bothers to report it – dry air is a very good insulator.
Heat transfer to the atmosphere by ‘touching’ is quite efficient. The amount of energy, the quantum of it, would rise a lot if there were no intervening greenhouse gases between the surface of the Earth and the Sun. GHG’s are often described as an atmospheric heating mechanism when in fact they are a cooling mechanism as well. The energy emitted by the atmosphere by radiation far exceeds that which it gains by absorption. When did you last read that? From a radiative point of view, GHG radiation is a net cooling mechanism because it radiates not only 100% of what it absorbs radiatively, it also radiates all the energy it receives by convection, which is considerable.
Think about what happens if the ability to radiate and absorb energy were to be reduced, i.e. GHG concentration went down. The direct heating of the surface would increase as the GHG’s would no longer be as effective as an intervening filter. In consequence the air would be heated more on contact, and the air would have less ability to radiate that energy away, there being a lower concentration of GHG’s. Proportionally, the GHG’s would do just as much ‘work’ as before absorbing and shedding radiative energy, but the work load of shedding an increasing amount of convected heat energy would increase and be carried by fewer molecules. In order to be in radiative balance, the temperature of the effective radiating altitude would increase, and the theoretical radiating altitude would change.
These two changes, the altitude and temperature, are routinely discussed as radiatively affected phenomena, but never for convection, even though as the GHG concentration increases, the convection load decreases (due to the interception of incoming radiation). The recent discussion of ozone is relevant here.
As the GHG concentration tends to zero, the ability of the atmosphere to radiate the convected heat energy away, bringing the earth system into radiative balance, also tends to zero. This would result in a rapid rise in the air temperature (by convection and contact) during the day and a far less efficient (contact) cooling against the surface at night with convection working against the efficient disposition of energy to the surface. The idea that absent GHG’s the air temperature would be the same as the surface of a planet with no atmosphere at all is simply incorrect.
As a result, the idea that adding more GHG to any atmosphere will always result in more heating or not more cooling capacity must be challenged on first principles. It is not simple. Proper calculations must first be made for these energy paths before establishing what the temperature of the atmosphere would be when it is in energy balance. While it is true that virtually all energy is radiative both in and out (slightly more goes out), the temperature of the atmosphere cannot be treated as if it is the temperature of the surface which heats it.
Thus an ‘exact solution’, as you termed it, must consider convection as well as radiation, more than doubling the difficulty of the calculation to which you implicitly refer: the average air temperature.
All that said, I am still quite happy with heat transfer equations that give answers that are ‘good enough for government work’.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 21, 2018 4:08 pm

Crispin, I agree with you. I never said that I didnt agree with radiative heat transfer. Convection and radiation are the mechanisms and there is a little IR trapped by CO2 but it devolves logarithimcally as more CO2 is emitted. Your theory of the greenhouse gases radiating more heat away actually makes sense and it is actually the opposite of how a real greenhouse works which Strangelove thinks applies to our atmosphere. And I did not say that the Navier Sttokes equations do not apply . They do but they are unsolveable in a non test environment. All I said was that the earth is not a greenhouse. Essex said that in his video. And yes it is junk science if you try to solve the Navier Stokes equations in a non test environment. Essex said that in the video. Everything Essex said is 100 % correct.
Notice that the only rejoinder that Strangelove had to my comments was to accuse me of not believing in the GHG theory. Well the earth is not a greenhouse but there is heat trapped by the gases mainly through atmospheric pressure and the differrent temperature gradient of the troposphere. Add to that a small amount of warming caused by CO2 to a logarithm limit. Add to that your theory of the GHG’s actually providing some cooling and that all makes sense. I agree to all of that. However the way that climate models are constructed is JUNK SCIENCE. It coudn’t be any other way and Essex said that. They would be always be doomed to failure and Essex said that. There is NO theory of radiative heat transfer that allows you to calculate it in a non enclosed system. That is why Modest didnt even attempt to write about it. When you write a textbook like he did you collect all the known theory and all the known experiments and all the agreed upon equations for each set of boundary conditions. Then you write the book. THERE IS NO THEORY IN ANY TEXTBOOK OF A NON ENCLOSED SYSTEM FOR RADIATIVE HEAT TRANSFER. Attempts by climate models to do this is junk science. As well there is NO way to solve the Navier Stokes equations without putting in the results of certain variables that are found only by experimentation on the system. By that I mean real experimentation. You cannot do a real experiment with the earth’s atmosphere because you can’t globally fix one variable. Climate models actually take the results of other climate models to input data to run their simulations. That is junk science and Essex said so. So if you want to disagree with that I suggest you call him up at the University of Western Ontario and argue with him.

Jacob Frank
May 20, 2018 2:01 pm

Very well written and thought out. They say the truth wins out in the end but “they” obviously aren’t great thinkers.

