James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic
Via WattsUp (link fixed)
NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s 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, 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. [Note: NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his dire climate warning, his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear, and his claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite doing 1,400 on-the-job media interviews! – See: Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom – Get the Facts on James Hansen – UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says ‘lock up the oil men’ – June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for ‘high crimes against humanity’ for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008 ]
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.
Related – “The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.”
(Heh)
“When a maladjusted dog barks all day and night, week after week, interrupting the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it’s time to muzzle it.”
I see. So anyone who disagrees with you cannot be classified as a human. If the human classification does apply, then your solution is to strip him of his right to liberty. A bit rabid, but typical of people who preach freedom of speech but want nothing more than to silence those who dareth disagree.
“Freedom of speech does not extend to “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre”
Slippery slope there. Very slippery slope. Its only a matter of time before some demented HRC lot go and throw a line like that at Mark Steyn. Oh wait, they already did. Emulating the scum seems to be the flavor of the day.
Simone BC, thank you, it was an interesting read. I rarely pay attention to the Global Warming debate – I couldn’t be bothered. It was the muzzling statement that caught me off guard and prompted a response.
The way I see it, all thats happened here is that one guy took one stand, his supervisor took another, and everyone here wants to believe that the supervisor is right because his views are compatible with their own. Who is right? I don’t know. Agreeing with the “bright” minds on this website does not neccessarily make one correct. He’s simply validated the viewpoint of some here, but he could have his own agenda.
As someone here pointed out, follow the money. THis fella may well be getting kickbacks from industrial leaders for debunking global warming. After all, it is easier to issue a kickback than it is to upgrade all your technology and factoies.
Related
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/UsTF3KX-The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle
The people who are being muzzled, with few exceptions, are those who disagree with the climate change crowd. When’s the last time you saw a documentary or a science show that wasn’t pushing global warming, with absolutely no opposing view. For heaven’s sake we’re even seeing it in commercials, like the Johnson wax company, where they climb aboard the fear wagon to hustle their products.
Does anyone really think that Theon will get any major ink or airtime in the MSM? Like hell.
The warmists are still winning because of politics and fear.
An alternative simple explanation. NASA as info but this is the simplest minus soul transverse.
The Earth revolves once around the Milky Way galaxy approximately every 228 million years. This could be called the Galactic Cycle.
The completion of one pass of the precession through all 12 signs of your zodiac represents one Grand Cycle of approximately 25,920 years.
Once every Grand Cycle, the elliptical pattern traced by the toroidal core returns to its “starting point.” The number of ellipses traced during a Galactic Cycle will approximately equal 228 million divided by 25,920, or a little over 9000 Grand Cycles. Just in case you still haven’t been able to visualize this, think of one of those drawing tools you have that creates spirals and doodles, and imagine a series of small circles orbiting about a large circle (or actually spiral).
Now suppose you wanted to know how often the core of the Earth will line up with the exact center of the galaxy. This exact lineup might only happen once every 228 million years times 25,920 years (a very large number between five and six trillion), because the smaller cycle (precession) does not divide evenly into 228 million (the galactic cycle).
http://www.salrachele.com/webchannelings/foundersontheprecessionandgalacticcycle.htm
While I am interested in the science and in the modeling techniques, my real concern is policy. Specifically, at what level of scientific certainty does it make sense to make policy?
The alarmists tend towards the so called precautionary principle by which if there is a chance – however remote – of a bad outcome that chance must be taken seriously. Those of us who are more skeptical tend towards a more modest cost benefit analysis where the chance of a bad outcome is measured against the costs of attempting to avoid that outcome.
Where the difference between the two positions is most apparent is that the alarmists must have a bad outcome to power their agenda. An 80% reduction in carbon emissions over 40 years cannot be justified if the projected increase in average world temperature is .1 degrees Celsius per century. So moderating the worst case scenario in the face of contradictory evidence is really not an option for the full on alarmist.
On the other hand, the skeptic’s position is not wedded to a particular outcome; rather the skeptic can adjust his policy position in light of the science without any loss of credibility.
To see the difference: imagine that present cooling continues – can you imagine Gore or Suzuki or Hansen putting out a press release saying they were wrong? Not a chance – they would immediately announce this was further proof of climate change. Their world views are too deeply entrenched to change.
Skeptics, on the other hand, would continue to look at the science and consider why cooling was occurring. The idea being to actually learn more about the process of climate without having any fixed conclusion as to outcome.
