Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Hansen’s former boss at NASA declares himself an AGW skeptic


The video below is U.S. Senator James Inhofe describing the letter he received from former NASA supervisor and senior atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon:

[youtube pAgN3jYgX4w nolink]

For the EPW press release on this

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic

Follow the link above for a full discussion with links to many additional sources of information. Here I’ll just reprint the actual emails sent by Dr. Theon:

—–Original Message—–
From: Jtheon [mailto:jtheon@XXXXXXX]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:05 PM
To: Morano, Marc (EPW)

Subject: Climate models are useless

Marc, First, I sent several e-mails to you with an error in the address and they have been returned to me. So I’m resending them in one combined e-mail.

Yes, one could say that I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation. He 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). He thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.

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. 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.

With best wishes, John

From: Jtheon [mailto:jtheon@XXXXXX]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:50 PM
To: Morano, Marc (EPW)

Subject: Re: Nice seeing you

Marc, Indeed, it was a pleasure to see you again. I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that Global Warming is man made. A brief bio follows. Use as much or as little of it as you wish.

John S. Theon Education: B.S. Aero. Engr. (1953-57); Aerodynamicist, Douglas Aircraft Co. (1957-58); As USAF Reserve Officer (1958-60),B.S. Meteorology (1959); Served as Weather Officer 1959-60; M.S, Meteorology (1960-62); NASA Research Scientist, Goddard Space Flight Ctr. (1962-74); Head Meteorology Branch, GSFC (1974-76); Asst. Chief, Lab. for Atmos. Sciences, GSFC (1977-78); Program Scientist, NASA Global Weather Research Program, NASA Hq. (1978-82); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch NASA Hq., (1982-91); Ph.D., Engr. Science & Mech.: course of study and dissertation in atmos. science (1983-85); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics, Radiation, & Hydrology Branch, NASA Hq. (1991-93); Chief, Climate Processes Research Program, NASA Hq. (1993-94); Senior Scientist, Mission to Planet Earth Office, NASA Hq. (1994-95); Science Consultant, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (1995-99); Science Consultant Orbital Sciences Corp. (1996-97) and NASA Jet Propulsion Lab., (1997-99).

As Chief of several NASA Hq. Programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research. This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles. I hope that this is helpful.