J Mac
May 20, 2018 2:03 pm

Great article Dr. Ball!
I whole heartedly agree with your perspectives. But where are the ‘pressure points’ where citizens like WUWT readers can apply data, reason, and logic to silence the faux ‘global water’ meme before it gains momentum? If JPL is ‘ground zero’ for this infection, where should pressure be brought to bear sufficient to cut their ‘water works’ funding and redirect it to atmospheric and space propulsion applications? Let’s ‘kill it off’ now, before it becomes a climate kraken like the trillion dollar Global Warming Industry has become!

May 20, 2018 2:28 pm

One of the casualties of the NASA embrace of climate alarm was Fehrenc Miskolczi. If you don’t know his story and bravery, I have summarized it in a post: image

richard verney
Reply to  Ron Clutz
May 20, 2018 3:29 pm

I am surprised that this does not get more attention on this site, although the data that he was working with was limited and has issues. Just like all the data in Climate Science, it is not really fit for scientific purpose.
If I recall Dr Spencer on his site carried a couple of posts on Dr Fehrenc Miskolczi’s papers. But if my recollection serves, it was essentially knit picking at the quality of the data used.

Reply to  richard verney
May 20, 2018 4:01 pm

Richard, it was radiosonde data, the best available tropospheric data at the time, early in the satellite era. AFAIK, the current recognition of Miskolczi’s insight is the idea that the climate system self-organizes to maximize entropy. Which means that, as he said, more CO2 at the escape altitude is offset by reduced relative humidity. BTW, Bill Gray was thinking in the same direction:

Reply to  richard verney
May 20, 2018 6:01 pm

“the data that he was working with was limited”
The main problem was that it was irrelevant. There were no observations of actual radiation; not even gas concentrations. Just total pressure and temperature for various sonde trajectories. And his physics made no sense.
“the current recognition of Miskolczi’s insight is the idea that the climate system self-organizes to maximize entropy”
It’s an ancient idea. One proponent was Garth Paltridge (1975 paper). Garth could at least mount a coherent scientific argument. Oddly enough, Christopher Essex, 1984 took issue with the idea.

Reply to  Ron Clutz
May 20, 2018 5:41 pm

NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. “Money”, he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research.

That pretty much sums it up.

May 20, 2018 2:58 pm

Having grown up in and around the aerospace industry I watched NASA and the space program closely through its history. I met some great people who worked there, everybody from ground crew and project technicians to some of the German scientists at Redstone Arsenal. Actually sat on Cocoa Beach with one of the German scientist waiting three days for a Gemini to launch. NASA began to morph in the 1980s, possibly before but I was busy doing other things. I dealt with NASA on environmental issues starting in the 1980s. At first the people I met and dealt with at the time were cut out of the same cloth as those I had met growing up. However in the late 1980s something was changing and by the 1990s it was a different organization altogether. The people that risen to power that I met were all egotistical technocrats that believed for all subjects that only the federal government knew best and we should basically all bow down to them and their pontifications. That wasn’t me. I won my battles with them. It was some of the most bizarre political battles I ever fought. In one instance one of their attorneys threatened to sue the state and then me personally because NASA was failing to abide by a signed contract they had with the state. No you read that correctly, they were failing to fulfill their contract obligations. They even threatened me with the IRS. They even got my home and cell numbers to call and harass me at home. I was amazed at how many people they had assigned to fit and fight with us over what were very simple issue. At one point when they were obviously losing, they announced that they were not required to abide by a documents signed by previous administrators.

Reply to  Edwin
May 20, 2018 3:37 pm

A terrible indictment of a once noble organisation.

Reply to  HotScot
May 20, 2018 4:55 pm

HotScot, indeed. I knew folks that were second and even a couple third generation NASA. I was lead on a tour of the Space Shuttle and facility. The NASA staff taking us around were second generation and told me at the end of the meeting they were gone at the end of the week. One’s dad had known my dad. They told us it was “all changing.” NASA had lost its way.

May 20, 2018 3:05 pm

Those at NASA in the climate deception department will keep pounding this fish story until no one believes any of it any more. Because their view is so narrow, they fail to see that non-government groups can do the same job that NASA gets paid to do by the government, and make a profit at it, and this will eventually put people like Hansen and Wirth out of work.
They’re fussing about “water availability”, are they? Are they even vaguely aware that the Earth’s surface is 70% covered by water of all sorts, and only 30% of the remaining cover is land?
Seriously, if they insist on being so out of touch with reality that it is laughable, the best we can do is make a note of what they say, rebut and refute it with backups, and move on. Sometimes, this silliness is just mind-boggling.

Reply to  Sara
May 20, 2018 4:57 pm

Sara, I agree it is mind boggling but it is no longer silliness. The problem is not just NASA. The question is how to fix it all.

