NASA "scientists" talk about global warming epidemic danger

They speak for themselves: more climate chaage athiests.

So long as you keep it in your bubble you can believe whatever baby crap you want.

This has nothing slander and political straw men. - That’s not science.


Wanna Debate?

<div id=“post-body-7542994626096122904” class=“post-body entry-content”>
<div><b>(Sd3) Mr.GOP don’t buy Jim Steele’s Fraud - LandscapesAndCycles</b></div>
<div><i>My FourCornersFreePress column wasn’t the place for a line by line response, but I did want to write one up to help me gather my thoughts before composing my column. I’m sharing it here, because this version gives me another opportunity to share all sorts of valuable supporting evidence. I’ll be posting the FCFP column itself in a week or so.</i></div>
<div><b>Climate Science isn’t Settled, by Mr. GOP</b><b> </b></div>
<div>Four Corners Free Press - Letters to the Editor, March, 2018</div>
<div>Mr.GOP takes issue with “We need real dialogue about climate” by Peter Miesler.</div>

  1. Mr.GOP: It seems that the "science" is settled.
<div>Damned straight, the fundamentals are as settled as the promise of tomorrow morning's sunrise! I wonder what the scare-quotes are for?</div> <div></div> <div><b>The fundamentals of our <i>global heat and moisture distribution engine</i> and society’s influence are </b><b>well understood</b><b>!</b> The explainable known physical certainties far outweigh the remaining uncertainties!</div> <div></div> <div>Tragically the well understood certainties are constantly being deliberately ignored or lied about by contrarian types, thus our Mr. GOP winds up profoundly ignorant of down to Earth physical processes. Here’s a sampling of that climate science.</div> <div></div> <div><b>‘Climate models are unproven’ ? </b><b> </b><b> </b></div> <div><b>Actually, GCM’s </b>(Global Circulation Models)<b> have many confirmed successes under their belts.</b><b> </b></div> <div><i>By </i><i>Coby Beck</i><i> on Nov 20, 2006</i></div> <div></div> <div></div> <div>… <b>In 1988, </b><b>James Hansen</b> of NASA GISS fame predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official “coming out” to the general public of anthropogenic global warming.</div> <div></div> <div><b>Twelve years later, he was </b><b>proven remarkably correct</b><b>, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo. …</b></div> <div>Putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant model predictions made and confirmed:</div> <div></div> <div><b> • models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been </b><b>observed</b><b>;</b></div> <div></div> <div><b> • models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree — but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been </b><b>observed</b><b>;</b></div> <div></div> <div><b> • models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now </b><b>observed</b><b>;</b></div> <div></div> <div><b> • models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has </b><b>been detected</b><b>;</b></div> <div></div> <div><b> • models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;</b></div> <div></div> <div><b> • models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and </b><b>this is indeed happening</b><b>;</b></div> <div></div> <div><b> • and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct. …</b><b> </b> (Read the full article for the details)</div> <div></div> <div>2) Mr.GOP: The author has used one pro-global warming expert.</div> <div></div> <div>This is pure political nonsense.</div> <div></div> <div>To say Dr. Trenberth’s talk, or my column, is one person’s opinion denies the truth that we are sharing the collective understanding of a global community of experts.</div> <div></div> <div>Dr. Trenberth was describing the distillation of the combined work of many generations and tens of thousand of scientists world wide.</div> <div></div> <div>“Pro” global warming? Mr. GOP’s unhinged politics is showing. Please GOP, get real! Nobody with any appreciation for this climate monster we have unleashed is “Pro warming.”</div> <div></div> <div><b>Dr. Trenberth and the community of scientists are Pro Science! Science is about Pro Truth and Pro Learning by assessing the data to the best of their understanding and abilities.</b></div> <div></div> <div>UQx Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science Denial</div> <div></div> <div><iframe src="" width="480" height="270" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div> <div>Published on Aug 24, 2015</div> <div></div> <div>Prof Alley discusses the motivation of scientists.</div> <div>Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate?</div> <div></div> <div>3) Here’s my expert for rebuttal: <u>Landscape & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism</u>, by Jim Steele.</div> <div></div> <div>Amazing, “here’s my expert,” Jim Steele. Seriously? Jim? Expert? Boy would I like to hear GOP’s definition of what an expert is. Anyone who says what one wants to hear, is an expert? Is that how it is?</div> <div></div> <div>Lets do an experiment, Go ahead and Google Jim Steele and see what comes up, then try Dr. Kevin Trenberth. Ah ha, right at the top,</div> <div></div> <div><b>Kevin Trenberth’s education:</b></div> <div>Sc.D Atmospheric Science/Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1972</div> <div>B.Sc HONS First Class Mathematics, University of Canterbury, 1966</div> <div></div> <div>Research topics include:</div>
  • Interannual variability of climate and El Niño
