Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Next time someone tells you that scientists all support the “dangerous climate change from CO2” hypothesis, point out to them that forty-nine former NASA scientists have written an open letter to NASA pointing out that NASA is hyping unsubstantiated and unverified claims about climate … posted without further comment.
w.
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
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.
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.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
(Attached signatures)
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
Al Worden earlier this year passed away. https://obits.mlive.com/obituaries/grandrapids/obituary.aspx?n=alfred-worden&pid=195731406
letter is dated March 28, 2012
I don’t know when it was last updated—it is certainly more recent than May 2012— but the Global Warming Petition Project (see http://www.petitionproject.org/ ) currently cites 31,487 American scientists as having signed a petition stating, in part:
“There is not convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
As with any petition that can be signed “on line” (i.e., over the Web), one cannot assume that all signatories on this petition have been vetted to be “scientists”, but still . . .
The Global Warming Petition Project was not an “on line” petition. One had to download a form from the net, fill it out, sign it, put it in an envelope and mail it in. The deck could, of course, still be stacked, but it was not an on line petition.
Larry, thank you this correction.
I believed it to be otherwise, but will accept what you state to be true.
Same can be said to the fraud scientists who steel our tax dollars to promote climate fraud. They sit in a circle and glad hand each other under the ruse of peer review.
Is there some sort of curse associated with this list?
I am only asking as at least twelve of the signatories have already passed away.
Not surprising, given the ages of those involved.
They forgot to contact me. I worked at NASA Langley 45 years, ending as a Senior Research Scientist, followed by 6 years as a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace. I have a ScD in Fluid Mechanics and Aerospace research. I have several blog posts on several sites (mainly in 2009) including WUWT.
Leonard, 50 is a nice even number. Thank you for your integrity and service.
We can add the NIPCC scientists, and tens of thousands from the Oregon Petition Project.
I tried to sign the Oregon Petition, as many of my geology friends had, and their filters filtered me and wouldn’t let me “sign”. Ron Long MSc Oregon State University Certified in Sequence Stratigraphy (shows sea level changes world-wide).
? I am curious as to why the ” filters” would not let you sign.
which website did you go to? – the Oregon petition (actually “the Global Warming Petition Project”) doesn’t accept online applications – it only accepts mailed-in applications
And how many who haven’t retired wish they were able to put their names to it?
Yes, a pretty impressive list of signatories.
But has it had one iota of effect considering that we are 8 years further on in this neverending nonsense?
That’s because it didn’t have any actor/actress’s (sarc)
Oh yeah they forget to get a 16 year old to sign it too.
next time says 49 people re scientists check their publications
Opps.
Willis has more published climate science than all 49 of them combined
Haha only Mosh believes the publishers. Stop beclowning yourself.
No one was claiming they climate scientists, so Mosh’s comment is a complete straw man argument. When someone’s job title is Principal Investigator, it does not mean they are private detective, it means they are a scientist !
Spot on Greg. This is exactly how the climate alarmists construct their attacks – by throwing logic out of the window.
Strictly speaking there is no such thing as climate science like there is Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Geography and more. Those who study climate have to use insights from all these sciences and they cannot be experts in each of them, perhaps not even in one of them. Someone at NASA can be grounded in Physics and recognize how the “climate scientist” is abusing Physics and rightly criticizes him.
A reason for this is that astronauts do (did) “field work.” Same thing with biologists, understand the jungle better when you have to deal with it directly. Exceptions of course, some driven to save the planet.
The CO2 claims should have ended with Freeman Dyson’s claim that it didn’t even amount to a hypothesis. But money and power trump science.
Strictly speaking, climate science is in the domain of Biology:
Köppen climate classification is the widely used, a vegetation biome-based, empirical climate classification system developed by German botanist-climatologist Wladimir Köppen published in 1884.
The term has been hijacked by politics and confused with meteorology.
Politics ruins everything it touches.
Thanks to Richard G for background info for the Köppen climate classification.
I often wonder how much the “climate scientists” know about Organic Chemistry – the Chemistry of Carbon and of Life. Possibly little enough to discredit many of their claims?
You asked
https://study.com/academy/topic/organic-chemistry-climate-change.html
Re Jackass’ link to study.com…
Yes, indicated a junior high level non-understanding of radiative gas effects in the atmosphere.
Thanks for proving the point. !
Michael, FYI
Atomic composition of living matter
Humans: Carbon, 19.37%
Hydrogen, 9.31%
Nitrogen, 5.14%
Oxygen, 62.81%
Phosphorus, 0.63%
Sulfer, 0.64%
Alfalfa: Carbon, 11.34%
H , 8.72%
N , 0.825%
O , 77.90%
P , 0.71%
S , 0.10%
Bacteria: C , 12.14%
H , 9.94%
N , 3.04%
O , 73.68%
P , 0.60%
S , 0.32%
*Biology of Plants,
Peter Raven, Helena Curtis , Authors
P.S. The lithosphere rocks, the Biosphere rules.
Oh, and the Atmosphere sucks.
(Winks at Fred)
Plus, his post is written in some kind of gibberish language.
Indeed, for an English Major, his grasp of the English language is sorely lacking. Perhaps he should ask his university for a refund.
Yet, AFAIK, English was his major? A “climate scientist” he is not, yet that does not stop him from speaking his perspective. However, unfortunately it apparently prevents him from listening to and learning from those with greater training in disparate science based backgrounds then himself.
Isn’t he an English graduate? Or have I got the wrong person?
Yes you got it right … stunned me as well … I think he may need to seek help.
What is the optimum concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere?
good luck getting an answer from mosher. even if you did, considering with his covid track record, you’d still require a qualified opinion 😉
Well I was going to ask him how it was that all these people with little to no peer reviewed science behind them managed to put satellites in orbit, men on the moon, and built a manned space station.
But you’re right, he won’t answer so I won’t ask.
Some people do things that matter (like putting satellites in orbit, men on the moon, and building a manned space station). Some others spend their time writing down their visions of rainbows and unicorn farts for acceptance by the broken pal review process. Some with important things to further the science are rejected by the broken pal review process because they aren’t on message with the imaginary consensus.
Not all peer reviewed papers are trash, but many seem to be actually getting in the way of furthering our knowledge.
The optimum CO2 concentration for homo sapiens is probably the range in which they evolved 180 – 300 ppm.
Not even close at 180 plants that we rely on for food would not produce enough to support any population or is it that you would rather people starve because you view them as a bad thing? Either way your statement puts you firmly in the misanthrope category
” at 180 plants that we rely on for food would not produce enough to support any population ” Citation please.
At 200 ppm plant life starts to shut down and at 150 ppm it shuts down altogether and that is the end of life on earth. It has been as high as 7000 ppm and the planet thrived.
To Jack Dale: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/30/life-on-earth-was-nearly-doomed-by-too-little-co2/
180-300 = more nonsense.
Check the Antarctic ice core data.
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html
Humans evolved from animals that have been around a lot longer than a few million years.
Why do you assume that our need for CO2 is any different from our more distant ancestors.
Beyond that, why do you assume that the human body even cares what the level of CO2 is?
The Navy tries to limit CO2 in subs to less than 5000 ppm, and they’re studying raising that to 7000 or 8000.
Our exhale is 30,000 to 40,000 ppm.
We exhale CO2 because it is a waste by-product of metabolism.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482456/
And we NEED a certain level in the atmosphere to continue with being alive.
Be very careful of letting that CO2 level drop too low. !
Thank goodness our 40,000ppm+ from our conversion of carbohydrates to energy, keeps that level high.
Man COULD NOT EXIST without atmospheric CO2.
It is one of several gases required for ALL LIFE ON EARTH..
…. and has been at perilously low levels for a very long time.
“We exhale CO2 because it is a waste by-product of metabolism”
OMG Can you get any DUMBER.
CO2 is not a waste by-product.