Best wishes, John

Joseph, That information is available at RealClimate and from NASA, and it does seem a recent study has taken the nail back out of the coffin. The temperature has warmed about .7 F since the industrial revolution. With melter glaciers and the retreat of sea ice at the poles and record heat waves in Europe and structures released from ice in the Alps not seen in 20 thousand years, it does seem something is going on. All this was rapid. And heavy snowfall indicates more vapor in the air--just as the AGW models predicted long ago. Hold the digging, as the body of AGW is not dead yet. The whole bruha over Antarctica allegedly warming up was due to data that was ignored and has now been congealed. http://www.wtop.com/?nid=220&sid=1581107 S Wakefield Tolbert
SWT, I have yet to see any data which demonstrates less than 500 parts per million can do what you and your ilk say it is doing. Nothing, nada, zip, zilch. Venus is NOT warmed by parts per million. And no one has ever published any data which demonstrates wht the Earth's temperature SHOULD be. Again nothing, nada, zip, zilch. Another big ZERO. Joseph
Tolbert re; acidification of the ocean Acidophiles will grow in number and acidophobes will contract. We once thought forest fires were a bad thing because they killed off so much of the extant flora and fauna. Turns out forest fires leave behind an environment that allows different species their turn at bat. Undoubtedly, since the CO2 content of the atmosphere has been far higher for far longer in the earth's history, there will be some acidophiles that have been patiently waiting for their turn at bat and when their turn comes they will flourish in the niche left behind by the acidophobes. The eco-freaks are a strange lot. With one hand they wish for diversity but with the other hand they wish to continue the status quo. You can't have your cake and eat it too! DaveScot
Well Borne, I can't speak for all the personal agendas of those involved. An excellent though slightly dated book by now entitled Rational Readings in Environmental Concerns (edit. Jay Lehr)is outmoded on some of its technical observations, but has an excellent taxonomic rehash of how the enviro movement started, and pours over the ideas that led to what appears to be in some cases a sophisticated move to deny the very efficacy of Western Civilization. I believe it to be accurate, so I am sympathetic to your statements on agendas. However, While some seem to have some kind of "ecosopher" and radicalism evident, this is hardly true across the board. I don't agree with many statements made, for example, in SciAm, and certainly not when they venture into dark allys like in the recent issue where they interview some kind of law professor named Carl Sunstein, who wants people to "shame" their neighbors into "going green" and acting with Eco consciousness. That's an agenda(of something...semi-Orwellian Nannyism, one guesses), its absudist, as was his book called Republic.com (which charges that in the information age the Net actually leads to a narrowing of views rather than an expansion of inquirey, and thus should be regulated..) http://brian.carnell.com/articles/2001/does-the-internet-lead-to-a-narrowing-views Others, no doubt of some Marxian bent(and admittedly this latest administration is set on stricter enviro policy while he rides a white unicorn spreading Hopey Changemas gold dust on his flock below on earth, because of such notions of man hurting earth, etc.), will find favor with AGW to yet again explain to us why we need more non-elected government busybodies/panels/oversight agencies to manage our lives. I dare not doubt that. I get it. I dig. I see what you're layin' down, brother. Whether the agenda is payoff, prestige, power, or just some extra money in the kitty. My background is political science and Western political philosophy. As a social conservative and sympathetic witness to both ID and Faith, and practitioner of capitalism and guns and fishing and doin' what you please on your own 40 acres with your mule, I am rare in that regard to boot. Your chances of finding a social conservative who went to a liberal urban college unscathed (but then again...?) with that track and not business, is about on par with winning the Powerball lotto 6 times in a row. So I understand your concerns about the goals and ideology of the AGW stumpers. But when they stick to the numbers, they do just dandy. And so far we see an Antarctic on the thaw at the edges and an Arctic that, overall, is thawing out too. Also from above, winter weather does not contraindicate warming elsewhere. Lastly, no word yet from the Doubters about the damage from acidification of the oceans. I promise that topic will come around again. Also, it is myth that there was any large movement in the 1970s claiming that an ice age was around the corner. I DO recall the Newsweek article and the shiny glossy foldover in my Scholastic Reader from that time showing photos of snow blowing among the palm trees in Miami. (just dated myself on that one). But some kind of consensus this was the case? No. S Wakefield Tolbert
Dave, What's the current buzz on John Coleman? His article must have caused someone to spew insults directed his way. Truth being more ridiculous, at times, than fiction, this story rings true. Joseph
S Wakefield Tolbert: One need not be a scientist to see the hype and tripe in the AGW scam. All you need is to look at the data - for example HADCRUT yearly global temperature charts and the like. The data showed a .6C cooling in 2007. Similar trend in 2008. Thats a very large drop so quickly! Mars also warmed up during the same period as earths warming. Is that anthropogenic too? Solar activity is now the major suspect for warming. In 1974 Time published articles by scientists claiming a new ice age was imminent - then the warming trend started. Lessons? 1. Don't trust what media bobs say scientists are predicting 2. Don't trust what some (even if a majority) scientists are saying anyway - without waiting for proof. 3. Don't trust scientists with personal agendas -­> As Indiana Jones would say, "fortune and glory Shortstop, fortune and glory". Borne
As I said earlier on another thread: As to the “650? scientists–(why) are veterinarians included in this tally, just as that mystic “17,000? signitories referenced John Stossel’s famous story about all those AGW deniers in one of his books. Are engineers, economists(!?), statisticians, physicians, TV weathermen, and others, really reknown for any special insight on what climatologists have known for decades now? And more than a few made up names as well, according to some reviewers... They are not climate scientists, and most are not even scientists at all. Yes, economist Paul Krugman needs to shut his mouth about AGW and just about everything else outside his speciality. Which is quite a bit, come to think of it. But likewise the Cato Institute and and other economists don't need to sign their names to "science protester" type documents and catcalls just the same. People with economic and ideological interests need to get out of the kitchen regardless of losing or winning some bounty due to government micromanagment over AGW. I think this is more than reasonable. No? Moreover, in response to how cold it seems these days, the Southeast USA is quite warm right about now. Shirtsleeve weather great for tossing the football and washing the car yesterday. Winter has all manner of odd occurances that as a whole cannot be said to be contraindicative of an overall trend in warming. And yes, I'm well aware of the recent report that came out saying that the oceans seem to be cooling, in part due to rapid ice melt. (try this in the bathtub--works there too...) However, one topic not seen mentioned by the Doubting Thomas websites on AGW is this whole other issue of the acidicication of the oceans, which might turn out to be just as deadly to sea life than slight warming. (extra carbon causes water to slowly become acidified, like a fresh Dr. Pepper!) Millions of people depend on the relatively free bounty of sea life for sustanence. This increased acidification due to extra carbon absorption could be as dangerous to sea life even if the water is colder than a brass bra. S Wakefield Tolbert
Check out this article on the history of the global warming scam: http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html DaveScot
My biology teacher suggested today that, based on a newspaper article, it will take at least 1000 years to reverse all of the damage that mankind has done to the atmosphere (if we stop damaging it right now). I partly wanted to bring up this info, about NASA's former boss, to his attention, and also tell him of the recent 650 scientists that said that AGW is a myth popularized by the media. But then I realized I might want to stay on his good side. I'm not sure if he's going to like objections I might bring up during our studies on "evolution". :P Domoman
I am sure that if a model is programmed with the assumption that a 100ppm increase of CO2 = X amount of temperature increase, then if you increase the CO2 the temperature will follow... Joseph
How many more of these do we need?
I suspect quite a few more before the deaf and blind mass media bozos finally figure out that AGW is a cruel, ridiculously expensive and scientifically bankrupt hoax. And while we still hear the ubiquitous media blabber on AGW (now called 'climate change' to make the obvious facts of global cooling sound less suspicious), it's been freakin' freezin' here in Quebec lately with regular -30C (-22F)lows. Go figure. Borne
Nail, meet coffin. How many more of these do we need? JamesHip

Leave a Reply