Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.
“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.
“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote.
He's also less than enthusiastic about the climate models being used, calling them "useless":
“My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.
Theon is just one of a growing number of scientists adding their voices to the skeptic's list:
The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. Reports from the conference found that Skeptical scientists overwhelmed the meeting, with ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC.
[...]
In addition, a 2008 canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.
"Settled science?" Hardly. And getting more unsettled as the days pass. And yes, there are peer reviewedarticles and analysis which are cutting into the "science" of AGW.
Frankly I think the Al Gore AGW nonsense is in deep scientific trouble as more and more scientists join the increasing ranks of the skeptics. The trick, however, is to get the blinders off the media. Until that happens, the politicians will continue to think the underlying "science" is solid and settled and will cap-and-trade us into bankruptcy.
Getting those blinders off the media may be difficult since there is a large "save the world" streak running through contemporary journalism. As we've found out in many cases, subject matter expertise isn't at all a requirement for journalists when writing about something. Instead it is the agenda which takes precedence. It's more important that they have passion and "care" about something than get the facts right. After all, if they're wrong, who gets hurt with a "cleaner world"?
And, of course, there's the funding dilemma which still exists which is equally based on an agenda. For all the talk about returning science to its proper place by the incoming administration, it seems science is still for sale and will gladly find for the agenda of whatever agency is funding it.
Those are two pretty big obstacles yet to be overcome, but this growing groundswell of scientific skepticism is heartening to see. Perhaps it will be enough to overcome the pseudo-science that has pushed us to the brink of committing ourselves to financial ruin over nothing. We'll see.
Al Gore has a carbon trading firm that will make him a fortune so we know where his motives lie.
I think however, that most of the scientists that follow AGW are victims of their own noble cause corruption. Many probably are so far down the path that they cannot look into an alternative explanation. AGW is science’s Enron.
"My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit," Theon explained.
Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.
The trick, however, is to get the blinders off the media. Until that happens, the politicians will continue to think the underlying "science" is solid and settled and will cap-and-trade us into bankruptcy.
I think it’s important to note here that it’s not just the news media, but all media, including movies, TV, radio, Madison Ave., and even educational programming. The threat of cataclysmic AGW is taken as an acceptable principle and tossed around in blasé fashion, as if "well, everybody knowns that’s the case, don’t they?" The Lysenkoism of this particular subject has been deep and pervasive. Moreso than Stalin could have ever dreamed.
The journalists don’t understand mathematics. First, as noted, they don’t understand the manipulation of the statistics. Then they misunderstand the magnitude of the expense benefit ratio. If AGW were the problem the proponents claim, we couldn’t afford to fix it anyway.
I propose we shut down the newspapers, first. Save the trees, starve a journalist.
Perhaps it will be enough to overcome the pseudo-science that has pushed us to the brink of committing ourselves to financial ruin over nothing. We’ll see.
And here I thought you were much more realistic than that. My prediction? I made it a few months ago:
By 2011 Al Gore will be traveling the planet warning us that CO2 is bringing about the coming ice age.
And since Gaia hates Al Gore, wherever he goes it will be 20 degrees above average.
Well, I take this news as an extremely positive development in the recent trend of rising AGW skepticism.
The good news, is that people are noticing the Apocolypse predicted for the last decade by Hansen, Gore, Mann & Suzuki is simply not happening.
My hope is that in time, they will fade into obscurity with all the rest of the end-of-the-world cultists, once it becomes clear the Emperor has no clothes.