Steve Case
May 20, 2018 3:06 pm

My eyes roll when some one starts blabbing about the “Deep State” I wonder if they believe crop circles are an artifact of military activity and chem trails are mind control chemicals sprayed from commercial airliners.
Well really, I like what Dr. Ball has to say, but he needs to define what and who he thinks the “Deep State” is.

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Steve Case
May 20, 2018 3:21 pm

It’s hard to ignore the corruption at the highest levels of U.S. government agencies. There is no denying that the FBI, DOJ and other agencies are partisan and corrupt.
HRC was the most corrupt major candidate to run for POTUS, She committed multiple felonies, was given a free pass, and still won the popular vote.
Podesta and DNC emails revealed that the MSM was nothing more than a propaganda arm for Clinton.
How much more “Deep State” do you need to believe in it?

Reply to  Reg Nelson
May 20, 2018 4:46 pm

Reg –
Many people would also argue that the lack of prosecution of police officers for shooting african americans
demonstrates that the FBI and the DOJ are partisan and corrupt. But I suspect that is not what you mean.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Reg Nelson
May 20, 2018 5:24 pm

I agree Germinio
Even though it is off topic you are correct. The police forces in the US have to be completely reorganized from top to bottom with pay scale increases to prevent corruption. After hurricane Katrina 40% of the police force never showed up for work. The reason was they were actually drug dealers. and the drug market temporarily dried up. There have been murders of non white citizens(I have seen the videos) committed by police officers and all those cases should be reviewed if there were acquittals . Here in Canada police officer training seems to be handled better even though there is still discrimination against indigenous people. Things are slowly changing.

Reply to  Reg Nelson
May 20, 2018 6:27 pm

As always, Germio ignores the evidence. The police officers aren’t being prosecuted because most of the time the evidence shows that they are innocent.
Hands up, don’t shoot never happened.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Reg Nelson
May 20, 2018 8:27 pm

Pay scale increases? You mean that the $8,700 monthly pension of the former officer at the Parkland High School isn’t sufficient to prevent corruption? That was the kind of money I was earning before retirement. I now get a fraction of that. What kind of money was the officer earning before retirement?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Reg Nelson
May 20, 2018 8:56 pm

Germinio, classic lefty retort right out of Alinsky’s Rules. Police officer shootings dont excuse the egregious systemic corruption in the left’s political set in government. I do give you points for not arguing the verity of it though which I find quite rare among the lefts support.. But it was an awfully weak rejoinder. You must be due for a refresher course. Now a big surprise for you to show that I know you guys master a “talking points compendium” to do battle.
Now for my surprise: from a Washington Post tally that showed that whites were the largest group shot by police and that the stats on shootings involving various races were roughly in proportion to population numbers. I will agree that socio-economic factors play a role and there is a higher than population proportion of blacks having been incarcerated.
“White males continued to account for the largest group of people killed while armed with guns or knives, at 330 of those killed. Black males armed with guns or knives were fatally shot in 160 cases last year.”
I note that 44% were white, 22% were black which means 34% were other races Almost 80% of those shot were not black. Bear in mind, too that whites dont go in for gang type crime like non whites and this may weigh the stats. Still, its clear that the noise made about blacks being shot compared to no one caring about the other 80% is telling of the fake news industry on the left.
Google washington post tally of police shootings, they update it every year.

Giles Bointon
Reply to  Reg Nelson
May 21, 2018 6:50 am

There is definitely something in the Deep State idea. The Illuminati and the 13 families including the Rothschild’s the Rockefeller ‘s, the Bauer’s, the Bruce’s, the Hanover’s, the Cavendish’s, the Saxe-Coburg-Gothe’s and theRomanov’s certainly seems to exist and to be malign. The major issue is that they are extraordinarily effective at hiding their way of working. I am the last person to be taken in by conspiracy theories but a little research does indeed show that between them they control the banking system and wield enormous power.

richard verney
Reply to  Steve Case
May 20, 2018 3:24 pm

I think that most objective people know what the deep state is. We see it on both sides of the pond; in the USA with President Trump, and in the UK with Brexit.
Democracy stands precariously on a knife edge.

Reply to  richard verney
May 20, 2018 3:47 pm

richard v
I agree.
Theresa May was – and, I think, is, a Remainer.
If a decent Brexit is not agreed, I think there will be a substantial outbreak of anger against those – Tories and Lords – who have shut down the majority-vote election.
I suspect a Tory initiative, based on ‘No Deal’ will find popularity.
I tyhink a submission to the watermelons of the EU will kill the careers of our politicos , , , , , ,

Reply to  richard verney
May 20, 2018 3:51 pm

richard verney
Tragically, I don’t even think they know what they are doing. McCarthy’ism wasn’t recognised for what it was when it was happening. Now it’s something people mumble under their breath. A dreadful time of witch hunts and persecution without evidence in the name of Capitalism that most bought into, but no one would admit to now.
I see AGW as much the same; A period of mass hysteria, whipped up by minority zeal, which will be denied by the perpetrators in 20 or 30 years time. Hopefully a lot sooner.

