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 Walter Cunningham:

---

Walter Cunningham claims to be fussed about science being politicised. But he himself has done exactly that.
from his wiki, he apologised to scientists for having politicised this himself.

In a follow-up interview to his May 31 interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep airing June 1, 2007, on NPR News' Morning Edition, Griffin said the following:
--- repeat of your post of his comments ---
Some climate scientists referred to his remarks as ignorant.^[15] In particular, James E. Hansen, NASA's top official on climate change, said Griffin’s comments showed "arrogance and ignorance", as millions will likely be harmed by global warming.^[16] Jerry Mahlman, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said that Griffin was either "totally clueless" or "a deep antiglobal warming ideologue".^[17]

In a closed-door meeting on June 4, 2007 at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Griffin said:
"Unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical, and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it." "All I can really do is apologize to all you guys.... I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this."^[15]

In a later interview he made these claims.
"
The biggest problems I see with the sorry state of “climate science,” as the public comes to know it through the media, are the alarmist claims, unsupported by data and history, being presented as facts. When these claims cannot be validated by empirical data, they attempt to justify them by equally dishonest claims of proof by “consensus”. These alarmist claims create unwarranted fear in order to promote their political and profiteering agendas, while establishing regulatory policies that kill business and grow government – all at a terrific cost to taxpayers and energy consumers.

Without the science to back up their wild forecasts and claims, and the overwhelming evidence for natural temperature variation, alarmists try to exploit this unwarranted fear by resorting to the precautionary argument: “We must do something just in case we are responsible, because the consequences are too terrible if we are to blame and do nothing.”
"

It seems to me that those underlined claims are totally preposterous. We have had every academy of science, every world government (except, latterly, Trump) accept that science. It is an absolute nonsense to claim there is no science to back the claims, that there is no empirical data and that there is no data and history behind climate science.

As the guy has admitted himself, and as his critics point out, he has ignorantly politicised this.