NOTES FOR THE CO2 FEARMONGERS
1. There is solid evidence that global temperatures correlate to the suns activities and not to variations in CO2
2 Where is the irrefutable evidence that AGW has caused an increase in global temperatures? There is none.
3. The earth has gone through many cycles of ice ages and interglacial periods where glaciers and icecaps retreat as has been occurring for most part of the last several centuries. Taking this into consideration, what could have been the cause of the previous interglacial periods, certainly it was not AGW when there were few humans on the earth to have generated the CO2?
Where is the logic? There is none.
4. Supposedly the melting of the Arctic’s glaciers and ice cap have doomed the polar bears yet obviously the previous interglacial melts did not wipe out these bears, how could this be? It didn’t’t happen, the bears adjusted, this is evidenced by the carbon dating of old bear skulls from earlier eras and ice ages..
5. Since it is a fact, proven beyond any doubt that CO2 concentrations much higher than we have in today’s atmospheres (IE 1500 ppm as opposed to the current 350) enhance vegetative growth, how could anyone but an idiot advocate that we reduce the CO2 content in our atmosphere? Al Gore, David Suzuki, Green Peace, the Pembina Institute, IPCC and unfortunately thousands of others. In doing so they are in reality advocating less vegetation on the planet,(including that which we eat), and higher levels of starvation. Reducing CO2 to stop global warming, makes as much sense as reducing oxygen in the atmosphere to slow down corrosion of metals.
6. Many global warming fear- mongers advocate that CO2 be declared a “toxic gas”. In fact CO2 is only so slightly toxic at higher concentrations, well beyond any conceivable level ever in our atmosphere.
It is however fertilizer for plant growth and a requirement for photosynthesis of plant life, thus without it, human life on this planet would cease to exist, no different than without oxygen.
7. Many parts of the world are now experiencing their second cold, harsh winter in a row, in many cases record cold including much of North America, Europe and even South America. It seems to have a quieting effect on the AGW fear mongers, obviously the pendulum is now swinging the other way yet they would still have us “reduce our carbon footprint”.
8 If CO2 did in fact cause global warming and there is absolutely no solid evidence that it does, we should be increasing CO2 as much as possible to prevent the next ice age.
9 With this winter being a relatively cold one, we will hear more and more from the fear mongers about “climate change” and less about “global warming”.
They seem unaware of the historical fact that the climate has always been changing and always will be.
10. AGW is on it’s way to becoming the biggest hoax of the century.
One reason and one reason only why the obvious scam has “succeeded” this far – the media. It is and will pay dearly.
erwin – thanks for your outline. Very good.
Those people, such as John Cross, who reduce a complex system such as the climate to a heavy focus on one cause, such as AGW, are scientifically incorrect. You can’t reduce a complex system.
Furthermore, as you point out, such a reductionism, which ignores complexity, ignores that the biological organisms on this planet will adapt to changes in the attributes of this complex system. So, IF there’s more CO2, plant growth will increase. IF seeds are larger because of this, bird beak size will increase. And so on.
The real cause of the theme of AGW has nothing to do with objective reality but with the humanist notion of Sin, Human Sin. Focusing on Human Sin as causal of the Evils of the World is an ancient pyschological characteristic of our species.
Another psychological characteristic is the idea of retribution from On High, whether that be the Gods or All-Powerful Nature. Put the two together and you have AGW: human evil is causing an apocalyptic end.
Disagree with this view, and you are told that you are aligned with Sin (usually defined as Big Oil or Big Corporations or ‘Industrial Leaders’). After all, in this Calvinist ideology, making money is considered a sin.
So, the AGW theme is fading as its lack of scientific methodology and evidence is becoming more obvious. I wonder what new apocalpytic Sin we’ll be faced with next?
Now that this
Goreacle’s Footprint: But, this is anecdotal evidence.
…-
*”19 Dead as Snow and Ice Cover 1,400 Miles (killer winter storm)
ABC News”
“Gore Calls On Lawmakers To Curb Carbon Emissions, Support Fiscal Stimulus
(RTTNews) – Always willing to speak up on the issue of global warming, Nobel Prize winner Al Gore testified before former Senate colleagues Wednesday, urging action on carbon emissions. The former Vice President told lawmakers on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that actions must be taken “this year” to cut down on carbon emissions.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2173623/posts
*http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2173621/posts
I must admit being sad about disillusionment regarding my childhood ideals. I remember thinking that the Olympics was a representation of the zenith of human spirit – then realized that it was all a money corrupted event.