Reply to  richard verney
May 20, 2018 4:08 pm

The problem is, of course, where do we turn if Brexit isn’t Brexit?
I guess the alternative is Corbyn and his insane band of socialists.
Not me though. I’m supporting the UK Libertarian Party now.
I really can’t see any other alternative to creeping socialism.

Reply to  richard verney
May 20, 2018 5:34 pm

“Democracy stands precariously on a knife edge.”
Yes, it does.
Fortunately, with Trump’s election we have an opportunity to disrupt this Deep State coup attempt against Trump and an opportunity to put some of Obama’s Deep State officials in jail for sedition.
Had Hillary been elected none of this criminal activity on the part of the Obama administration would have been known and Hillary would have proceeded to continue Obama’s legacy of undermining the United States in an effort to turn it into the EU or Venezuela.
The Obama administration has used the Power of the State to try to turn the election in Hillary’s favor and, when that didn’t work, to try to undermine Trump’s efforts to govern.
The Obama administration has perpetrated the most serious threat to our way of government in American history. Richard Nixon has nothing on Obama. Not even close. The Obama is the most currupt, criminal administration in history. We need to put a whole lot of them in jail where they belong.

Tim Ball
Reply to  Steve Case
May 20, 2018 4:18 pm

A government employee who is unaccountable and most of them are. in many countries, they have written rules and made laws to protect themselves.
Mary McCarthy warned some time ago: “Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism.”

Steve Case
Reply to  Tim Ball
May 20, 2018 4:25 pm

Tim Ball May 20, 2018 at 4:18 pm

Reply to  Steve Case
May 20, 2018 5:11 pm

Steve, during my career I worked with every federal department. Established in every agency, often mid level managers and above, were technocrats that believe anyone that doesn’t believe they way they do about policy are ignorant buffoons. Worse they are convinced they know what is best for the rest of us even in fields they know little about. They believe all elected officials are corrupt evil idiots, except for those that fully support their orthodoxy. They believe we the people need to be told how to live, work, play and exist; we cannot live without their “wisdom,” instructions and regulations. I was basically told that more than once to my face. A couple of decades ago they were called “we-bes” because they had figured out they had life time employment, nearly impossible to fire for any reason. The saying went, “we-be here when you can, we-be here when you leave, we-be always here.” Some, certainly not all, figured out they had power and a few began to use it. The Deep State is real and is a danger to the long term survival of the country. One way to fix the problem is to make sure everyone understands. Sadly one of our political party is deep in bed with the deep state. “Joke” is that the deep state actually has more power than either political party.

Reply to  Steve Case
May 20, 2018 6:08 pm

“Deep State” has become a cliche used by people whose vocabulary otherwise fails them. I think the term refers to people that the user finds repugnant – mostly because of distasteful political views and because they have a political agenda opposed to the user.
Dr. Ball refers to NASA as a deep state agency. Please tell me what that means. NASA is an agency that is not in sync with the Trump administration. That being the case, President Trump would solve that problem if he really cared enough to take the trouble. There’s no excuse for having a government agency that is hostile to the President. Trump cares nothing about the climate change issue except if it helps him push his nationalist, anti-globalist agenda.
I agree with most of what Tim Ball says but I don’t think any of us needs a warmed-over history of NASA and its failings. And I don’t need “deep state” paranoid stuff about an agency whose every move and statement has been documented and obvious to everyone.

Reply to  scraft1
May 21, 2018 11:15 am

scraft1, I really don’t believe you appreciate how hard it is to change a government agency, most especially a federal agency. First it is all but impossible to fire someone no matter what they have done. If you are creative you can move them around, assuming you have support from above. You may be able to move them to a lesser position but they are still there and still get the same salary and benefits. Second, the best and the brightest outside government, thanks to the news media and primarily the Democratic Party, have no desire to work for government. If you are nominated you become the subject of political warfare. You and your family are investigated, attacked, and as we now know lied about. Third, the Democratic Party, who have been in power 75% of the time since 1932 have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The VA is an excellent example. They scream it is broken on the campaign trail but refuse to help fix it. They were the ones that allowed federal employees, already protected by Civil Service regulations that always favor the employee, to unionize. Why do they need both? I had a friend that went to Washington to work at the EPA for a specific tour. He was there to establish measurable outcomes for agency programs. From the time he arrived he was tracked, followed, met, etc by middle level managers who made no excuse that they were there to stop his activities. They learned enough about what he was doing to defeat his efforts when the next Administrator was appointed.