It is an ESSENTIAL part of the carbon cycle that keeps ALL LIFE ON EARTH ticking over.
Jack Dale, I suspect a strong correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the maximum size of land animals and possibly marine animals, too, and that the shift from larger to smaller maximum sizes is an evolutionary response to less CO2 feeding the plants and foraminifera at the bottom of the food chain.
I have published ZERO papers on this hypothesis. :=]
That’s idiotic.
Yes. That’s Jack. Why engage the troll?
Jack is another name for Griff.
Well, I can’t take my own advice. I suppose that when trolls drop a turd like this, the ideal response is to explain why the latest moronic emission is idiotic and then move on. So here goes…
The human body is not significantly affected by CO2 concentration from 0 ppm to many times the current concentration. Other than St. Grrrrrrrrrreta, nobody can detect CO2 level without instrumentation. Therefore any concept of an optimal level can only consider secondary effects impacting our survival needs—water, food, shelter, etc.
It shouldn’t require much more explication than that, but as Rush Limbaugh says, for those of you in Rio Linda…that means to ask yourself what (if any) effect higher CO2 may have on our ability to get water, food, shelter?
If we accept the GHG theory, the water cycle (hydrologic cycle) increases with increasing CO2 due to warming. More CO2, more evaporation, more rainwater, less drought.
The experience and practice of commercial growers who routinely maintain >1000 ppm CO2 to optimize growth, and the evidence of global greening, demonstrates that more CO2 means more productive plants, the basis of our food chain. More CO2, more food.
If CO2 really drives warming, then warmer temperatures increase the range of habitability and reduce the need for shelter and clothing. Cold weather causes more excess deaths than heat waves. More CO2, less need for shelter and clothing.
These are among the reasons why the warmest periods in history have been the golden ages of civilization. Even Jack should be able to grasp that the optimal CO2 level for humans is the level that optimizes conditions for survival.
It is, but at least he came up with a real numeric answer, unlike the smarmy drive-by Mosher.
@Rich Davis – Exactly! I get tired of these WUWT threads where the daily troll pops in with an inane comment and then 50 people feel like they need to reply.
Rule #1 of the internet: Do not feed the trolls.
No, Jack’s just another rationalist…
@Robert W Turner
That’s where I was coming from. The trolls seem to (strategically?) distract from the actual topic more often than not. Interesting discussions relevant to the posting end up buried in dreck.
The dilemma is that not responding leaves the impression that there’s no good answer. So we answer.
griff, is it rational to believe in things that have been proven not to exist?
poor griff, yes jack is just as scientifically irrational as you are
Neither of you can scientifically support the very basis of your little AGW religion.
No rational thought has entered either of your minds.. EVAH !!
The null hypothesis to AGW is that warming is the result of natural forcings.
Natural forcings would result in cooling.
Milankovitch cycles would have us cooling.
Solar cycles would have us cooling.
In science, correlation + mechanism = evidence of a causal relationship.
BEST has shown a 250 year correlation between CO2 and temperature.
The mechanism of CO2 as a GHG has been known for 2 centuries. https://history.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm#contents
Ergo …
Here is a video anyone, even you, can understand.
https://youtu.be/uqwvf6R1_QY
No, it has been POSTULATED.. and never proven…
You still haven’t produce one bit of actual scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2
You are running around like a headless chook in attempted deflection and distraction.
Learn some actual science. CO2 is a radiative gas.
It does not operate in the atmosphere in ANY way remotely resembling a greenhouse.
“correlation + mechanism”
More anti-science BS from Jackass.
BEST have a bent, twisted and distorted temperature series that relies on all the worst affected UHI data it can find. They twist and corrupt it so it matches their “regional expectations” of warming.. which is based on their need to show a correlation with atmospheric CO2.
Their “mechanism” is pure anti-science…. pure speculation with zero proven validity.
And as for “correlation” wellllll.. NOPE !!!
But homo sapiens is still evolving, generation by generation.
Our evolution of late seems to be a realization of “bang-bang” control theory. Rapidly oscillating between extremes to find a middle ground as we go forward.
Bang-Bang control theory is a product of limited computational resources to evaluate fast enough the changing observable states (usually in frequency discrete domain) to make a timely control correction. The control surface bang from one extreme to the other side in rapid quick movements, rather than smooth or even quantized in-between positions. Thus “bang” to one stop, hold, then “bang” back to the other stop to approximate a guidance control solution. The average determines the the trajectory flown or guided.
I’m hoping the millennials are just the “bang” to the political Left, that gets corrected by a not-too-big a “bang” back to political Right by Gen Z’ers that follows the Millennials.
Humans evolved from creatures that existed back when CO2 levels were much higher than they are today. Why should anyone assume that only the period since we became Homo Sapiens Sapiens matters?
@joel,
I agree with your basic point re Bang-Bang control. However, the use of Bang-Bang control historically had / has more to do with limitations of the actuator than limited computational resources. A typical thermostat – furnace system is a good example of this. It is trivial to “compute” an analog signal that is proportional to the difference between the actual and objective room temperature. It is more challenging to build a gas furnace with variable heat output. Modern high efficiency furnaces do this with throttling flow valves and variable speed blowers, but with additional cost and complexity. Lots of furnaces still use bang-bang control even though they can have effectively unlimited computational power with a $0.10 MCU.
Jack,
Your views and understanding are quite limited and dim. Sorry to be blunt, but they are.
CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with human physiology and evolution. What humans are uniquely adapted to is change. Climate change. We evolved in climate change, it drove our evolution. Climate change is as natural a part of human evolution as is evolution of higher ordered skills such as complex linguistics and the ability to convey abstract ideas to others in our tribes/clans. Ultimately culminating in a transition of agrarian societies to increase energy producing food stores so others in the tribe could learn to fight battles and secure territory from both animals and other men.
We evolved opposable thumbs as we began to stand upright to look out over the African Savannah grasslands for predators and prey to run down with our heat endurance. We used our new found hands to make hyde clothing to protect us when the cliamte grew cold, to make fiure to cook and stay warm in the cold. Our stance and hands and frontal cortex all evolved together, along with an ability for complex social imnteraction and communication within our tribe in unique languages as our voacl skills evloved with our brains, and with it socialization into larger bands.
It is said that in attempting to avoid the mistakes of their parents, the children promptly repeat the mistakes of their grandparents.
Unfortunately, it takes a generation of hardship to repair the damage of a bang to the left.
Just like CAGW, evolution as an explanation for the complexities of life, will end on the trash heap
Our distant ancestors developed an opposable thumb to making grasping tree branches easier. Most tree dwelling animals with hands, have opposable thumbs.
Homo sapiens and polar bears are thought to evolved during our present Ice Age. Homo sapiens about 300,000 years ago and polar bears about 150,000 years ago. Both species developed during the coldest period of our Ice Age which has going on for over a million years.
Jackass.. wrong yet again
Human evolved from animals that lived in a period of MUCH higher CO2 levels.
1000-2000 ppm has no effect once acclimatized.
You do know it can easily reach that level in a closed bedroom at night, don’t you !
Humans do best when they have plentiful food supply, so 1000ppm which PLANTS LUV …
is a far better estimate
Jack,
Please stop throwing out straw man arguments! Human evolution has little to do with CO2 levels! The levels required by our food sources do, however! The current CO2 levels are still too low for most plant’s optimal growth as they mostly evolved with levels over 1,000ppm! Are you trying to starve the plants or don’t you believe in evolution?
It is well known to those who study geology that CO2 levels during the last period of glaciation dropped to about 170ppm, severely limiting plant growth and leaving them much more susceptible to drought!
The falling CO2 level has been going on for about 150,000,000 years! If the causes of that drop are not mitigated by human actions and the level falls below 150ppm virtually ALL life on Earth will die!
Perhaps you should do a little reading or maybe get somebody to give you some tutoring in general science if reading is difficult for you. I would recommend texts on the geology of Ice Ages so you can get involved in the discussion at the adult table!
