The debunking isnt over yet:
James Hansens Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - Says Hansen Embarrassed NASA, Was Never Muzzled, & Models Useless
Quote:
Washington DC, Jan 27th 2009:
NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gores closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.
Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASAs 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, Hansens supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,
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.
End Quote.
Link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/
Then there is this from J. Scott Armstrong, founder of the International Journal of Forecasting. He states there is no scientific basis for forecasting climate and that the IPCC violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting. Many of you are always touting the sanctity of science and its methods, how do you react when those methods and principles are violated?
Quote:
Today yet another scientist has come forward with a press release saying that not only did their audit of IPCC forecasting procedures and found that they violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting, but that The models were not intended as forecasting models and they have not been validated for that purpose.
End Quote. Link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/
I found this interesting:
2. Improper peer review process.
To our knowledge, papers claiming to forecast global warming have not been subject to peer review by experts in scientific forecasting.
Peer Review, the sacred cow of those who insist we do not question. Some will immediately jump on the to our knowledge comment, but the point is made.
Apparently proponents of spending billions, or brazillions, or whatever amount, on combating pacific ocean oscillations or the sun can give over 1400 interviews on the subject but still whine that they were stifled.
Quote:
A NASA scientist who said the Bush administration muzzled him because of his belief in global warming yesterday acknowledged to Congress that he'd done more than 1,400 on-the-job interviews in recent years.
James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who argues global warming could be catastrophic, said NASA staffers denied his request to do a National Public Radio interview because they didn't want his message to get out.
But Republicans told him the hundreds of other interviews he did belie his broad claim he was being silenced.
"We have over 1,400 opportunities that you've availed yourself to, and yet you call it, you know, being stifled," said Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican.
End Quote.
Link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/mar/20/20070320-120435-3136r/
Poor guy.
James Hansens Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - Says Hansen Embarrassed NASA, Was Never Muzzled, & Models Useless
Quote:
Washington DC, Jan 27th 2009:
NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gores closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.
Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASAs 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, Hansens supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,
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.
End Quote.
Link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/
Then there is this from J. Scott Armstrong, founder of the International Journal of Forecasting. He states there is no scientific basis for forecasting climate and that the IPCC violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting. Many of you are always touting the sanctity of science and its methods, how do you react when those methods and principles are violated?
Quote:
Today yet another scientist has come forward with a press release saying that not only did their audit of IPCC forecasting procedures and found that they violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting, but that The models were not intended as forecasting models and they have not been validated for that purpose.
End Quote. Link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/
I found this interesting:
2. Improper peer review process.
To our knowledge, papers claiming to forecast global warming have not been subject to peer review by experts in scientific forecasting.
Peer Review, the sacred cow of those who insist we do not question. Some will immediately jump on the to our knowledge comment, but the point is made.
Apparently proponents of spending billions, or brazillions, or whatever amount, on combating pacific ocean oscillations or the sun can give over 1400 interviews on the subject but still whine that they were stifled.
Quote:
A NASA scientist who said the Bush administration muzzled him because of his belief in global warming yesterday acknowledged to Congress that he'd done more than 1,400 on-the-job interviews in recent years.
James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who argues global warming could be catastrophic, said NASA staffers denied his request to do a National Public Radio interview because they didn't want his message to get out.
But Republicans told him the hundreds of other interviews he did belie his broad claim he was being silenced.
"We have over 1,400 opportunities that you've availed yourself to, and yet you call it, you know, being stifled," said Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican.
End Quote.
Link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/mar/20/20070320-120435-3136r/
Poor guy.
Upvote
0