Reply to  scraft1
May 21, 2018 1:05 pm

Tnx, Edwin,
RE: Deep state
I think it was Reagan that stated ” establishing a government agency will be the closest thing to immortality you will ever see”.
I worked with “engineers for life” in the test and development business for DoD. Couldn’t fire them, and they always found ways to keep their test program going. Just like the warmist scientists. Their friends in court at HHQ and DoD and aerospace companies helped along the way.
Gums sends…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Case
May 20, 2018 8:45 pm

Thanks for the stroll down memory lane! +1

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Case
May 20, 2018 8:47 pm

“Deep State” is essentially the same thing as “The Swamp” that is in need of draining.

richard verney
May 20, 2018 3:20 pm

For heaven’s sake, we live on a water world. There is one resource that this planet will not run out of anytime soon, and that is water.
We have had desalinisation technology for a long time. We pump oil thousands of kilometres, and water is far easier to handle and pump. The only issue is cheap and abundant energy, not water.
If we extract water from the sea, it will help with that other illusory problem, namely combating sea level rise, so no one ought to object to that!
A different scare is required to replace cAGW since water is a non starter.

Reply to  richard verney
May 20, 2018 4:03 pm

Desalination is expensive.
Unless of course, you’re dying of thirst.
The wealthy don’t die of thirst though.
And they are happy to virtue signal by donating to charities that provide a single stand pipe for an entire village. So they are good people.
But ask them for a contribution to fund a coal burning power station to provide a tap (faucet) in every house in the village?
I’m sorry, that’s a step too far. They are far too busy saving the planet for the good of mankind.
Besides, it might threaten their house on the coast with rising sea levels.
Let them eat cake.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  richard verney
May 20, 2018 6:14 pm

Sea level rise is another canard. Even if all the 200000 glaciers in the world melted the sea would rise only 400 mm. Even if it was possible to melt the whole Arctic ocean ice the sea level would not rise 1mm because that ice is floating in the water. However it is impossible to melt all the Arctic ocean ice because the sun doesnt have enough time in the summer to melt all the ice. The angle of the rays changes as per the season and by the time September rolls around the rays are at too low an angle to do any melting. If CAGW was possible Greenland would have melted anyway so the Arctic ocean ice would be the least of our nonproblems. However as I said above the Arctic ice is floating in the water so no problem. Greenland is melting from underneath and it was lower in the 19302 than it is today. It has an undersea volcanic ridge the doesw the melting. Nothing to do with CO2. As for Antarctica 10 of the 13 temperature stations have shown no warming in the last 60 years. The only 3 that have; are in the West Antarctica peninsula and there is a volcanic ridge underneath that. The Ross ice shelf in Western Antarctica has melted and refrozen numerous times in Antartica’s history. An engineer on this site calculated that to melt all the ice in Antarctica it would take 105000 years. And that would be from direct blow torching it with all the energy that the world could throw at the project. There is that much ice. If the ice sheets will never melt and cause sea level rise, what problem is there left? OOOOOOOOOOOOh we will all burn up from too much heat. Well in that case we could all stay indoors with air conditioning. The joke is that if there was that much heat to make us all go indoors to the air condoitioning ; the ice sheets would have melted by then anyway.

May 20, 2018 4:14 pm

But but but … without appeal to authority, all I’m left with is ad hominem, cherry-picking, moving the goal-posts, strawman, slippery slope, special pleading, black-or-white, false cause, loaded questions, bandwagon, begging the question, appeal to emotion, shifting the burden of proof, appeal to nature, personal incredulity, no true scotsman, texas sharpshooter, and lots and lots and lots of anecdotes.

Reply to  Max Photon
May 20, 2018 4:28 pm

roaring laughing……….

May 20, 2018 4:23 pm

Peerhaps i am a bit thick, but i would think that there are two simple facts that should kill the myth of global warming once and for all times.
One the gas co2 does not store heat energy, it accepts it & re radiates it.
Two it it is logerimithic, thus from 50 ppm it gets to be less & less in its ability to influence the temperature.
Accept those two easily proven facts and the whole of the now giant sized ” house of cards” should collapse.

Gary Pearse
May 20, 2018 4:29 pm

I have begun to notice a change in the direction research findings with less adherence to the established agenda driven orthodoxy. Even the Potsdam reseachers and Oxford U have been finding some positives of warming and CO2 recently – gee, corn crops are not at risk, fish can swim to cooler waters, even molusca shift to best locations. Common sense and an unbroken chain of life 1B yrs long informs real scientists and logical thinkers (and of course fisherman, who discovered the ocean oscillations that inrerrupted their harvests), but until Trump came along, the ones who had a license to propound were of one doomsayer voice.
Oh yes, there is a growing hysterical chorus of from those who are coming to realize they are at the end of their good times, but this too signals change in the works, perhaps more definitively than the new research emerging from hiding.
It is paralleled by the hysteria of the fallen neomarxbrothers who masterminded this nightmare on us. The Democrats, who should have been steeped in an introspective of “What (really) Happened” when they lost the election if they were considering rebuilding and righting their ship, instead are doubling down on a failure that will keep them out of power until the old guard dies off a generation from now.
Kay-Marty-quality science and the hubris of the “progressive” masters handicaps change. Even a molusc knows when he has to change his position to survive.