  • Climate change and global warming
  • The heat and energy cycles
  • The water cycle and atmospheric moisture budget
  • The mass of the atmosphere
  • Datasets and reanalysis
  • The global climate observing system
  • Hurricanes and climate change
<div>One area of greatest impact has been in resolving outstanding issues concerning the global heat and energy budget of planet Earth. He has improved estimates of heat, energy and water transports within the atmosphere to a point where, when combined with top-of-atmosphere observed radiation, they now provide estimates of ocean heat transports as a residual that agree well with directly observed values. …</div> <div></div> <div><b>Kevin Trenberth’s Publications:</b></div> <div>The total from November 2016 is 62 books or book chapters, 257 journal articles published, 4 submitted, 23 technical notes, 120 proceedings or preprints, and 81 other articles, plus 4 videos, for a total of 543 publications plus 4 videos and many blogs.</div> <div></div> <div>On the Web of Science, there are over 29,160 citations and an H index of 78 (78 publications have 78 or more citations). On Google Scholar, there are over 61,255 citations and an H index of 103 ( or 68 since 2012) …</div> <div></div> <div>Now try “<b>Jim Steele </b>- scientist", hmmm, nothing. Jim Steele the wrestler, no, the British Officer, no, at Wiki, nothing. Oh wait, here we go.</div> <div></div> <div>Jim Steele, the ex-camp director for the San Francisco State College’s Sierra Nevada Field Camp, bingo. A trail guide for college students, a bird watcher of some local repute, a general biology education, nothing of distinction. Though he makes much of his "instructor emeritus" status.</div> <div></div> <div>Repeated searches at Google Scholar for Jim Steele show nothing, because it seems he’s never done real science, though I know he’s read a bunch, as have I, but than I don’t claim to be smarter than the experts. <i> </i></div> <div></div> <div><i>If anyone claims Jim has a peer reviewed paper in a real science journal, please do share a citation in the comments. </i><i> </i></div> <div></div> <div><b>So my question:</b> By what sort of standard does Mr. GOP equivocate this scientific nothing Steele, with Dr. Trenberth, a man of proven extraordinary intelligence who’s accomplished outstanding pioneering science in an incredibly complex scientific field?</div> <div></div> <div><i>{Incidentally </i> "Landscape & Cycles" <i>was GOP's spelling, a simple but revealing oversight. From his other words I suspect Mr. GOP's appreciation for our planet's complex biosphere doesn't get any deeper than the film on a soap bubble, so that "Landscape", "Landscapes", makes no difference. Tragic.}</i></div> <div></div> <div>4) Mr.GOP: Excellent book with ample references to support his arguments.</div> <div></div> <div>Hmmm, considering “expert” means nothing to Mr. GOP, it’s no surprise “excellent” is equally misused. Jim does weave many good yarns, I’ll give him that. It’s the disregard for truth and hiding the complete story that I find contemptible.</div> <div></div> <div><b>In a nutshell, Jim Steele proposes that landscapes and natural cycles are more powerful drivers of global warming than our insulating atmosphere and humanity’s profligate fossil fuels burning that continues adding extra GHG insulation at a frightening rate. </b></div> <div></div> <div><b>Jim’s intellectual underpinning is his self-certain, yet never explained opinion rejecting CO</b><b><sub>2</sub></b><b> science. He maintains it's a hoax with political underpinnings. Something his Republican audiences want to hear, so he never needs to explain his super-natural assertion.</b></div> <div></div> <div>Steele has parlayed his general environmental studies background to travel around the world learning about various wildlife studies with an eye towards finding errors to exploit.</div> <div></div> <div>5) Mr.GOP: Long story short, the science is not settled.</div> <div></div> <div>Please think about what a nonsensical sentence that is.</div> <div>Of course the science is not settled.</div> <div></div> <div>Uncertainties definitely exist. Get real GOP, nothing in our lives has ever, or will ever, be “settled” - we do the best we can with what we know. That's why our only smart choice is to HONESTLY learn about the learned expert opinion.</div> <div></div> <div>Before his untimely passing, Dr. Stephen Schneider give an excellent talk, it’s quite different from the shrill denunciations of the GOP crowd and as timely today as the day it was given.Tr</div> <div></div> <div><iframe src="" width="459" height="344" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div> <div></div> <div><b>Climate Change: Is the Science “Settled”?</b></div> <div></div> <div></div>
(February 4, 2010) Stephen Schneider, professor of biology at Stanford and senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment, unpacks the political and scientific debates surrounding climate change.
__________________________________________________________________________ <div></div> <div>Science is about learning, its about gathering and processing evidence.</div> <div>Resolving scientific puzzles has always resulted in understanding more details, even as those details also reveal a whole new suite of questions worth asking.</div> <div></div> <div><b>The Relativity of Wrong</b></div> <div>By Isaac Asimov,</div> <div>The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44</div> <div></div> <div></div> <div>{This continues at}</div> <div></div> </div> <div class="post-footer"></div>  