Same thing about the Nobel prize – once you peek behind the curtain, you see that all of these organizations, competitions, and theoretically ideal pursuits are underpinned by weak and ordinary human beings.
Don’t think Gore and the IPCC will return their Nobel – but really – will they be remembered in 50 years, as with previous others in that illustrious pantheon?
Yes, it’s nice to see this guy coming out and dumping on that fraud Hansen, but I have a question.
Where the hell has he been for the last decade?
Answer – well, for a sizeable part of that decade he was Hansen’s direct supervisor and thus responsible for Hansen’s professional output and his professional conduct.
If he truly believed that Hansen was cooking the data and violating basic scientific principles with his AGW bull, then he should have fired the twit. Or at the very least called him on the carpet, and publicly denounced the fraud from the beginning.
One of the reasons this scam gained so much ground was that it wasn’t cut off at the knees on Day One. And Theon could have done that.
But instead, he continued to give Hansen all the money he wanted, and let him spin his yarns without any criticism – until he himself had retired with his pension safely secured. Sounds like a lot of others we’ve heard of, who kept quiet as long as there was any risk of consequences from speaking the truth.
An honest scientist bucking the system? Not really. When it comes to standing on principle in spite of potential risk, he’s no less a whore than Hansen.
Yes, it’s nice to see this guy coming out and dumping on that fraud Hansen, but I have a question.
Where the hell has he been for the last decade?
Answer – well, for a sizeable part of that decade he was Hansen’s direct supervisor and thus responsible for Hansen’s professional output and his professional conduct.
If he truly believed that Hansen was cooking the data and violating basic scientific principles with his AGW bull, then he should have fired the twit. Or at the very least called him on the carpet, and publicly denounced the fraud from the beginning.
One of the reasons this scam gained so much ground was that it wasn’t cut off at the knees on Day One. And Theon could have done that.
But instead, he continued to give Hansen all the money he wanted, and let him spin his yarns without any criticism – until he himself had retired with his pension safely secured. Sounds like a lot of others we’ve heard of, who kept quiet as long as there was any risk of consequences from speaking the truth.
An honest scientist bucking the system? Not really. When it comes to standing on principle in spite of potential risk, he’s no less a whore than Hansen.
John Cross @11:54 “…, since I say it routinely it should be fairly easy to produce an example – so please provide a reference for where I have said this!…”
Ahhh, you got me!!! You have never specifically said the words in my post …tells us the science is settled (or with no error worth mentioning).
What have your said on many occasions is your three points and you suffer no criticism of them. Your three points are geared to just one conclusion, the science is settled.
So, I will ask for forgiveness in erroneously paraphrasing you if you recant and admit that the science is most clearly NOT settled.
Your move…
The MSM has always been a quarter to a half generation behind reality.
The simple fact is that universal condition of humanity is hubris.
There is a million reasons to call BS on the scientists as they don’t know a thousandth of what they think they do.
There is zero proof any scientist or group of scientists knows their own arse from an asteroid when it comes to mathematically describing the colossal system which is the earth.
There are people who spend their whole careers on small questions like ocean currents of a small geographic area using fluid dynamics.
We can’t predict such complex systems accurately. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking the economy, mass behaviour of humanity or the planet. Thinking otherwise puts your intelligence into question.
Frenchie77
Trying to talk Cross out of his religion is no different than trying to talk a muslim terrorist or one of those southern baptists with the snakes out of theirs. It can’t be done cause they ain’t listening.
Not only will global warming go down as one of the biggest scams of the 21st century I also think Gore will one day be charged under the Rico Act. Time will tell.
Posted by: Warwick at January 28, 2009 3:51 PM
“arse from an asteroid”
Another good point on the NEO plotted earth close approaches. Did NASA or Harvard factor in the space dust that the earth has now entered. Science must adapt to new ideas or change.
Yes, but James Hansen isn’t heading up Obama’s enviro team is he?
We have local newscasters (BCTV and Global) who give one-sided news reports. They’re pro-global warming)-in other words cheerleaders. It appears that these broadcasters sincerely hope to see the province swallowed up by the Pacific Ocean. Balanced news isn’t part of their vocabulary; and they’re so, so smug about this issue.