May 20, 2018 5:34 pm

Let’s not forget where NASA stood on the issue in 1971:
S. I. Rasool and S. H. Schnider [Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration]. Reports: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate. SCIENCE, vol173, 9 July 1971comment image
The physics and math used back then did not change in 47 years. Rather, the political motivation changed.

richard verney
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
May 21, 2018 5:31 am

The physics and math used back then did not change in 47 years.

Absolutely, the radiative properties of CO2 were well known at that time, and have have not changed since the publication of the paper. There has been no change in our understanding of the radiative properties of CO2 and backradiation (DWLWIR)
I have often quoted this paper.
It is important to bear in mind 3 points:
1. The conclusion that Climate Sensitivity was low was inevitable since at the time of the paper, it was accepted that the planet (data being available only for the Northern Hemisphere) showed that the planet had been cooling as from 1940 despite rising CO2. This obviously meant that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 could not be high.
2. The paper considered the effect of CO2 plus water feedback, and even taking into account water feedback, the overall forcing was still small. This is illustrated in one of the figures which plots the projected temperature increase from CO2 alone, and plots the projected temperature increase from CO2 + water feedback. Unfortunately, I cannot cut and paste it.
3. James Hansen was involved in that paper. Indeed, he provided the model. There are contemporaneous newspaper articles discussing this paper and these newspaper articles mention James Hansen by name.
Of course, one should also fast forward 10 years. to 1980/81 when both Phil Jones (of CRU and Climategate fame) and James Hansen both published papers in which they accepted that, as at 1980, the Norther Hemisphere was about 0.3 deg C cooler than the Northern Hemisphere was in 1940. Since then of course, there has been massive adjustments made to the temperature record to get rid of the 1940 to early 1970s cooling. The ‘Science’ became c0rrupted in the 1980s.

Reply to  richard verney
May 21, 2018 11:36 am

Here’s the figure you were talking about, Richard V.:
S. I. Rasool and S. H. Schnider [Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration]. Reports: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate. SCIENCE, vol173, 9 July 1971comment image

richard verney
Reply to  richard verney
May 21, 2018 12:47 pm

Thanks for that.
It will be seen that for one doubling of CO2, ie., from about 300 ppm to 600 ppm, the projected temperature rise from just CO2 alone is about 0.5degC. Water vapour was considered to be a positive forcing, but only added approximately a further 0.1deg C, such that CO2 plus water vapour feedback, rising from 300 ppm to 600 ppm would bring about warming of only about 0.6 deg C (these are just eyeball assessments). It is perhaps noteworthy that there are a few modern day papers that look at observational data, that also conclude that Climate Sensitivity sort of figure for Climate Sensitivity.
We are currently at about 410 ppm with CO2 increasing by about 2 ppm per year, so it would appear highly unlikely that we will exceed 600 ppm this century. Given the amount of fossil fuels, it is doubtful that even if everything was to be burnt, we would exceed about 850 ppm. So even on that basis, it would not appear that there would be a rise in temperature of anything significantly above 1 deg C. Nothing to be that concerned about.

Reply to  richard verney
May 22, 2018 3:41 am

Excellent posts, thank you Richard and Robert.
If I read Fig. 1 correctly (from S. I. Rasool and S. H. Schnider, SCIENCE 1971), the sensitivity of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 is estimated to be about 0.5C to 0.6C per [doubling of atm. CO2 from ~300 to ~600ppm], and there is NO real global warming crisis.
This low figure of climate sensitivity has been exaggerated by up to approx. ten times or more by climate modelers cited by the IPCC, slowly declining to approx. five times too high over the past decade or so. From the very beginning circa the 1980’s, global warming alarmism was a false, fabricated crisis. It is now the greatest scam, in dollar terms, in human history, wasting tens of trillions of dollars of scarce global resources.
[Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration]. Reports: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate. SCIENCE, vol173, 9 July 1971
… there is NO credible evidence that climate sensitivity is greater than about 1.0C to 1.5C/(2xCO2).
Christy and McNider (1994 and 2017) calculated a TCS of 1.1C/(2xCO2) using satellite data from 1979 to mid-2017. They ASSUMED (for the sake of argument) that ALL observed warming was caused by increasing atmospheric CO2, after accounting for the known cooling impact of volcanoes.
Therefore, this calculated 1.1C warming is an UPPER BOUND of climate sensitivity, and the probable value is less than 1.1C.
Lewis and Curry (2018) calculated an upper bound TCR of 1.2C and an ECS of 1.5C, using surface temperature data for the period from 1869 to 2016.
This low climate sensitivity suggests any manmade global warming will not be catastrophic – instead it will be mild and beneficial for humanity and the environment. Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is alarmingly low in Earth’s history, and increasing CO2 from whatever source is hugely beneficial.
My best guess is that TCS is even lower, probably between 0.0 to 0.5C/(2xCO2). Furthermore, I expect we will see global cooling starting soon due to low solar activity, because much of the observed warming in the late 20th Century was natural, not man-made, and natural global cooling is probably imminent due to the decline in solar activity in Solar Cycle 24 and 25. Global average temperatures will probably trend cooler, not warmer, for the next several/many decades.
I hope to be wrong, because humanity and the environment suffer during cooling periods, but my predictive track record to date is infinitely better than the IPCC’s.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
May 22, 2018 9:53 am