If anyone wants to know about the science

Here’s a thumbnail profile of the panel.


The IPCC was set up in 1988 by the UN’s World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and Environment Programme (UNEP).

Its mandate is to give policymakers neutral, science-based updates about global warming—its impacts, and scenarios for bringing the problem under control.

An intergovernmental body, the IPCC currently counts 195 nations as members.


Based in Geneva, the panel is chaired by South Korea’s Hoesung Lee, an expert on the economics of climate change.

Its reports are compiled by thousands of atmospheric scientists, climate modellers, oceanographers, ice specialists, economists and public health experts, mostly drawn from universities and research institutes. They work on a volunteer basis.

The IPCC does not conduct new research but trawls through thousands of published studies and summarises key findings, indicating degrees of likelihood and confidence.

“You can think of it as the biggest peer-review exercise in the world,” said Jonathan Lynn, IPCC’s head of communications.


Every five or six years the IPCC produces vast overviews—typically 1,500 pages long—of published climate science. The first came out in 1990, the most recent in 2014.

The next is due in early 2022, ahead of a crucial reevaluation by governments of their greenhouse gas reduction efforts.

Three separate teams, or “working groups”, look at the physical science of global warming; climate change impacts; and options for tackling the problem.

Read more at:

I don’t want to add to the click count for this lecture. Is he actually referencing Jim Steele? He argues like someone who is off his meds. I don’t know how anyone can take him seriously.

No Lausten, I just tossed that in there - different talking head, same bullshit.

I generally find watching You tubes to be a waste of time. If you really have an argument, post the text here so that we can take time to talk about it.

CC, what is the point you are trying to make? I can understand PoliticalSci’s view and his data. Can you tell me what points you are declaring? Do you think there is a conspiracy taking place? Are you claiming that these men are not scientists? These NASA guys are on point and are part of a trend of scientists today that are deciding to voice against what they understand is false science conclusions and science that has not been fully explained to the general public.

Just a note. CC, I dropped the IPCC and now follow Dr. Judith Curry. One of the problems with the IPCC was the lack of real “peer review”. To many times the math and systems used by the scientists being highlighted by the IPCC has been caught being wrong by some guy working at home following Climate Change and checking the numbers. That kind of events should never happen in a million years. Think about it. Thirty years now and the NASA scientists are saying what I pointed out in my first Global Warming post, before being called Climate Change, that the scientists first need to establish a datum point, line or plane for the science. Otherwise you can not separate Mother Nature from the human affects (Climate Change).

An update on the science that has finally swayed me. It is based on a scientist from Berkely University in California. Based on this person’s explanation and review of the material data, the display of the information and his team’s critique of what has been available in the public dialogue, I have embraced the reality of man-made climate change that is a danger to all humans because it endangers our environment.

Richard Muller checks out as a non-political and sincere and highly qualified researcher. He swayed me relatively easily with his research and report and personal journey.

Mike, why am I not surprised you’re a FOLLOWER of Curry.

It says a hell of a lot more about you - than it does about the IPCC.


you lil crazy maker you


politicalscienceisnot, you disappoint. You bemoan politically motivated scientists, then you post a video that’s nothing but a politica stunt by politically motivated individuals. Some of whom may be famous, but none of whom has actually participated in climate research.

