NASA Scientist Declares Self Anthropogenic Climate Change Skeptic

[Captain X]

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - Says Hansen "Embarrassed NASA"

Theon declared “climate models are 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.

Emphasis mine, and this is just a short snippet of the whole thing. It and the information that is linked to throughout make for some interesting reading.

Edit: Bugger, could I get a mod to correct my title typo? "Self" should come right after "Declares".

 

[RJDiogenes]

Very strange article. The title is phrased to trick readers into thinking James Hansen has declared himself a skeptic. The guy says "climate models are useless," which is on the same level as saying Evolution is false. He says:

“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.

Without explaining how he knows this if it's such a big secret, or hinting at what these manipulations are. He says:

They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists.

And yet the work has been done independently all over the world. And he keeps repeating "anthropogenic;" does this mean he recognizes the problem of Global Warming, but just doesn't like the idea that Humanity contributes to it?

I am skeptical of his skepticism.

 

[MIB]

My favorite part is where it claims that there is no ocean warming. Largely because the link that was included in that statement links to, not an actual science site or anything, but someone's blog. And even then, the blog doesn't say "there is no ocean warming" but that the readings for it had been smoothed out a bit with new data so the record doesn't show huge, inconsistent spikes like it did during the 70s and 80s.

 

[JoeZhang]

colour me confused - is it common for, what appears to be, official government websites to do used for really low quality atttempts at journalism?

 

[Lindley]

It sounds to me like he's merely dissatisfied by the lack of scientific exactness in the whole thing, which frankly I agree with----the entire debate has become far too political.

 

[Captain X]

That's the biggest bone I have to pick with the whole debate, too.

 

[CinC_UFPForces]

colour me confused - is it common for, what appears to be, official government websites to do used for really low quality atttempts at journalism?

This is actually press release issued by the minority staff of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works; by minority staff, I mean those committee staff employed by the Republican members of the committee to perform their committee-related responsibilities.

As you'll notice, the press release was posted on the committee-related blog of the ranking member (most senior member of the minority party on the committee), Sen. James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma.

For those unfamiliar with the man, in sum, Senator Inhofe is probably the Senate's most vociferous and...colorful...denier of global warming. He's known for alleging that global warming is a ratings-driven creation of The Weather Channel, for referring to the Environmental Protection Agency as a "Gestapo bureaucracy" and to former EPA director/current Obama energy czar Carol Browner as "Tokyo Rose," and generally for intertwining his denials of climate change with the kind of socially conservative rhetoric so popular during the Bush administration.

As chairman of the EPW committee between 2003 and 2007, it was on Inhofe's watch that the Bush Administration was able to edit and withhold for political purposes government reports on the health and environmental effects of climate change, as testified to by former Surgeon General Richard Carmona, Dr. Hansen himself, top Bush administration climate official Rick Piltz, and of course many others.

I'll avoid the discussion as to whether the climate change debate has become too political, but I submit this background by way of pointing out that the content in the original post comes from the most political source imaginable - and one which has made a career of denying climate change science.

 

[trekkerguy]

colour me confused - is it common for, what appears to be, official government websites to do used for really low quality atttempts at journalism?

Them and FOX.

 

[Captain X]

denier of global warming.

And this is a prime example of how Anthropogenic Global Warming (a term now rendered inaccurate thanks to the cooling for the last 8 years) is more about politics than science. In science, there are no "believers" (which is ironically enough a religious term) and "deniers" (which is a thinly-veiled comparison to Holocaust deniers, which is on about the same level as PETA comparing chicken farms to the Holocaust), there are proponents and skeptics.

for referring to the Environmental Protection Agency as a "Gestapo bureaucracy"

It is. Haven't you had many dealings with the EPA? It's not as bad as the IRS can be in its unthinking totalitarian enforcement of arbitrary laws it comes up with itself, but it's still pretty bad.

 

[Daedalus12]

It sounds to me like he's merely dissatisfied by the lack of scientific exactness in the whole thing,

That reminds me of a quote by one of my professor.

"A good assumption for a 747 fuselage is that it can be modeled as a cylinder but then again a horse can also be modeled as a cylinder".

 

[CinC_UFPForces]

denier of global warming.

And this is a prime example of how Anthropogenic Global Warming (a term now rendered inaccurate thanks to the cooling for the last 8 years) is more about politics than science. In science, there are no "believers" (which is ironically enough a religious term) and "deniers" (which is a thinly-veiled comparison to Holocaust deniers, which is on about the same level as PETA comparing chicken farms to the Holocaust), there are proponents and skeptics.

for referring to the Environmental Protection Agency as a "Gestapo bureaucracy"

It is. Haven't you had many dealings with the EPA? It's not as bad as the IRS can be in its unthinking totalitarian enforcement of arbitrary laws it comes up with itself, but it's still pretty bad.

It's extremely intellectually dishonest to bemoan the "political" nature of the debate over climate change while you work actively to politicize the debate. That's exactly what you're doing here, and it's what you were doing with your original post by presenting a political and unobjective source of information as if it were apolitical.

Thankfully, responsible actors are now in place with the awareness, capacity, and commitment to address the crisis that is climate change. The fact that those responsible actors were elected in a landslide probably had something to do with these kind of intellectually dishonest rhetorical tactics.

Besides, it's always bad practice to defend the use of Godwin's Law.

 

[Captain X]

It's extremely intellectually dishonest to bemoan the "political" nature of the debate over climate change while you work actively to politicize the debate. That's exactly what you're doing here, and it's what you were doing with your original post by presenting a political and unobjective source of information as if it were apolitical.

No, pointing out something as unscientific does not make me unscientific, just like pointing out bigotry does not make me a bigot. So, do tell, just what spin do you suppose could have been put on the story of this scientist coming out and saying he's a skeptic of the "official" stance on climate change? Unless they deliberately misquoted him, I doubt it would be significant enough to invalidate what he's saying as far as how unscientific proponents of anthropogenic global warming are, how data was falsified to meet predetermined conclusions, how inaccurate the models are, and how the experiments that have been said to have been carried out are can't be replicated, etc.

Thankfully, responsible actors are now in place with the awareness, capacity, and commitment to address the crisis that is climate change.

Unfortunately a lot of them actually are actors.

The fact that those responsible actors were elected in a landslide probably had something to do with these kind of intellectually dishonest rhetorical tactics.

I can't help but note the irony of you complaining about how I'm supposedly making this political for pointing out how your terminology is a great example of how much more political than this debate is, then proceed to talk about politicians being elected to "address the crisis that is climate change". You gave me lulz, thank you.

Besides, it's always bad practice to defend the use of Godwin's Law.

1) Where did I ever call anyone a Nazi or compare them to Hitler?

2) If you;re referrring to the reference to fascism, such comparisons are warrented, sorry, so you don't get a free pass there.

 

[CinC_UFPForces]

No irony, Captain X. I didn't bemoan the role of politics in this discussion; the science is sufficiently conclusive that it stands quite independent of the politics. Politics has been an effective means of allowing the people, duly informed, to hold to account those who've obstructed and obfuscated that science for eight very, very long years.

Elections have consequences, as they say, which is why the leading denier of global warming in the United States Senate is posting to the committee's minority blog.

 

[Captain X]

the science is sufficiently conclusive

Actually, it's not, which is why there still is a debate going on, regardless of what Al Gore or anyone else may tell you.

that it stands quite independent of the politics.

Correction: political aims have propped up the anthropogenic global warming theory as a means to meet ends.

Politics has been an effective means of allowing the people, duly informed, to hold to account those who've obstructed and obfuscated that science for eight very, very long years.

It's the latest "in vogue" thing - just put "green" in front of something and everyone will buy it. And when it isn't enough to make people feel politically correct, guilting them works well enough for some - certain religious institutions know how well that can work.

Elections have consequences, as they say, which is why the leading denier of global warming in the United States Senate is posting to the committee's minority blog.

Oh, look, you used a political term to describe science, and insulted everyone who died in the Holocaust while you were at it.

If anything, politics has kept more from coming out and exposing the inconsistencies in the anthropogenic theory of global warming.

 

[RJDiogenes]

No, the data is solid. The only debate is coming from religion-fueled politics. It's the same kind of people who find "inconsistencies" in the fossil record.

 

[Hoser]

Religion fueled?
Considering that even Pat Robertson himself is funding global warming initiatives, I don't understand where religion popped up?

I think you'll find that the soul of the matter lies smack in the pocketbook. As in 'There's a few guys who think we aren't doing anything, so why should we stop polluting?'

 

[RJDiogenes]

From what I've seen, the contradictions almost always come from the religious Right. What kind of study is Pat Robertson funding? He's probably going to produce a scientific-sounding report that concludes Global Warming is not anthropogenic.

 

[Hoser]

No, he announced it on the 700 club, that with the caps melting etc. that we need to cut back on things like fossil fuel usage.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/03/robertson-global-warming/

There was even a commercial, with him, Gore and Al Sharpton sitting together.

http://www.takepart.com/blog/tag/pat-robertson-global-warming/
I saw it in a magazine, cracked me up I wanted to clip it out.

There's actually quite a few religious groups out there who want to fight this thing. Like I said, this follows more along the lines of money than religion, politics more than God as well. It's the religious Limbaughmatons that tend to follow the road you mention.

 

[Captain X]

The only religious zeal is coming from the more fanatical supporters of anthropogenic global warming - they refuse to tolerate other views, they treat anyone who disagrees as if they were a heretic, they refer to themselves as "believers", and they even have indulgences in the form of "carbon credits."

And unless you can show some connection between religion and the growing number of scientists coming out and saying the IPCC is wrong, then frankly you're out of line, RJDiogenes, as you well know I'm hardly the religious type.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ I follow science news pretty closely, and I'm not aware of any growing number of scientists contradicting anthropogenic Global Warming.

No, he announced it on the 700 club, that with the caps melting etc. that we need to cut back on things like fossil fuel usage.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/03/robertson-global-warming/

There was even a commercial, with him, Gore and Al Sharpton sitting together.

http://www.takepart.com/blog/tag/pat-robertson-global-warming/
I saw it in a magazine, cracked me up I wanted to clip it out.

There's actually quite a few religious groups out there who want to fight this thing. Like I said, this follows more along the lines of money than religion, politics more than God as well. It's the religious Limbaughmatons that tend to follow the road you mention.

Well, good for Pat Robertson. He deserves credit not only for making the statement, but for working well with others. He sets a good example here.