how stupid can denial get?

Originally posted by jopo ↑

Twist and squirm.
NASA said it mjp2

No if's no but's.
Boy who cried wolf. I dont believe much of what is said.
.....................

A blog site i found complete with extracts is pretty damning on the shame and embarrassment that GISS has brought NASA

Dr John Theon is a interesting case. Jim Hansens boss. A self confessed climate skeptic. Claims of omitted fundamentals in climate models and data tampering. This is from EX NASA! Whilst the link they provide has been wiped furhte googling confirms his statement he made to the senate

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/i...s-all?ID=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320

Funny how anyone who is a skeptic is sacked or retired. mmmm

Former NASA senior scientist Dr John Theon described his association with Hansen:
“As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ 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.”

Theon commented on the unreliability of computer models used by Hansen and GISS to simulate the climate system:

“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.” (My emphasis)

Astronaut and physicist Walter Cunningham expressed his concerns about how some climate scientists have been operating at NASA:

“In the last twenty years, I have watched the high standards of science being violated by a few influential climate scientists, including some at NASA, while special interest opportunists have abused our public trust.”
And:

“Many of NASA’s retirees have grown increasingly concerned that GISS, a NASA organization located in a midtown Manhattan office building, was allowing its science to be politicized, compromising their credibility. Our concern, beyond damage to the NASA’s exemplary reputation, was damage to their current or former scientists and employees, and even compromising the reputation of science itself.”

Expand

On Dr John Theo:

Theon falsely claimed he was Hansen's supervisor. He was part of the program and budget office and was responsible for getting budget approval for a subset of programs, including GISS budgets and hence for Hansen's work. The pair met several times, but did not work together in any significant sense.
So he had some familiarity with the science, but was not directly involved and most definitely did not supervise any of Hansen's scientific work. He did not conduct Hansen's performance reviews, for example.
And you'd not expect a program and budget HQ department member to be carrying out performance reviews for science work. Hansen and Theon operated out of separate locations.

So not off to a good start in that his position is being falsely presented.

---

Now I have looked around for the basis and evidence for Theon's opinions. I cannot find evidence anywhere for the grounds on which he claims scientists doctored data inappropriately. We get solely his unsupported "opinion".

I am all ears for science that proves global warming is false and is imminently, publicly, about to be shown to be false. All our work on EVs and renewable energy will be thrown out in a blaze of change. I'd be selling a bunch of my investments overnight. But I'd want to check any such claims out carefully.
But I can't. Because I cannot find anything where he substantively backs up his claims.

And this was from back in ... 2009, eight years ago. No-one seems to have taken this guy seriously!

So, jopo, did you simply believe what Theon says, with no scepticism?

You'll have done your good skeptical homework, I'm sure. So tell us:
Which studies does he claim were doctored? In what way? What is his evidence for saying that? He canp't be talking about temperature record adjustment, because the mechanisms and scientific reasoning for that are all public, and he claims this was all disguised and not made public.
I've spent probably 15 minutes googling for anything like that from him, and found ... nothing ...

I would presume that you have already looked closely into the basis for his opinion, jopo, as a good skeptic, and have that information at hand. It would be great if you could post that.

---

He makes comment about the grid scale of the models, but there is plenty of discussion in the science on why heat balance models, such as Hansen's original simple models, are useful to forecast longer term global warming. And how those predictions square well with evidence of paleo-historic CO2 levels and temperatures. Plus Hansen's early simple models have proved remarkably accurate. Observations are consistent with the predictions of Hansen's early simple models.

You need finer grid scales to predict regional and local climate impacts of an overall warming world. You need that to be able to predict ocean current and oscillation effects on climate - all that natural variability. But you don't need that to predict an underlying warming trend due to heat balance impacts of CO2.
I can't see any justification from Theon for his claim regarding grid scale.
And that claim, given the science, seems stupid.

---

Always open minded, but it just looks to me that you've been suckered into another flimsy denialist opinion, and are appealing to a falsified authority, from the guy who claims to be but was not Hansen's supervisor.

Over to you to provide some substance to this guys opinions.

Otherwise, just another example of the thread title - how stupid can denial be.