I’m waiting for Hanson to cut and run.
He’s on borrowed time now and the consequences for him are not going to be good.
Also sincerely hoping that there will be retribution doled out in plenty on Gore and Suzuki.
When the dust is settled where will the John Crosses be?
Hanging around blogs claiming a bunch of lying liars (that’s be us) caused the truth to be buried.
I can hardly wait.
Frenchie77 you said “if you recant and admit that the science is most clearly NOT settled.”
I can not recant what I have never said! I have said that the three points I post form the starting point of the discussion of global warming and I have said that they are “From a logic and scientific point of view they are as close to rock solid as you can get in science.” Of course as many here are fond of pointing out, science is always changing since a new observation can cause an old theory to die and be replaced by a new (and better) one.
In addition, once we get past those points, there are areas where there is still a huge amount of debate and discussion in the scientific community. So I don’t think the science is settles and have never thought so.
So where does that leave us. You are in the habit of making very specific accusations against me that have no basis and when I ask you to back them up you ignore me and say I don’t answer your questions. Let me put it directly to you once again – you said that I do not answer questions put to me! Can you back this up? You also say I said the science was settled – again can you back this up?
Your move!
John
ET: your understanding of evolution appears to be as good as your understanding of global warming. You can take that to mean what you wish.
Regards,
John
Dr. John S. Theon, retired, needs not to worry about political correctness or money supply.
James Hansen, still working, depends on the scientology™ to get well paid.
You do the extrapolation.
[quote]We can’t predict such complex systems accurately. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking the economy, mass behaviour of humanity or the planet. Thinking otherwise puts your intelligence into question.[/quote]
Warwick,
That’s not a good scientific conclusion; of course real science is capable and will construct climate simulators, but not this group of fakers, nor by using pure mathematical calculations based on a single “number” of limited meaning. We have built some very complex simulators in the past! Think about the Military Power that a man-made climate control solution would bring the USA. As ridicules as it sounds we could sell these useful idiots on a race for total Climate Control.
The AGW is driven by Social Engineering & lazy Scientists that have done nothing in thier worthless careers, but now seek even greater notoriety within the group, behind the beard of others.
Gore today used the “Climate Change” word instead of Global Warming and, between his delusional utterances, admitted that the world is not burning up but the climate will be changing (read California)… W.T.F. He throws the AGW Science under the BUS but wants money and regulation for doing absolutely nothing.. The New Gore position is the same as the old Gore position, but he and the Dem’s now have “cover” of the natural Climate Change. They must have money for Gore in the stimulus plan!
BTW: The Obama group considers scientists that don’t support AGW as been Republican.. That means, to me, that they know that the communists are the leading AGW supporters.
I know it is like arguing with a wall, but the aim is to help others note AGW logic!!
So, what exactly are these 3 points, well in your own words:
1) We are responsible for the current increase in CO2.
2) CO2 will absorb and then re-emit longwave radiation.
3) If you shine longwave radiation on something it will warm (or cool less quickly).
So, these three points are …as close to rock solid as you can get in science…(John Cross@8:11)
Now, you say that these are just the starting points for discussion, but how can that be? You’ve got a cause, a method, and a result all tied up here. Seems to me that that “science is settled” is exactly what you are trying to claim, albeit you leave plausible deniability with your starting point crap!
If you didn’t mean this to be definitive proof of AGW then your three points are meaningless and you are knowingly ignoring more important factors.
In order words, you are misleading the debate!
However, as I said your three points are false anyways and as such, nothing more than scientific noise!
In order words, you are misleading the debate with fallacies!
You then go on to say: “…once we get past those points, there are areas where there is still a huge amount of debate and discussion in the scientific community. So I don’t think the science is settles and have never thought so…”
In other words, you are misleading the debate with fallacies while attempting to cover your ass by stating you’ve been misunderstood!
A perfect AGW zealot if ever there was!
Note: I won’t be able to post anymore to this thread before it closes, see you at the next AGW thread!
Frenchie77: As always I am very happy to let the statements I make stand for themselves and for others to decide. So in that spirit ….
The three points that I use as the basis are solid science but are not all the science or the end of the science. What they show is that if we add CO2, we would expect warming. Nothing more and nothing less.
You seem to be criticizing me for not presenting all the science! First, we do not know what all the science is so that is pretty hard to do. Second, there are literal tens of thousands of papers and documents on the physics, chemistry, biology and observations. I have tried to condense what I consider the fundamental to 3 points consisting of 30 words. It obviously comes as a shock to you that I was not able to include all the science, but I expect most reasonable people would understand.