Breath-taking climate denial nonsense, this time aimed at NASA By Phil Plait | April 13, 2012


Serious errors and shortcomings void climate letter by 49 former NASA employees


On March 28, 2012, 49 former NASA astronauts, scientists, engineers, and administrators sent a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden Jr. The letter requested that NASA in general and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in particular stop publishing the scientific conclusions about the human-driven causes of global climate disruption. The letter was filled with no less than six serious errors regarding the science, data, and facts of climate science. The errors, in turn, exposed that the signers had confused their fame and/or their expertise in unrelated fields with expertise in climate science. And in response, NASA’s chief scientist politely suggested that the letter’s authors and signers should publish any contrary hypotheses and data in peer-reviewed scientific journals instead of trying to censor the publication of scientific conclusions from NASA climate scientists.


The first error in the letter is that the authors and signers deny that “empirical data” shows “man-made carbon dioxide” is having an impact on global climate disruption:

The second error

The second error is that only a few climate scientists have declared that they deny the science underlying human-driven climate disruption, not the “hundreds” the letter claims. While the letter doesn’t provide any support for this allegation (yet another serious error), this is likely a reference to Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe’s December 2008 “Senate Minority Report” of about a supposed 700 scientists who deny human-driven climate disruption. The Center for Inquiry performed a detailed analysis of Inhofe’s list and discovered that:

The third error

The third error is the letter’s reference to “tens of thousands of other scientists” who supposedly deny climate disruption. Unlike the vagueness of the second error, this reference can only mean one list, namely the list of approximately 31,000 alleged scientists collected by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. While S&R debunked this list in detail three years ago, it’s worthwhile to reiterate a few key points from the original post:

The fourth error (updated)

The fourth error is that the letter twice uses the subjective, unscientific term “catastrophic” in reference to climate disruption.

Scientists don’t use the term “catastrophic,” and there’s a good reason for that: try to define exactly what you mean by “catastrophic” in an objective way. Whether something is a catastrophe or not is a matter of opinion, and no scientist involved in climate would ever use such a subjective term to describe something that is objectively scientific.

The fifth error

The fifth error is that the letter claims that there hasn’t been a “thorough study” of “natural climate drivers.”

Natural factors in climate change – solar variability, Milankovic cycles, volcanism, El Nino, even cosmic rays – have been investigated very thoroughly, and none of the natural factors are capable of generating the observed disruptions in the global climate. The impacts of natural drivers on climate disruption have been investigated repeatedly and in detail, as the two figures (from the Skeptical Science website) below show.

The sixth error

The sixth error is that the letter claims NASA is making “unproven” and “unsupported” remarks about climate disruption and asks NASA to not make any more. The analysis of the five prior errors shows just how wrong this really is – there’s a massive amount of proof and support that human activity, namely burning fossil fuels and agriculture, are the primary driver of climate disruption. But in case there’s any question of that, here’s a link to Skeptical Science’s list of climate myths, with detailed rebuttals supported by referenced peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals: Taxonomy of Climate Myths.

And in case that’s not enough, we can recount a few of the established physical laws and properties of CO2 that would all be wrong if human activity wasn’t the dominant driver of climate disruption today:

Conservation of energy
Conservation of mass
Quantum mechanics
Vibrational modes of CO2
Radiative transfer
Isotope ratio science for carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14
Radioisotopic dating
et al

I am in total shock! I can no longer make the statement that I don’t know of a real climate denier. I get the concept he is trying to make for his new book. That his friends were able to convince him the earth is getting warmer. And the main cause of this warming is by humans.

But then he made the statement when asked why he didn’t refer to Climate Change. And he said that there were too many things involve in Climate Change other than humans, so he was staying with Global Warming. I am missing how the facts can match the logical in that.

Expertise Matters

Let’s be explicit about our choice here.

On the one hand we have a bunch of former administrators, astronauts, and engineers who between them have zero climate expertise and zero climate science publications.

On the other hand we have the climate scientists at NASA GISS who between them have decades, perhaps even centuries of combined professional climate research experience, and hundreds, perhaps even thousands of peer-reviewed climate science publications.

Hi All:

The climate change science has burdens of proof that may or may not have been met.

Burden one is to demonstrate there is unusual climate change: I think Muller demonstrates this with sound analysis of all available data available. His team’s analysis is set to the standards of all other research methods of analysis. He meets this burden. The climate is changing.

Burden two is to link climate changes to human activity. Muller meets this burden.

Burden three is to project the impact on human life based on the first two findings. Muller did not go this far. It may not be his intent to do so or within the scope of the data he analyzed.

Burden three is a next step that others may have taken or tried to take. There may be questions remaining here. It is not wrong to seek a good analysis of the man-made climate change. It is not political to seek a definitive study or studies in much the same way Muller addressed the first two.