Can we also conclude that the optimum CO2 concentration for calcifying organisms is the level in which they envolved?
Jack Dale:
There’s no “optimum range” of CO2 for humans. Anything under a couple thousand ppm is harmless. Plants, however, which we depend on, DO have a range of “optimum”, and it ain’t 180-300. It’s more like 1000-1500, as endlessly demonstrated in tests and real greenhouses.
Aren’t you are supposedly some climate “modeler”? Holy cow…..
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/07/indoor-co2-dumb-and-dumber/
Poor Jack.. looks like you grew up in a very high CO2 area..
…. because you have reached DUMBEST.. and are constantly striving to stay there.
Submariners work in levels far greater than this.
Humans can tolerate CO2 levels up to around 10000ppm. Below that, it makes no difference.
However more CO2 means more food, which is good for humans.
Humans can tolerate several thousand ppm CO2, … 10000ppm long term would be too much.
Penicillin didn’t exist while humans were evolving. Therefor penicillin is bad for humans.
What’s the optimum argon concentration for Homo Sapiens?
“The health hazards associated with overexposure to argon are minimal. But it is a simple asphyxiant, so in certain cases a release of a large volume of argon can pose a hazard of asphyxiation. Argon is neither flammable nor reactive. If a tank of argon is heated or punctured, the tank may rupture and cause physical injury. Argon is an element that exists as a gas in its natural form. Argon is a colorless, odorless gas.”
https://sciencing.com/dangers-argon-5443798.html
Listen closely, and you can hear the sound of a clue, whizzing over Jack’s head.
Duh, Jack. Argon is an inert gas. It cannot react with anything.
It’s even more irrelevant to human physiology than ambient CO2 concentration. Obviously Curious George was making the point that there is no optimum level of something that has no effect. But you can’t react to that, you’re inert.
Dale
The C3 plants that humans and animals eat evolved in a 1000 to 3000ppm range. The current CO2 level is much too low for optimum C3 plant growth. Our planet supported more life when CO2 levels were higher and the temperature was warmer than today. I include plants in my definition of life.
Greene. Some science for you:
“Atmospheric CO2 is on pace to surpass 550 ppm in the next 30–80 years. Many food crops grown under 550 ppm have protein, iron and zinc contents that are reduced by 3–17% compared with current conditions. We analysed the impact of elevated CO2 concentrations on the sufficiency of dietary intake of iron, zinc and protein for the populations of 151 countries using a model of per-capita food availability stratified by age and sex, assuming constant diets and excluding other climate impacts on food production. We estimate that elevated CO2 could cause an additional 175 million people to be zinc deficient and an additional 122 million people to be protein deficient (assuming 2050 population and CO2 projections). For iron, 1.4 billion women of childbearing age and children under 5 are in countries with greater than 20% anaemia prevalence and would lose >4% of dietary iron. Regions at highest risk—South and Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East—require extra precautions to sustain an already tenuous advance towards improved public health.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0253-3
Jack Dale you are ignoring 90 to 95 percent of the scientific studies of plants, concerning CO2 enrichment, to cherry pick conclusions you like. That’s not science, it is left wing politics.
Every one of the predictions in your comment are junk science. Larger and faster growing plants will require less watet and feed more people … and any nutrient difference is very small and only found in a minority of studies NATURE magazine is the ultimate climate junk science magazine.
The planet will benefit from more CO2 on the air and some warming. There had been intermittent global warming since the late 1600s and that was 100 percent good news. Global warming and higher CO2 levels are only evil in the weak science free minds of leftists like you.
325 years of good news global warming and CO2 rise is reality .. the belief that a continuation of this trend will suddenly be 100 percent bad news in the future is 100 percent nonsense. That”s why you believe the clinate alarmism.
The CO2 level of our planet is unusually low today, not high.
Citations please for those 90-95% of studies.
Isn’t it about time we ignored the troll?
JD. You must be confusing that with something that’s relevant.
A question that needs to be asked of every climate activist. What is the absolute minimum Co2, that should be allowed in the atmosphere? (150ppm smirk).
Regards
Climate Heretic
When have we ever come within 20 ppm of the 150 ppm limit? Answer – never.
Otherwise we wouldn’t be here.
Be THICK, Jack.. its your only choice..
Oh my God, you are brilliant! I misspoke and said 170 when it was 182!
You got me!
But instead of acting like an arrogant jerk you might want to look at the trend line for the last few geological periods! Since the early Cretaceous CO2 has been falling steadily from ~2,500ppm down to our current levels where each of the last four Ice Ages saw a drop below 200ppm!
I’m sure you’re a daredevil who loves walking the tightrope without a net below, but I would prefer a little safety margin when it comes to the survival of life on Earth! The planet is greening due to rising CO2, increasing crop yields and preventing erosion! It may not stop the next period of glaciation from starting, but perhaps it can mitigate the drop in temps as the Earth’s albedo increases and ice caps grow.
But I think you know all this already; you’re just playing dumb, and doing a damn fine job of it!
According to Jack, something that has never happened, can never happen.
Is Jack that shallow a thinker?
I guess Jack assumes that whatever has caused CO2 levels to drop from 10000ppm to 180 ppm will magically stop before CO2 reaches 150ppm.
Just think how nutrient-rich those veggies would be, growing them at 100ppm CO2! We’d probably need to grow them hydroponically so that people don’t overdose on the vitamins.
Nobody seems to be able to answer the question:
If all the fossil fuel in the world is burned, would the CO2 level return to that at which it was before it was converted, via vegetation, to fossil fuel?
My guess would be no, nothing like. Too much of that CO2 is locked up in non-fossil fuel Calcium Carbonate and the like
Then if the carbon gets locked up in limestone etc the CO2 will be gradually removed from the atmosphere and it will be goodbye plants and animals, including us.
Subduction zones may recycle the carbonate rock fast enough to forestall that so long as we still have plate tectonics. I would guess that there’s a lower limit above zero ppm, but how much above zero?
No denying that each glaciation has brought a new low in CO2, and C3 plant starvation is not far below the last minimum.
Of course not. A great deal of the CO2 ended up as limestone and other carbonates.
Theoretically if you can extract and burn all of the fossil fuel and “burn” all carbonate sediments and rocks to drive off the CO2, and sequester the oxides (CaO, MgO, etc.) so that they don’t recombine with CO2, then you might come close.
Mission Impossible.
Perhaps we need to make much more cement.
The interglacial period we are currently in will probably end before the CO2 levels get dangerously low and require us to extract it from limestone. The advancing ICE will be a much bigger problem. If we manage to solve THAT, I don’t think CO2 levels will be an issue.
At least 1000 ppm to support more plant growth while the larger faster growing plants also need less water. Happier plants equals more food equals more life on our pkanet.
I gather you are unaware of Leibig’s Law of the Minimum.
https://soils.wisc.edu/facstaff/barak/soilscience326/lawofmin.htm
Jack you’re an inexhaustible font of disinformation.
If CO2 is not limiting, how do you explain this?
https://plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?MenuItemID=103
That site is disinformation. Next you will post CO2coalition and CO2science.
Oh, that site does quote those.
Refute Leibig for me.
Jack Dull
I am not interested in your 1800s science theories concerning plsnts and manure. If I ever get interested in manure, I will read all of your comments.
Refute Leibig.
No need to refute. His supposition words from the mid 1800s PROVE the case for the need for more atmospheric CO2.
CO2 has been in short supply for a long time. It has been the restriction on growth
agriculture , of course, needs to supplement out essential minerals in a cropping situation, other wise they would get low nutrient value like that quakes that make that their aim in studies.. all they manage is to show their incompetence at agriculture.
And you don’t have the basic comprehension to realise that fact., because CO2 has made you so DUMB.
Suck up your CO2, dumbo.
And the poor jackass yet again dips into his vacuous abyss of empty mindless prattle.