I also note that you keep saying that my points are false without presenting any evidence that they are. You commented above about sources and sinks as if it was something new when in the past I have showed you how my points accounts for the various sources and sinks.
However this seems to be your pattern – you like to provide assertions without backing them up. I note that you have not even tried to back up any of your assertions about what you have said about me.
I am disappointed since in the past you have actually tried to look at the science without trying to attack me personally or make things up. Hopefully, when we meet in the next thread you will be more willing to look at the actual science.
John
Phillip G. Shaw
“climate simulators” are not facts. The only thing they do (and this is true of any computer model) is to test assumptions to give you the consequence of the assumed relationships and data. It doesn’t tell you, nor can it, whether your assumptions are correct or if you’ve missed something. You may test to see if your results correlate with real-life observed data but it won’t tell you if that correlation is spurious or not. You can have results which mirror past data which are still invalid and will not be accurate predictors of future events. More to the point, these particular computer models suffer from the fact they don’t even “explain” the IN-sample data the models where based on. The models don’t even work.
Add to that the fact that the sensitivity of each variable is likely to be high and the availability of perfectly accurate data which would not throw those sensitive relationships is zero and it isn’t surprising why these “scientists” are completely full of it.
Not only do these sad excuses for scientists not know jack, they aren’t even competent enough to know what they don’t know.
John Cross
Instead of mealy-mouthing around the issue, declare your view now.
Do you, or do you not proclaim that the science is “settled” and if not, then explain what you believe the consequences of that would be to public policy.
John Cross,
You have absolutely no solid evidence that CO2 increases are causing global warming, if there is how do the CO2 fear-mongers explain:
1. That the contrary has been taking place now for several years IE global cooling and increases in CO2.
2. It has been proven by countless researchers that global temperature changes precede CO2 increases, not the reverse as your AGW fear-monger friends preach.
3. CO2 has long since been proven to be plant fertilizer not to mention a prerequisite for photosynthesis. Without CO2 all plant life will cease and it follows that all animal life will also subsequently cease to exist.Why is it then that you and your ilk would have us reduce the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere and in doing so will reduce the amount of vegetation on the planet?
4. The whole premise of the global warming nonsense is that AGW is caused by CO2 increases. Yet the same global warming fear- mongers cannot explain how it is that in every previous interglacial period there were few if any humans to have caused “man made” CO2 increases, or the AGW increases. The fear-mongers have no logic. The hockey stick is dead.
5. It is such an irony to see Al Gore trudging around Washington in the ice and snow preaching about global warming and that we are getting close to ‘the world coming to an end’.
The fraud of the century is becoming the hoax of the century unfortunately a whole generation of our youth have been brainwashed and John you seem to be typical of that, so it will be some time before the fraud is exposed but it will eventually become obvious.
Warwick,
If we just classify the new US climate simulators “Top Secret”; John Cross and his ilk would suffer instant whiplash.
Ugly is good! When you are dealing with stupid.
When did he become a sceptic? This info was around at the beginning of this new religion. Now that the tide is turning towards the truth he jumps on board
Erwin:
1) Climate is generally taken to be a 30 year average. If you look even at 10 year averages – let alone 30 year – you see the rise very clearly. If you wish I have an excellent link that looks at the statistics of it.
2) What people have said very clearly is that there are multiple drivers of climate. See your #4.
3) Additional CO2 will not cause much of an increase in C4 type plants. There would probably be a better increase in C3, but unless there is adequate fertilizer the nutritional density of the food decreases. What elevated CO2 will do is reduce transpiration loses since plants can close their stomata more.
4) Here you make a very definite statement in that you imply that because ice ages come and go there is no logic. I would direct you to look at Milankovitch cycles which are cycles in the Earth’s orbital mechanics that allow the sun to shine on the earth differently at different times of the year. If you look at the timing involved, it is very clear that it is strongly linked.
5) Well I confess that the crushing jaws of logic contained in this statement leave me with no reply to make 😉
In regards to being a brainwashed youth – don’t I wish. However I am part of the older generation these days. I was the last group of students to still use sliderules. I still have my K&E sliderule but I don’t use it much these days.
Regards,
John
John,
You do not understand.