richard verney May 21, 2018 at 5:31 am
The physics and math used back then did not change in 47 years.
Absolutely, the radiative properties of CO2 were well known at that time, and have have not changed since the publication of the paper. There has been no change in our understanding of the radiative properties of CO2 and backradiation (DWLWIR)

On the contrary the data has changed significantly since then, just look at the HITRAN database for instance.
Between the 2008 version and the 2012 version alone 10,000+ lines were added to the CO2 data.

May 20, 2018 6:17 pm

In the 70s NASA claimed an early Shuttle mission would rescue Skylab. But the Shuttle program fell far behind schedule and did not launch until 1981, 2 years after Skylab reentered. NASA did not misjudge Skylab. It failed to launch the Shuttle, actually named Space Transportation System, until many years behind its advertised first mission. And since the Saturn and Apollo were history by then, NASA had no way to rescue Skylab.

May 20, 2018 6:26 pm

I was looking for a few papers yesterday and first ran across one about low oxygen and low pH that we knew a half century or more ago, and then when I went looking for one in PNAS saw this jointly published with the Royal Society. The cover doesn’t seem to recognize that more than one country has a Royal Society.—-
“As we are also unable to carry out deliberate controlled experiments on Earth itself, computer models are among the most important tools used to study Earth’s climate system”
From two governments, must be true, well let’s see, they have a reduction in pH from 8.11 to 8.08 as acidification, but that difference may not have enough data behind it, and could be due to other causes. When they put their smokestacks spewing out pollutants on page 6 and their flat global temperature for the last twenty years despite increases in carbon dioxide, I decided that they must have thought that there must be a pony in their pile somewhere if they keep looking.
“ ..and it is likely to shift the competitive advantage among species, with as-yet-to-be-determined impacts on marine ecosystems and the food web. ” I thought that was already determined, funny how they always give it away or is there somebody in there sneaking in something.
I could go on and on like how sophomoric the report was, no offense to sophomores, but going back looking for the paper I ran across this —-
“…Candidate preferences in 2016 reflected increasing anxiety among high-status groups rather than complaints about past treatment among low-status groups. Both growing domestic racial diversity and globalization contributed to a sense that white Americans are under siege by these engines of change.”
And then I found the one I was looking for, unfortunately, as these sorts of save the world articles seem more likely to be open access so I had to read the whole thing.—-
“Ecosystem insurance hypothesis”— do too many have buttons on their computers to solve equations? This article has lots of assumptions and I saw at least one that is not always true. I think the idea was first published as “redundancy.”
Keep at it Dr. Ball, as Edwin confirmed above something happened in at least in some science areas, not just NASA, which became apparent and obviously rampant circa 1990 or before. Somewhere along there is when I first heard– “ …well it might not be quite right, but it makes a good point.” The amazing thing is that in spite of the pile good stuff still comes out.

May 20, 2018 6:58 pm

NASA has been rainbows and unicorns for a long time. I remember when the Space Shuttle was first proposed, NASA wanted to dragoon the Air Force into it to share the costs. It was going to be reusable with a turn around time measured in weeks. The Air Force did’t want anything to do with it, in part because they thought NASA’s safety analysis was junk with claims of a 1 in 10,000 failure rate. They said that was nuts, about 1% of all rocket launches fail disastrously for no apparent reason. Since the design used two rockets to lift the Shuttle, there would be a failure about 2% of the time. The burearocracy at NASA believed its own BS and went ahead anyway. Sadly, the Air Force was right.

Reply to  paullinsay
May 20, 2018 7:16 pm

The USAF couldn’t afford the NASA shuttle bill. It had/has other ways to space.
The key to space power is persistence in orbit, to survivability.
A pressurized, manned orbital vehicle or LEO station was none of that.