Still unable to support even the very basis of the AGW farce.
So funny !!
Steven, have you looked at the degrees the so called climate scientists have? Astrophysics, biologist, historian, etc. Not Climatologist! Getting funding for studies supporting the “problem” is relatively easy, and easily is peer reviewed favorably. Just because you publish a peer reviewed paper in a field does not show superior understanding of the field, or literature. The people in the list you talk down to are super smart people who actually did their unbiased homework. Meanwhile you forget a well known MIT professor who is expert in climatology, and numerous other experts in the field who also are skeptics. Many did not get funding or even lost their jobs because that were not on board. Only those with a well established reputation were safe from bias in their work. It is true many skeptics are ignorant of the field, but many more supporters of the nonsense are even less qualified, including the press and politicians.
Jane Fonda has been a climate scientist for decades and decades. She might be the most famous one.
Wow she’s more deluded than even I imagined. What a waste of oxygen.
Most so-called “climate scientists” aren’t scientists at all, but GIGO computer gamers, not climatologists. Gavin is a math grad, who couldn’t get a job in that discipline.
And John, many of the so called “climate scientists” no very little about atmospheric physics, and are incapable of studies regarding the causes of climate change, instead, with some sort of “environmental degree”, or as say a biologist, they study some plant or animal life affected by a drought here, or extreme rain there, and then using the falsified “climate models” they predict the affects of much more drought or floods in the future, and they exclaim his it is much worse then we thought.
Lindzen got $3,000,000 in NSF funding trying to prove his Iris Theory. The Pielkes (both of them), Legates, Curry, etc. were all awarded NSF grants. Spencer’s research is solely funded by NASA, NOAA and DOE.
Who lost their jobs?
Man you REALLY are dense:
“Colo. State hurricane forecasts may end due to lack of funds”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/11/27/hurricane-forecast-funding-william-gray/3766095/
Dozens of others who dared to challenge the climate orthodoxy. Every one else got the message: “fall in line, or get defunded.”
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
– Upton Sinclair, a 100 years go.
Lysenkoism persisted for 30 years in Soviet Russia for exactly the same kinds of reasons as does climate scam does today in the West. Dissent from the state orthodoxy and perish.
The people you described had well established reputations, and were in relatively same places. Many young new scientists would not be able to risk going against the groupthink. However, there were even established scientists who lost their jobs for going against the popular position. This includes the french whether man who wrote a skeptical book, or the former head of a climate institute (I think Swedish), or the professor in a Australia university, etc, etc. You have to be totally uninformed if you make the comment you did.
Uninformed, or willfully blind. It’s hard to tell which.
From the finding of Justice Vastas in the Peter Ridd case.
“Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. Others have thought that this trial was about the manner in which academics should conduct themselves. Some observers may have thought that this trial was about the use of non-offensive words when promulgating scientific ideas. Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views.
Though many of those issues were canvased and discussed throughout the hearing of this matter, this trial was about none of the above. Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an Enterprise Agreement. Whilst the Court acknowledges that there may be consequences that touch upon these other issues because of the Court’s construction of that clause, none of those consequences can play any part in the determination of the proper construction of that clause.”
In the meantime Ridd lost on appeal. (Just like Ball in his suit with Weaver)
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2f8e05ac-78cd-4a26-b13a-93a91bf018b1
You have to be totally uninformed if you make the comment you did.
Steven, have you looked at the degrees the so called climate scientists have? Astrophysics, biologist, historian, etc. Not Climatologist!
Don’t forget the English Majors. I’ll take what any of those 49 distinguished NASA scientists have to say over a drive-by English major who hasn’t posting anything worth reading in years. At least they accomplished something other than collecting a pay check.
While many skeptics may not have fancy degrees, that doesn’t stop them from studying the data and the science and forming opinions on the same.
You don’t need fancy degrees to know when someone is trying to BS you.
Many of the best BS detectors that I have known, never got any further than high school.
If they are predicting the future just assume it is BS, and you will almost always be right. I should know. I have a BS degree.
“Steven, have you looked at the degrees the so called climate scientists have? Astrophysics, biologist, historian, etc. Not Climatologist!”
Yes, anyone can qualify as a climate scientist nowadays. Any degree will do.
Most of the NASA scientists and astronauts who signed the letter are not climate scientists, either, but they have something the alarmists don’t have: The ability to do analytical thinking and to look at things logically from a scientific point of view allows them to understand that climate science is built on a very shaky foundation, and they feel strongly that it is being overhyped by NASA to the point that they felt compelled to write the letter.
The NASA signees want to know where the evidence is showing that CO2 is a problem. The NASA signees know the difference between evidence and unsubstantiated speculation.
Typical Mosher, just attack the authors, because we all know that’s all he’s capable of doing.
He could also brush up on his writing skills: ?
mebbe he’s not capable of that either ….
Its realy funny actually
There is Mosh, with a so-called Literature degree, yet barely able to string a coherent, meaningful sentence together….
….criticising people with multiple science, engineering etc credentials.
Its slap-stick comedy, albeit very low-level.
fred,
in fairness to Mosh, is it possible he was trying to respond on an early flip-phone?
[I have no idea why he would do so, but my texts sometimes look like that when I am stone cold sober].
Auto
Just when I thought warmists could sink no lower…
For shame sir, for shame.
It’s amazing what some people will do, when their paycheck is on the line.
mosher, there are many brilliant individuals who are knowledgeable in areas other than the area they have a degree in. Not listening to them to see what they have to say and how they came to their opinions and conclusions shows one’s closed-mindedness.
Mosh’s gauge of someone’s intellect and his/her ability to detect bullshit is the number of papers they have published.
Sad. Quite sad.
It is, and quite irrational.
Especially considering the alarmists stated goal of becoming gatekeepers who get to decide who gets published and who doesn’t. (Climategate e-mails)
How about the late, great “Father of Climatology”, Reid Bryson?
And the late, great “Father of Hurricanology”, Bill Gray?
Or the physicist who succeeded Einstein at Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, the late, great Freeman Dyson?
Or Nobel Laureate physicist Ivar Giaever?
Or the world’s top atmospheric physicist, MIT emeritus prof Richard Lindzen?
Or the world’s top optical physicist, Princeton’s Will Happer?
GIGO computer gamers are third-rate pygmies compared to these giants.
I love the talk that Ivar Giaever gave at Mainau. Right afterward, 36 Nobel Laureates signed the Mainau Declaration urging immediate action on climate change. Twice that many eventually signed it. That is not the outcome he wanted.
http://www.mainaudeclaration.org/
And the list of Laureates, jackass?
Peace prizes, literature etc etc
Potsdam scammers….
meaningless.
Initial signatories Additional supporters
Peter Agre Hiroshi Amano
J.M. Bishop David Baltimore
Elizabeth Blackburn Aaron Ciechanover
Martin Chalfie Elias Corey
Steven Chu Robert Curl
Claude Cohen-Tannoudji Johann Deisenhofer
James W. Cronin Sheldon Glashow
Peter Doherty Robert Grubbs
Gerhard Ertl Leland Hartwell
Edmond Fischer Dudley Herschbach
Walter Gilbert Roald Hoffmann
Roy Glauber Wolfgang Ketterle
David Gross Walter Kohn
John L. Hall Yuan T. Lee
Serge Haroche Michael Levitt
Stefan Hell John Mather
Jules H. Hoffmann Arthur B. McDonald
Klaus von Klitzing Edvard Moser
Harold Kroto May-Britt Moser
William Moerner Ryoji Noyori
Ferid Murad Paul Nurse
Ei-ichi Negishi John O’Keefe
Saul Perlmutter Douglas Osheroff
William Phillips Arno Penzias
Richard Roberts Carlo Rubbia
Kailash Satyarthi Oliver Smithies
Brian Schmidt Jack Steinberger
Hamilton O. Smith Thomas Steitz
George Smoot Horst Störmer
Jack Szostak Thomas Südhof
Roger Y. Tsien John Sulston
Harold Varmus Joseph H. Taylor
J. Robin Warren Carl Wieman
Arieh Warshel David Wineland
Torsten Wiesel
Robert Wilson
Check their credentials here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainau_Declaration#:~:text=The%20Mainau%20Declaration%202015%20on,signed%20by%2036%20Nobel%20laureates.
Checked the first 18.. Not one had anything to do with atmospheric physics.
Thanks for the proof, Jackass. !!
One of the signatories to the NASA has anything to do with atmospheric physics. About half of the names posted by John Tillman have anything to do with atmospheric physics.
And YOU have absolutely NOTHING to do with climate science … except to swallow and regurgitate.
Those blokes put man on the Moon.. Get over it. !!
None of them are engineers, who are far more trustworthy and honest than politicized scientists.
I don’t know why I bothered but…I looked at this declaration. It starts out pushing Malthusian fears of world population outstripping natural resources. Then it goes on to say that even though the IPCC reports contain uncertainties, they are worried about the conclusions therein. They they urge action based on those reports. I doubt many of them have read any of the reports other than the SPM. At least half of the signatories have unrelated degrees (mostly medical and biomedical). Smart people in their fields, no doubt, but even smart people can be fooled. In fact, sometimes they are easier to fool because they believe that their deep knowledge in a narrow domain makes them superior thinkers in all domains.
I don’t why I would bother to respond to your predictable post.
Yet you keep on doing so. Perhaps the answer has to do with feelings of inadequacy on your part.
Or perhaps a deep seated desire to dominate over others who don’t agree with you.
Poor Jack–ass… You have nothing to offer, we don’t know why you post anyway.
How about you show where just one of them has proven, with empirical science, that atmospheric CO2 causes warming.
As usual, you couldn’t be more wrong:
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/thomas-wysmuller
https://www.nhcrhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014-STAP-final-report.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nils-Axel_Moerner/publication/326882331_Th_Porto_Climate_Conference_Volume/links/5b6a14a0299bf14c6d952042/Th-Porto-Climate-Conference-Volume.pdf#page=61
Besides which, actually doing things to help people and advance technology is infinitely more useful than publishing pal-reviewed packs of lies.
It only takes one person who knows what he’s talking about to rebut an accusation. Knowing what one is talking about takes only the intelligence to question some assertion.
It doesn’t require being published in some f***ing “peer reviewed” journal. How many have you been published in, Steve? I really have no beef with you, BTW, because you have been more rational than many in this melee.
When I was Chief Engineer of FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation, I demolished the work of one “scientist” at Aerospace Corporation. He published an article simultaneously with the issuance of the spaceport license for Spaceport America, predicting huge increases in global warming. His paper based his “analysis” of SpaceShip2 flights. The vehicle weight and propellant weight were grossly wrong, on the high side, and the combustion efficiency (leading to “black carbon” emission rate) was grossly low.
What this bozo did was concatenate the inputs and outputs of models whose workings he admitted to not knowing. Then he “showed” that Virgin’s grossly overestimated flight rates would cause global warming.
The closing paragraphs of his paper were devoted to begging for $6 million in more funding to study this phenomenon further. I’ve never read a scientific paper like that.
I took his own numbers, and showed that they were the same as the Apollo program launches, and challenged him to do the analysis for that. I also showed him that his numbers for SpaceShip2 were completely wrong, something I was uniquely qualified to know given my knowledge of it as Chief Engineer of FAA/AST. I told him that his calculations of carbon emissions were impossible, based on the first law if thermodynamics. He asked me if it was peer reviewed!
We asked for, and got, our money back on that contract. Later, I met this Bozo’s bost at an FAA/AST conference. He still maintained his support for his anti-science scientist’s paper.
How many have you been published in, Steve?
Doesn’t matter he’s not a “climate scientist” either, he’s an English Major, so what he has to say counts even less (by his own illogic) than what those 49 distinguished NASA scientists have to say. At least they *are* actual scientists, even is they aren’t “climate scientists” (whatever the heck that is).
Remember Mr Mosher. “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein.
It only take one person to prove that CAGW or AGW is a scam. Oh and its been done.
Regards
Climate Heretic
What did Albert Einstein know, anyway? After all, in 1905 he was a mere Patent Examiner in Berne with no peer-reviewed publications to his name.
(This is sarcasm BTW, for dimwits like Loydo, Jack Dale, and Mosh).
That is a logical fallacy. Thorough understanding of a topic is (should!) a prerequisite for publishing but publishing is not a prerequisite for thorough understanding of a topic.
People outside academia most often don’t publish but that doesn’t mean they don’t know their stuff.
It is even worse than that. People who publish papers do not always (or even often) reasonably understand the full scope and effect of their topic, and often make wrong statements, but the many (but not all) poor peer reviewers don’t catch that, especially if the paper is biased in a direction they support. I have written and had peer reviewed many technical papers, and been a peer reviewer on many, in several fields, and know the limited value of peer review. The present back and forth of discussion like we are making in these blog comments often do a far better job of reviewing a paper.
Peer review is often pal review.
A peer review tends to defend the consensus.
Progress in science usually comes from individuals or small teams who refute the consensus.
Steve,
Was phrenology debunked by a phrenologist?
Therefore it’s legit?
Mainstream climate science is a cult of geothermal deniers.
http://phzoe.com/2020/09/10/fouriers-accidental-confession/
Why should people take them seriously?
Typical childish comment from Steve M.
S.M. is well aware of the Oregon Petition and the NIPCC scientists, and numerous others groups including several PHD Nobel Prize winners, and authors of thousands of research papers.
If alarmists want a debate based on real world evidence, they get crushed, if they want a debate based on credentials, they likewise succumb to defeat.
Point of order: I think most climate commentators would regard Steve M as referring to McIntyre, not Mosher. Mosher is Mosh, or Mosher.
Point taken.
LOL, and one more skeptic that Moshers science is woefully short to in comparison.
And Mosh takes yet another head-first dive into the zero-credibility dumpster.
Seems to like it there. Its home for him, nowadays.
“next time says 49 people re scientists check their publications
Opps.”
Super hard to argue with that.
I’m guessing it looks logical after a bottle of wine and 12 gin and tonics. I’m not going to do the experiment though.
Any random selection of English words strung together would make as much sense as this.
Well, you would need to adjust 20% of the words to misspell them of course.
next time says 49 people re scientists check their publications
You’re just jealous that there are no English Majors on that list.
Most at least have degrees in the relevant fields, what is your degree in again Steve?
Are you really going to claim that you know more than them because you pushed out some junk publication? Please tell me you really aren’t that stupid.
There are some around here who would claim he’s not (and years ago he wasn’t). His recent actions, however, suggest that he most definitely is.
Either that, or he’s the type of person who will defend whatever position he’s paid to defend.
“Weird.” I took only the top few PhD’s and did a search on Google Scholar. After Doiron I stopped bothering with it because I knew you were just shooting off your mouth.
That sorta makes you a liar.
If that weren’t bad enough (and it is) that makes you an hypocrite. Remember that time when Brad deleted a tweet while he was tossing you about the intellectual room like a rag doll and you got your panties all morally twisted up in his behind about it? Remember when you called him a “liar” for doing that and what an outrage it was to lie?
Gee you’re a liar too huh? Blech.
Worst of all, looks like you’re no different when it comes to Twit’s deleting Tweets are ya?
https://twitter.com/BradPKeyes/status/1261806031560036352
Eww yuck you do what you yell at others for doing.
Starting from the top:
JM Grunsfeld (stopped counting at 24 articles)
DD Bogard (stopped counting at 26)
KJ Cox (stopped counting at 10)
DM Curry (stopped counting at 20)
Henry P. Decell, Jr (stopped counting at 20)
Harold Doiron (stopped counting at 10)
Notice how steve assumes that you aren’t a scientist unless you have published something.
If Mosher thinks that knowledge, scientific truth and intellect are somehow related to publication record then he’s a fool. It’s completely irrelevant.
And, unlike Mosher, I suspect former NASA engineers and scientists haven good BS filters.
One of the great cons of CAGW is the notion that scientific truth and reliability are only found in peer reviewed journals. The BBC, amongst many others, has founded it’s climate crusade on the lie of the “gold standard” of peer review.
I am example of that:
I have worked for many OEM’s of scientific analytical instruments for the first 15 years of my career while pursuing a degree in chemistry and and electrical engineering. I have a lot college experience no degree. Even had a couple short internships at ORNL. Worked my at college’s research institute. I did all the darkroom work for SEM lab.
The past 15 years I have work in the PET biomarker manufacturing, the isotope creation, molecular assembly side; the particle accelerator–cyclotrons specifically and automated chemistry modules as a support and manufacturing engineer. Recently moved to the proton therapy side and now being trained on my third cyclotron.
I have created, added to, helped resigned some of these machines but none of my stuff had been published beyond the internal CAD models, drawings, or any of the PCB’s needed to power and control these devices.
Yet I have helped pushed the boundaries of human knowledge and added quality to lives of cancer patients.
Willis had to be drunk to post this.
Or drinking?
This generic science-free letter is 8.5 years old.
The signers seem like mainly engineers, not scientists.
49 NASA employees or ex-employees are not a consensus.
A consensus is meaningless in science.
The letter fails to refute any specific clsim made by NASA, and is data free
It’s easier to be critical than to be correct.
Meaningless articles like this one are why this website is no longer better than Jo Nova”s science website.
Willis needs a time out, or alcoholics anonymous
If a consensus is meaningless in science, then why do you alarmists keep bringing it up?
Your definition of scientist vs engineer seems to be highly convenient.
The letter points out errors that are being made.
If this site is so bad, why do you keep coming back? Being paid to?
Mark W
I am not a climate alarmist. I publish a clinate science blog to refute climate alarmism. It has had over 63,000 page views;
wwe.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.vom
This article is 8.5 year old news and attempts to use a “concensus” of 49 NASA employees to criticize the concensus of other NASA employees, probably way over 49 employees.
Since a consensus is meaningless in real sciencr, a 49 person “consensus” is meaningless too.
The signers appear to be mainly engineers, not scientists, and they have no particular expertise on climate science.
Refuting claims of a coming clinate crisis requires more than a letter from engineers.
I try to refute climate alarmism and the fake 97 petcent consensus argument every week.
I happen to know exactly when the world is going to end from climate change. And it is not in 12 years. I have been working on these equations since 1997. And my result is acvurate to four decimal places. Four decimal places is real science. Three decimal places is baloney, malatkeu snd banana earl (Brooklyn). The end of the earth is going to be on … well, why should I tell you?
Listen for those of us who have worked or been around academia for the past 30 years we like ribbing or needling each other on the whole scientist/engineer debate but in a practical pragmatic sense their is little difference. We all attended the same schools, the same lectures, read the same books, by the same people.
Besides math is math. I have yet to find the the confidence level of:
F=m*g to be anything 100%.
You show your own ignorance and hubris when you try to make that distinction.
No one cares about an 8.5 year old letter signed by mainly engineers with no known climate science knowledge or experience.
Also, the prediction of a coming climate crisis is not real svience. It seems more like politics, or a secular religion.
There is speculation based on lab experiments amplified three times by an unproven and illogical water vapor positive feedback theory NEVER seen in any observations.
If there was a positive feedback then runaway global warming would have ended the world long ago when CO2 levels were over 10 times higher than today.
How can a simple data free letter refute junk climate science ?
“Check their publications..”. Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether their views are correct or not.
Really? I need to rely on credentials provided by con-artists to evaluate a con? Logic and research aren’t enough? 1 measly degree C over a hundred years is a climate disaster? “Unprecedented warming” in our age when there is ample evidence that it was warmer in various historical periods were humanity flourished? Coerce trillions from the world’s people in order to reduce the ‘world’s temperature’ by a tiny fraction of a degree? Nonsense. A science award from a elementary school is the minimum amount of credentials needed to smell out the Climate Emergency hysteria.
Mosher-
Contrary to what academics believe, one does not have to publish to be a scientist. However, one does have to publish to become a tenured professor (even in Grievance Studies). So it is easy to see how you might be confused.
All I can say is… real science comes back to bite the “scientists” in the butt. Love to see it.
Dated (2012) letter but still pertinent. And thanks to engineers our modern society is
prosperous and safe (transportation, energy, food, water & sewage, etc) so their voices
should be heard. If only our politicians would listen to the people who actually make things work.
Engineers don’t do magical thinking. IIRC Google engineers tried to tackle CO2 climate change
in one of their “X” projects ~2010 or so, and quietly shuttered it when the results didn’t meet the
approved eco-theology meme.
But some good news from NASA:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Why not update the letter, attach the old letter as an exhibit, and add new signatories to the updated letter?
Why is the letter so old? It’s dated 2012.
Willis is just offering a reminder of how much BS is the current level of climate alarmism.
Real scientists and engineers a few years ago recognized the scam that is climate change.
Willis is just offering a reminder of what they wrote to remind newcomers. Nothing has changed.
Climate change is still the Trojan Horse hustle on the middle class’s wealth and liberties that it was in 2012.
Because it is the best this team has. Seriously sad…..
You are equally sad. Apart from a snide remark what have you got to offer? Nothing. Go away.
mikebartnz
What have I got to offer? A level of reason. This is nothing more than the regurgitation of an old letter written by people who have little or no expertise in the field. Sure they may be scientists, but look deeper and you will find they are all (almost) conservative old men concerned more with their fear of having their freedoms compromised by the need for action, than the actual science.
Climate science has moved on so much from here, this letter is really nothing more than novelty value (a look back at a moment in time). Next we will see the good old Oregon Petition.
“A level of reason.”
Of basically ZERO. !!
“Next we will see the good old Oregon Petition.”
32,000 signature.. no wonder you don’t want to see it.
You really have absolutely NOTHING to base your “Slimon” comments on, do you. !
Your comments are like a slug trail.
Fraud250
“You really have absolutely NOTHING to base your “Slimon” comments on, do you. !”
Tell me where I am wrong, then we can start a conversation?
This time, you seek foundation of your argumentation using priming and framing:
“conservative old men” is a typical expression used in that context. One can also keep
going with “brown, n..i, racist, etc…”, just about anything one can thrown in to discredit
the opponents. If you’re qualified in literature, then it’s best you stay in that field. Scientifically, it’s at a bottomless level comparable to John Cook.
Tell me where you are correct.
It would be a first.
50 real NASA scientists, wo did more than just tamper with weather data…
….. 32,000 other scientists
Poor simple….No wonder you can do nothing but try the slime.
Conservative old men that actually had a proper SCIENCE or ENGINEERING education..
…. which you and most climate scientists sadly lack.
and who actually accomplished something.
What have your so-called climate scientists accomplished other than farcical un-validated models and data corruption?
Simon
“Climate science has moved on so much from here…”
How and what direction? Climate”science” has been standing still all these years. It has not evolved a bit. It´s just same old, same old. And with this time frame, it has devolved from nothing to not even that.
Simon, that old letter from real professionals is much younger, than your same old, same old. Climate science has moved on and your weak argument has not.
We don´t need opinions, we need proofs. And those are things which you don´t have.
“Climate science has moved on so much from here”
Yep its now degenerated into far-left socialist anti-science political thuggery.
“Climate science™” left the realms of real science ages ago.
What have your so-called climate scientists accomplished other than farcical un-validated models and data corruption?
Well, they’ve managed to suck lots of $$$ from the government teat. And that’s pretty all they’ve succeeded at.
Translation: I am so impressed by myself that I’m surprised that everyone else doesn’t see it.
So I’ll just go around insulting those who disagree with me, safe in the knowledge that I am the smartest person in any room and don’t have to actually read anything that I disagree with.
Notice how simon is all whiny about his belief that those who disagree with him are mostly conservatives. That’s all you need to know about why simon also backs the climate scam.
Fred, you will find that simon never backs up his posts with actual data, though he often whines that others don’t provide enough data to satisfy him.
He just assumes that everything he says is true and anyone who doesn’t agree is just not as smart as he is and can be ignored.
Since you have offered nothing but snark and denigration towards those who disagree with you, there is nothing to prove wrong because you haven’t managed to make a statement that is disprovable.
If climate science has moved on, why can’t they decrease the level of uncertainty regarding ECS?
They have.
The most advanced and comprehensive analysis of climate sensitivity yet undertaken has revealed with more confidence than ever before how sensitive the Earth’s climate is to carbon dioxide. The new research, revealed in a 165 page, peer-reviewed journal article finds that the true climate sensitivity is unlikely to be in the lowest part of the 1.5-4.5°C range.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019RG000678
If we are to judge the scientists who have “experience in the field” by their highly inaccurate models, I think we would find that no one has any useful experience in the “field” of climate science. No one with an ounce of reason, or a knowledge of physics, or statistical analysis, should believe in “man-made global warming”.
I tried to convince a (relatively intelligent) co-worker yesterday that the Vostock ice core data, which shows the atmospheric content for the last 500k years, demonstrates clearly that CO2 lags behind temperature by thousands of years… and he was unwilling to even concede that point. This is a fairly well established fact at this point. Likewise, he is unable to acknowledge the flaws in the statistical measurement of average temperature for the planet. Don’t get me started on the lack of ability of CO2 to even operate over a wide enough IR energy band to make any noticeable difference when compared to water vapor. He refuses to see the facts.
At this point, with so many people “refusing to see”, it’s quite scary.
See this:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/
and
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html
Jack proclaims that they have decreased the ECS range estimates, then gives the same old range estimates. It doesn’t take much to impress Jack.
I’ve read the new scientist article, and it’s garbage. No wonder Jack is so impressed by it.
“They have.”
Utter BS from Jack, yet again…
The whole load of steaming bullcrap in his linked paper is built around models upon models and backed up with a load of scientifically unsupportable assumptions.
How such a load of meaningless technicolour psuedo-science excrement ever got through publication is the real question that needs asking.
Present some actual scientific evidence, Jack-ass,
….. or just keep up the mindless prattle.
They have.
Really?
1.5-4.5°C range.
So not really after all.
Simon: “Climate science has moved on so much from here”
Not really. The estimate for how much warmth a doubling of CO2 will add to the Earth’s atmosphere has been stuck at between 1.5C and 4.5C for decades.
He is back…are you the same Simon who was telling us Trump should not have closed borders with China?
Or wait…were you telling us he didn’t do it Fast enough?
Or was it he hasn’t done anything 😉
Ahhh the Covid
Derg
One more time. Of course he should have closed the borders…. it was a sensible thing to do. But he makes it sound like he was a trend setter. He wasn’t, everyone else was doing it. He was a bit slow if anything.
Oh now he was right, but he makes it “sound” like he is trend setter…got it. He can never do it right….
I should go back and look. I wouldn’t be surprised if you weren’t calling him a xenophobic. I think that’s your game.
Simple Simon confirms, Joe Biden was “of course” wrong to say that it was racist and xenophobic to ban travel from China.
Some progress.
Rich, you’d think that’s a sign of progress. And for a rational person it would be. But leftists like Simple Simon don’t care that their statements today contradict their statements yesterday. So they can happily say Trump is Xenophobic and racists for his travel ban then later claim the ban was “a sensible thing to do”. They can claim he did nothing followed by claiming what he did do didn’t go far enough. Pointing out their contradictions is just proof that you’re a bad guy that needs to be cancelled.
Simple Simon
Are you going to be a part of the welcoming committee? I understand that a delegation of African health experts are coming to the US to help us de-politicize our ChiCom Virus response.
Since many African nations have per capita death rates that are 50-100X lower than US, UK and many European death rates; their experts feel they owe an explanation to the world and the poor benighted Western nations who seem to be incapable of providing advanced medical to their citizens! You KNOW it can NOT be due to the widespread use of hydroxychloroquine, because President Trump touting it means it must be ineffective and probably dangerous to boot!
Maybe the data from Switzerland will shed some light on the subject; but since it shows a clear correlation between HCQ use and a 75% reduction in fatality rates it’s got to be wrong! Maybe their climate scientists “adjusted” the data to perpetuate a hoax to discredit Trump for ever speaking of a possible benefit!
Yeah, climate science has moved on alright! It’s been pushed off the cliff by the cult of Climastrology and falling rapidly to a deadly deceleration in funding for hoaxers!
He did close the borders. BTW, your fellow socialists were condemning him for closing the borders when he did, claiming that it was an over reaction.
Derg, for a socialist, right and wrong are determined by what best advances their agenda.
Derg
Nope never called him xenophobic. He is a terrible racist though. “Shit hole countries” anyone?
How is it racist to accurately (even if not nicely) describe the sad state of those countries? Would you want to live in any of them? If not, why not? Could it be because they *are* shitholes? When you are willing to move to one of them, then I’ll take your defense of them as not being shitholes seriously.
And empty snark is all you’ve ever been able to add to any conversation. Seriously sad …
MarkW
“And empty snark is all you’ve ever been able to add to any conversation. Seriously sad …”
Why is it you always think someone with a different opinion to yourself is being snarky. You must have such a low self esteem. Did your mother not love you?
I stand by all I have said here. This letter is so old it should be in a museum, yet it is held up here like it is the gospel truth. Only one reason why…. it is all you have.
Poor simple.
We are STILL waiting for evidence from you.. Seems you have NONE. !
… other than mindless prattle about the people who put man on the moon not knowing anything.
Its obvious that you skipped most science classes in junior high, and have the scientific knowledge of a dead mullet are are just as slimy on the outside.
March 28, 2012?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/
What do these guys know about climate? A lot of them are only rocket scientists.
You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Anyways, I would put any highly trained expert especially ‘rocket scientists’, as having the capability to discern the multitude of disciplines that go into climatology. For that matter, how can one climate scientist with their expertise in one of many disciplines make them experts in the entire field? That would apply to both sides of the debate in climate science. Many here have no degree in climatology or in anything relevant and yet know a lot of things about many things including climate science.
The other major factor I would ascribe to this declaration is that they were retired when they signed that letter, and not subject to retribution for being on the wrong side of a cabal of certain scientists, politicians and media who have a vested interested in continuing the scare for their own benefit, whether that be more climate grants, news sensation, or collecting carbon taxes and implementing control over the populace in their energy usage. Or worse, use it to implement socialistic marxism.
The fact that they would sign their name to such a letter speaks volumes, especially given their wisdom from a long career in the space program and not subject to extortion style tactics, which is all ‘official’ climate science can offer. In fact, many of these so called climate scientists (especially newly minted ones) don’t even practise science in coming to their conclusions.
Ouch – that must’ve burned!
Best remark of the thread, Malcolm.
49 NASA Scientists Tell The Truth
“NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position…”
No, they’re expressing a mistaken opinion, there is nothing “exteme” about NASA’a position it’s the mainstream position of EVERY science organisation around the world.
“Truth”?…more like: out of thousands of NASA employees, a very small number of the Republican voters amongst them were willing to sign on to a political statement. They are the extremists.
Says the extremist in residence, you are not worthy to comment on anything they say, a peanut butter sandwich is more qualified to talk about the subject than you are, all you do is regurgitate what your masters tell you. BTW a peanut butter sandwich also provides more value to society.
Loydo gets his ‘science’ from the hotwhopper blog.
‘Nuff said.
Her.
Mr.
I thought he got his ‘science’ from his paymaster in the Chinese military intel service! You mean he does all his work pro bono? At least that would mean he’s getting fair value!
Poor loy-doh
STILL hasn’t realised that climate science is NOT based on any actual real science.
That is what the NASA scientists are talking about.
They are asking that the current NASA pleds stop making scientifically unsupportable statements.
Yes, in the current NASA it is extreme to expect things to be based on ACTUAL SCIENCE.
Your point is made.
loy-doh realizes that his argument is political, that’s why it claims that it’s opponents are all Republicans.
Has he actually checked the voter registration of those involved? Of course not.
Not a single one of those so called scientific organizations polled their members before putting out a position on climate change.
Anywho, I find it very interesting how loydo assumes that anyone who disagrees with his religion must be a Republican. Just goes to show you the political nature of loydo’s position.
That is a flat out lie. The APS polled their members as did others.
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201403/climate.cfm
To poll your members, you have to actually read what they write.
Markw
Or should I say “Make it up Mark”
Your link, from 2014 says:
“The standing policy of the Society is to review its statements every five years. The Society first adopted the climate change statement seven years ago [2007], but appended an addendum in 2010. The review also coincides with the release of the latest report on the physical science basis of climate change from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
The APS did not abide by its own standards wrt its climate change statement.
Also from your link:
“We’re not rushing this. Climate science and climate change will be around a long time and we want to get this right before sending it out to the membership for review and comment,” Jaffe said.
To paraphrase … we rushed it before and now we need to massage it to make it appear that we are getting it right (since we are not following our own standards).
Jack, you are an incompetent ass.
The APU sent their draft out to members for ‘review and comment’. That’s not a poll. When and were did the members get to vote?
I’m sure you meant to say they are the honest ones. But your fingers must have hit all the wrong keys. Understandable, happens to the best of us. Except Mosher, he’s got a brain the size of a planet.
He has had a chair specially made for him, so as to be able to accommodate his enormass intellect.
Praise those who are brave enough to stand up and voice their honest opinions.
So many “scientists” are too afraid to be heard…with good reason. The AGW crowd will come after them and get them fired. The only way to re-balance science is for large numbers of people to stand up and be heard.
NASA must be cringing in embarrassment right now. So many of them are smart enough to know that AGW is nothing but hyperbole.
Powerful statement
Bad links.
In the list of signatories there are links to Business Insider. I followed the one for the Pogo Prevention Program. As far as I can tell, there’s nothing about that on the linked page.
Here are a couple of actual Pogo links:
Pogo Prevention Program.
Pogo instability
I am not a scientist, and I don’t like to fight over this climate issue. If the CO2 is to blame then lets affordably take the CO2 out of combusted fossil fuel exhaust and turn the CO2 into good paying full time jobs and money instead. If it does not go into the atmosphere will these environmentalists then be happy? https://youtu.be/RQRQ7S92_lo It’s a simple fix and it also does Direct Air Capture. And it can create water.
It is even worse than that. People who publish papers do not always (or even often) reasonably understand the full scope and effect of their topic, and often make wrong statements, but the many (but not all) poor peer reviewers don’t catch that, especially if the paper is biased in a direction they support. I have written and had peer reviewed many technical papers, and been a peer reviewer on many, in several fields, and know the limited value of peer review. The present back and forth of discussion like we are making in these blog comments often do a far better job of reviewing a paper.
Not fighting for the truth results in corruption and eventual dictatorship. Direct air capture is very expensive and would do more bad than good (plants need the CO2). CO2 at levels to 1,000 ppm would be even better, but 400+ is OK. Less means less crops. Simple fixes often are bad if you misunderstand the real problems. I could not give a hoot about making happy many of the “so called” environmentalists (who generally are not even real environmentalists, they often take the wrong end of real issues). The production of a few jobs taking that direction would also cut 10 times as many good jobs working in the energy and mining industries. Net negative and disruptive. New technology will naturally eventually replace oil and coal and gas due to eventual depletion of sources, but pushing for change before real new technologies are ready would be a disaster. Nuclear, Rossi’s e-cats, Mills Hydrino, and new batteries are already promising, but it is still too early to jump . Wind and solar are bad choices, but have a limited value at present.
In the past, Sid’s name was on the company that was pushing this scam. So the odds that Sid is part of the corruption is pretty high.
Sid, just how much have you invested in this scam?
Before we spend trillions of dollars, why don’t we first determine that is actually a problem.
Your cure is worse than the disease.
Wasn’t NASA all about flying / launching / jettisoning things around ?
How come it became a leading chapter of the greenology church ?
Atmospheric studies is the first of NASA’s mandates.
The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
https://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.html
Then why can’t the current mob present any actual evidence or science to back up the very basis of the rancid “belief” in AGW?
You certainly can’t. All we get is empty non-science links that you have never read or understood.
The is at a level even you could understand:
https://youtu.be/uqwvf6R1_QY
ROFLMAO.. a non-science based propaganda rant pertaining to nothing.
If this is your idea of science, for kiddies…
A compendium of anti-science nonsense.
… . no wonder you can’t support even the most basic facet of the AGW farce with any actual science
Another unsubstantiated, vacuous assertion..
You post a child’s video, which is purely propganda BS and nonsense..
…. as though its something meaningful..
Are you really that DUMB.!!
Are you really that intellectually bereft ???
From The Royal Society of the UK and the US National Academy of Science.
You might even be able to understand this; I did.
https://royalsociety.org/-/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf
No , you only pretend to understand…. it is written for the non-thinking, non-science AGW apostle.. so you st lap it up.
It presents all the lies and propaganda of AGW..
1…
Faked temperature series that don’t match reality
NH s cover is actually increasing
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1
Model assumption driven OCH..
Yes, planet has warmed, thank goodness,
.. why not mention that the LIA was the COLDEST period in nearly 10,000 years
No acceleration in SLR at any tide gauge in the world.
2, 3, Contains no science or data whatsoever.. garbage
4…. Lack of understanding of solar and cloud influences.. gobble it up Jackass..
5. Vertical structure is PROVEN by balloons to be in thermodynamic equilibrium..
…. this MEASURED FACT absolutely destroys the CO2 warming myth.
6.. gibberish propganda.. based on nothing by suppositories.
7.. Current levels of atmospheric CO2 are just above the MINIMUM to sustain life on Earth. Life on Earth developed when CO2 levels were MUCH higher.
8.. More anti-science gibberish , based on nothing but assumptions.
9.. How would they know.. they have a tainted manipulated ex-data set, with little resemblance to reality. That data USED to show that 1900-1940 warmed faster than the recent El Nino bumps. The only warming in any reliable data shows that warming has come ONLY from those solar charged El Ninos.
10.. yet more gibberish based on mantra…
So really Jackass.. you ave just swallowed that load of GIGO without a single scientific reflection or thought…
That is because YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE of applying scientific thought to anything.
Just swallow and regurgitate all the garbage…. poor Jack. !!
Vacuous
So, still nothing in the way of real evidence…
You shouldn’t self-describe your posts.
We can all see they are truly empty. !
And yes jackass, your links do appear to be totally VACUOUS.
Thanks for pointing that out..
…. but we already knew.
Vacuous
Indeed, Jack, you post and links to kiddie-level propaganda are. Glad you recognize that. Perhaps there’s hope for you yet.
mikebartnz
What have I got to offer? A level of reason. This is nothing more than the regurgitation of an old letter written by people who have little or no expertise in the field. Sure they may be scientists, but look deeper and you will find they are all (almost) conservative old men concerned more with their fear of having their freedoms compromised by the need for action, than the actual science.
Climate science has moved on so much from here, this letter is really nothing more than novelty value (a look back at a moment in time). Next we will see the good old Oregon Petition.
Lol….climate science keeps on changing. Settled science indeed 😉