First it was “global warming”, then when the global temperatures went into recession for the past few years, it became “climate change”, now we see Mr. Gore who would rename it a “climate crisis”.
This “climate change” that you fear mongers talk about as being a relatively new phenomena, is not at all new. The geological community have for more than a hundred years been studying the history of the planet’s climate and have long since been aware that the world’s climate has always been changing, it is changing now and it will always continue to change; and you, Suzuki and Al Gore will not be able to change the climate or the rate of change of the climate. You and your fear mongering friends may spend us into being a third world nation but the climate will continue to change regardless.
As I said you do not understand some of the fundamentals. You speak of the temperature rising,(but over a thirty year time frame) so what. This is as I said not a new phenomena. If the temperature had not risen at the end of the last glacial period we would still have a mile of ice over our thick sculls, we would not be in an interglacial period. People look at glaciers and are alarmed that they are receding. Well those same glaciers have been receding for over a hundred years, they will continue to recede until we enter into another glaciation period which may be ten years away, maybe a thousand or even 10,000 years away. You, Suzuki or Gore do not have a clue when it may be. Surely you are not so naive as to think that for much of the last century, or for any of it, that the galciers have remained static? Personally I prefer the glaciers to be receding than to be building. I can understand Gore’s ignorance on glaciers being as he is from Tennessee, but how about you, do you not live near any?
You speak of different drivers of climate change, what you fail to point out is that of all of these so called drivers, there are none which man can control and none that we understand and none that we have proven to the point that wew can with confidence piss away our economy on some ridiculous experiments, we have much to learn before we should turn the likes of the current fear mongers loose on our very naive and gullible society. And there may be many more. In any event, while it is interesting, there is no evidence whatsoever that we humans can control or will ever control climate change. Where is the evidence- there just isn’t any. You would have us cut carbon usage to the point that we do severe damage to our society which is taking place in many European countries. Germany as an example bought hundreds of millions of dollars worth of “carbon credits” from China. The Chinese were expected to retrofit some old, high emission coal fired power plants with the carbon credit money. Well the Chinese spent the money on new generating stations, BUT, they didn’t use new, low emission technology, they used old, lower cost, high emission technology. The end result- Germany takes an economic bath; and the world significant increases in global carbon dioxide. But more important were the increases in particulates and other actually harmful gasses such as NOX, CO and SO2, I wouldn’t worry about the CO2. Now you don’t probably believe this however National Geographic did a year end show a couple of years ago which related to this story. They spoke of tracking visually, a cloud of particulates all the
way from China to northern California.
Sure John, clean up the air to a practical affordable level of actually noxious products such as particulates, NOX, CO and SO2 but stop worrying about the CO2. I have a green house and I would like a low cost source of CO2 such that I could have my green house atmosphere at about 1500 ppm CO2 not the measly 350 that we now have.
John I have had much experience with CO2 and it is for the most part fraudulently claimed to be toxic. For the most part, it is only so slightly toxic at very high concentrations, in fact it is not toxic in the normal sense. It should be viewed as the worlds natural fertilizer. We need more of it, not less. It is a pretty pathetic world when many would have CO2 declared to be a toxic substance and would in reality reduce the world’s vegetation (food supply)by cutting the CO2 in our atmosphere. One day but unfortunately not in the very near future, these clowns -Gore, Suzuki, Cross et al will realize their mistakes.
As to you not being young, naive and brainwashed; how do you explain being old, naive and brainwashed. Falling for Al Gores pathetic reasoning is akin to falling for a snake oil salesmen’s pitch during your youth. Along with your old slide rule do you still have some of the snake oil that you bought during your era, early last century?
Erwin: you started off by stating You have absolutely no solid evidence that CO2 increases are causing global warming, if there is how do the CO2 fear-mongers explain: You then listed 5 points. I believe that I have answered your 5 points. Is there something in the 5 that you did not understand or that you disagree with?
Most of what you say is a rehashing of your points without reference to my comments (eg sugarcane and maize). However you do make one specific point when you say in regards to the next ice age: “You, Suzuki or Gore do not have a clue when it may be.”
I do not speak for Mr. Gore or Dr. Suzuki, but for myself I have read this paper and consider it to be fairly good so I would say I do have a clue (no sliderule or snakeoil necessary for this one).
Regards,
John
By the way, if anyone is still following this, some people have been put forward and it makes interesting reading. For example, Dr. Theon actually retired about 15 years ago!!
John