May 20, 2018 7:12 pm

Progressivism is surely the road to Hell.
But it is no longer paved with good intentions.
Just an agenda of political power.
The road they seek now is paved with the careers of those who stand in their way.
Stand in their way I will.

May 20, 2018 7:13 pm

This recent opinion piece in The Washington Examiner makes reference to the ‘climate industrial complex’.

Reply to  Sommer
May 21, 2018 11:31 am
Dr. Strangelove
May 20, 2018 8:06 pm

NASA should get out of the climate change business. GISS should instead look for aliens. It’s a pity NASA doesn’t have a SETI program.

May 20, 2018 8:32 pm

As I have stated before, I have always had an odd way of sometimes finding my way to the heart of any given subject. So this sentence explains to me why I stumbled across the ability to make some accurate predictions. “…I know about Douglas’s work because I found, as he did, a very high correlation between the 22-year sunspot cycle and droughts on the Great Plains of North America. …”.
Looking as I did with fresh eyes at the many well made science graphs all pointed me in the direction of seeing the connected interactions between the different systems (oceans, atmosphere, etc) as being of great import on the workings of the climate system. I also can partially see why the cycles are so tricky over the long term. For example, this new on the scene cyclical solar change can affect aspects of the connected dots which I have used in making predictions. Thus seemingly invalidating my claims, as how would I be able to plug in the unknown effects which are about to enter upon the scene. It would only be after a longer period of observation where any conclusions would come to light.

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  Max Photon
May 20, 2018 11:51 pm

She gave up on Earth long ago that’s why she’s searching the stars for intelligence

Dan Petitpas
May 20, 2018 10:00 pm

You said it all!

Mihaly Malzenicky
May 21, 2018 1:54 am

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine is a normal person in government, I do not predict much future for him.

May 21, 2018 5:01 am

NASA without a mission flounders. That “deep state” assassinated JFK, NASA’s soul.
Make NASA great again – get the moon mission really going!
Meanwhile China puts its lunar relay in orbit for the “dark side” rover.
The MSM meme “deep state” interestingly always leads via the swamp, to the Thames. Just look at Steele, Fusion GPS, Dearlove, Halper, and in JFK’s case via Permindex Corp of Canada. A rather shallow swamp indeed.

May 21, 2018 6:35 am

So the Obama WH was more like a command center for undermining and distorting all federal agencies, notably FBI, NASA, DOJ, EPA……

Reply to  ResourceGuy
May 21, 2018 2:55 pm

The heads of the DOJ, FBI, CIA, DIA and all the rest would not have taken the actions against Trump that they took without first at least clearing it with Obama. And it wouldn’t surprise me if Obama himself initiated this attack on his political opponent and on the Rule of Law.
That’s why Susan Rice, Obama’s assistant wrote herself a memo the day Trump took Office claiming that Obama had said his administration needed to run everything “by the book”. CYA if I ever saw any. Susan is probably going to get the opportunity to explaim what she meant by that one of these days.
Calls are now going out for Obama to speak out on these matters.
What did Obama know about the spyng on the Trump campaign, and when did he know it. Patriots want to know.

Reply to  TA
May 21, 2018 3:06 pm

LOL @ TA: ” spyng on the Trump campaign”

1) spying is both the incorrect term, the correct term is “investigating.”
2) There is no English word “spyng”

James Francisco
May 21, 2018 6:38 am

Dr. Ball. In the late 1970s we USAF people had to attend a meeting once a month called commanders call. Our Squadron Commander said that the radicals behind the anti establishment movements have cut their hair, put on suits and are moving into government jobs. I was suprised he said that in front of several hundred people. It seemed risky to me for him to make a statement like that. I didn’t understand the potential for much problems if it were true. I now see he was right and that many of those radical hippies are in high level government positions and may bring on a collapse of our society. The collapse is a step they believe is required to bring out the utopia they have in their head. Unfortunately, in their head is the only place on earth that their vision will work.

May 21, 2018 10:01 am

Excellent post, Dr. Ball.
“NASA and its subsidiaries have a history of involvement in alarmism and political exploitation of fear.”
I think this natural considering its transition from NACA to NASA during the Cold War. NASA activities had significant implications for national defense.
It does seem silly, now.

May 21, 2018 10:12 am

The political officer “senator” Wirth said:
Again, it was a very brave thing for him (Hansen) to do.
Complete bullcrap. It wasn’t brave at all — he knew all his comrades & media would be cheering. So it’s actually a punch in the face to those who actually challenge the dogma and take REAL risks.

May 21, 2018 12:30 pm

Sorry about the link, but this article highlights the issue with NASA Data. It mirrors what they did with the Hockeystick.
Multiple Sources Now Confirm; Climate Data “Adjustments” are Obvious Fraud to Anyone Choosing to Look

May 21, 2018 4:36 pm

NASA has outlived its usefulness

%d bloggers like this: