Having served as an Air Force meteorologist, I have “done…real climate science.” Like most meteorologists of today, I find AGW to be a monumental hoax and fraud perpetrated for the political and personal gain of AGW proponents in defiance of and contradiction to science and scientific principles. Mann’s calculations produces hockey sticks from white noise, toilets, and any other assemblage of numbers, so anyone who would place an iota trust in such obvious nonsense can hardly be regarded as a scientist instead of a false propagandist. Likewise, James Hansen and many of the other leading so-called “climate scientists are not and never have been meteorologists or statisticians, so AGW proponents who deny, intmidate, and censor the scientific publications of genuine meteorologists and statisticians with decades of real experience in meteorology and applied statistical mathematics are engaging is an unprecedented assault upon the basic principles and ethics of science.

I recommend the reading of the recent comments of a distinguished and award winning meteorologist with more than fifty years of experience in meteorological climate science. Some of his comments included:

“Bill Gray, Professor Emeritus Colorado State University (AMS Fellow, Charney Award recipient) On The Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society (AMS)”

“Hansen and his legion of environmental-political supporters (with no meteorological-climate background) have done monumental damage to an open and honest discussion of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) question. He and his fellow collaborators (and their media sycophantic followers) are responsible for the brainwashing of a large segment of the American public about a grossly exaggerated human-induced warming threat that does not exist.”

“Hansen has little experience in practical meteorology. He apparently does not realize that the strongly chaotic nature of the atmosphere-ocean climate system does not allow for skillful initial value numerical climate prediction.”

“Instead of organizing meetings with free and open debates on the basic physics and the likelihood of AGW induced climate changes, the leaders of the society (with the backing of the society’s AGW enthusiasts) have chosen to fully trust the climate models and deliberately avoid open debate on this issue. I know of no AMS sponsored conference where the AGW hypothesis has been given open and free discussion.”

“The climate modelers and their supporters deny the need for open debate of the AGW question on the grounds that the issue has already been settled by their model results. They have taken this view because they know that the physics within their models and the long range of their forecast periods will likely not to be able to withstand knowledgeable and impartial review (see Appendix). They simply will not debate the issue. As a defense against criticism they have resorted to a general denigration of those of us who do not support their AGW hypothesis.”

“The AGW biases within the AMS policy makers is so entrenched that it would be impossible for well known and established scientists (but AGW skeptics) such as Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Bill Cotton, Roger Pielke, Sr., Roy Spencer, John Christie, Joe D’Aleo, Bob Balling, Jr., Craig Idso, Willie Soon, etc. to ever be able to receive an AMS award – irrespective of the uniqueness or brilliance of their research.”

“My interaction (over the years) with a broad segment of AMS members (that I have met as a result of my seasonal hurricane forecasting and other activities) who have spent a sizable portion of their careers down in the meteorological trenches of observations and forecasting, have indicated that a majority of them do not agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming. These working meteorologists are too experienced and too sophisticated to be hoodwinked by the lobby of climate simulations and their associated propagandists.”

“To obtain any kind of a balanced back-and-forth discussion on AGW one has to consult the many web blogs that are both advocates and skeptics of AGW. These blogs are the only source for real open debate on the validity of the AGW hypothesis. Here is where the real science of the AGW question is taking place.”

As Dr. Gray noted, AGW propagandists “know that the physics within their models and the long range of their forecast periods will likely not to be able to withstand knowledgeable and impartial review,…they have resorted to a general denigration of those of us who do not support their AGW hypothesis.” This has also been my experience for nearly forty years as the WMO was systematically hijacked by political activists for many decades. Because most meteorologists are employed directly or indirectly by governement and academia, they are all to often intimidated with retaliation and denied the right to exercise free speech to combat the hijacking fof the profession, their professional associations, and the science by a minority of political activists inside and outside their profession, who have promoted their likeminded collaborationists into positions of leadership. Restoring responsible and trustworthy leadership will require a firm public demand to end this hijacking of the science and the debate.

So, “san quintin”, your denigration of dissenting meteorologists and contempt for their honest pursuit and respect for science and the scientific method is noted.

“I didn’t say you were simplistic an immature in that one post, I said you were simplistic and immature throughout this blog. For example, your criticism of realclimate in this post is written in a style worthy of a ten year old. You come across as very dense, and unable to take on any criticism, because you reproduce the same graphs time and time again, ignoring the criticisms that are made each time you do. You don’t even rebut criticisms, but simply ignore them. This is primary school behaviour.”

You are hurting your case. Your words are insulting and abusive.

To me, Mr. Meyer seems remarkably thoughtful and balanced, given the intrinsically controversial nature of the topic. He weighs different perspectives and does his best to sort out plausible hypotheses from those that are implausible. He sometimes cites people who have a more abrasive style than he does, and he doesn’t censor comments from such people either.

To me, all of this is to be praised, not criticized. Still less could I approve the tone or substance your response to it, which comes across as shrill and defensive.

Your defender, San Quintin, writes:

“No, Jennifer’s style is not that of a ten year old. I imagine she’s just a bit sick of people who don’t know much about climate science pretending they do. As I’ve said lots of times, if you denialists think climate scientists are wrong, then publish in the mainstream (ie not Energy and Environment) literature. Until you do, and until you produce an alternative theory with as much explanatory power as AGW/GHG then you are irrelevant.”

I would agree with him that your style is not that of a ten year old, although it comes much closer to matching that description than does Mr. Meyer’s. But Quintin’s argument that only analyses published in peer reviewed journals have any merit betrays an astonishing overconfidence in established authorities and a remarkable lack of faith in the value of real democracy and open debate. The very reason we are having this debate is that the science is *not* clear, not all scientists agree on it, and those who try to hide behind the illusion that they do are just fooling themselves.

To me, at this stage in the debate, the critics of global warming theory are winning the debate. And it is because of the way advocates of anthropogenic global warming respond in public to those who have the audacity to ask them to engage in a reasoned and civil debate. Like Jennifer, they try to let insults cover for the intellectual deficiencies of their positions.

look, skepticism is good. there is no telling what or where a significant discovery or breakthrough (in the nature and understanding of climate science) may come from. it may be a skeptic who solves the riddle. all you guys are basing your arguments around whether or not one of you, or all of you, is childish. it’s silly.

first of all, “Climate Change” is an oxymoron. can we agree on that? second of all, can we agree that the debate about climate is not over? (that should be obvious here) and that’s not so much a question as it is a request. no scientist, i don’t care how many nobel prizes, or degrees or panels of other scientists you may have, can look at a pile of data, that is somewhat leaning to one conclusion or the other, and declare, “the science is in, the debate is over”.

the nature of dinosaurs: how they died off… did they die off or are they now birds? was tyrannosaurus a hunter, or a vulture-like scavenger? were they warm or cold blooded? etc, etc, etc… the debates go on. the difference is, they do not have some beleaguered politician who won the popular but lost the electoral vote to wade into the argument.

ladies (i hope) and gentlemen (i hope), just because al gore says it’s one way and produces a documentary on the subject, does not mean science or debate and skepticism cease. if someone told you you had to eat cardboard to save the planet, would you not question them…? furthermore, that leads to the second part of the problem here:

we are not talking about saving the planet… (the planet will be here no matter what). we are talking about habitat for human kind (and some animals). it’s a bit out of our control whether we like it or not. we might influence things negatively or positively in one degree or another, but we cannot manage it and govern it completely no matter how much we like to think so.

point is, skepticism is healthy. stop being so convinced you’re right, or that al gore is right. there are always going to be “doomed earth”ers and “mankind is evil” believers… even if al gore is proven wrong, someone else is going to take his place on some other topic of the destruction of the planet. sunspot activity is on the decline. we should fear a new ice age or a “mini-ice age” as just a few centuries ago. warmer weather does not bring with it the sort of disaster, globally, as does an ice age.

get the idea out of your head that we are destroying the earth and get on with real science that is always questioning, asking, testing, inquiring, studying… never putting the conclusion before the facts… oh, and grow up!

You lot are clueless. The only thing you seem to worry about is your own self-interest.

Well I guess that if Mann et al are so sure of themselves, why not make their data available for scrutiny?

Oh thats right, teh science is settled!

Mailman

Actually (and warming to my task) you ARE irrelevant. You’ve had several decades to develop a coherent scientific alternative and you’ve failed. That’s why you have little influence now. Good luck!

I suspect your style is worthy of a ten year old, now run along mummy is calling because your nappy needs changing.

Regarding your comments on my post. Firstly, using that nifty ‘moron’ search, I see that of the ~30-odd uses of the word, less than 10 are by people who oppose your views. Your claim that it is “usually wielded by my critics” is obviously just a belief that you didn’t bother to research properly – a lot like your climate views. You claim that “The word “moron” has never, ever appeared on this site in text I have written”. Did you write the blog post entitled “More in the sun”?

Your second point doesn’t make much sense. You’re saying use the comments, but you make it clear that you almost always ignore the comments. You certainly ignored Anthony Watts when he said you had misquoted him.

Your third point is based on a misunderstanding. I didn’t say you were simplistic an immature in that one post, I said you were simplistic and immature throughout this blog. For example, your criticism of realclimate in this post is written in a style worthy of a ten year old. You come across as very dense, and unable to take on any criticism, because you reproduce the same graphs time and time again, ignoring the criticisms that are made each time you do. You don’t even rebut criticisms, but simply ignore them. This is primary school behaviour.

You claim that “One group out there tends to argue that the sun is largely irrelevant to the past century’s temperature increases. Another argues that the sun is the main or only driver. I argue that the evidence seems to point to it being a mix, with the sun explaining some but not all of the 20th century increase, and I am the one who is simplistic?”. This is the kind of nonsense that you constantly discredit yourself with. The two groups you describe simply don’t exist – you’ve invented them. Obviously the sun plays a role in climate. It’s one half of the equation. And as such, its role in climate has been studied a huge amount. But obviously, you haven’t read any of the studies. One particularly well known recent study found that even if all the warming from 1900-1970 was due to solar activity, then solar activity could account for less than 30% of the post-1970 warming. Your claims about the Sun’s role in the climate are not supported by the data.

Point four: “The chart uses a trailing 12 average of temperature as well as sunspots, which is why the line does not flatten and fall at the end. I have to think a bit if I accept this metric as the correct comparison”. No, it uses a central average. Your comments about ‘flatten and fall at the end’ are mystifying. Why should it?

“I see nothing in this chart that is inconsistent with the hypothesis that the sun might have been responsible for perhaps half of the 20th century warming” – what, the fact that whether the 11 year average sunspot count is going up or down bearing little or no resemblance to whether the temperature goes up or down doesn’t seem inconsistent to you? The lack of a change of rate in warming in 1920 or 1980? Your beliefs are clearly too strongly held for you to see what’s right before your eyes. Please give us your take on this graph, which includes CO2.

“have all along contended that Co2 will likely drive 0.5-1.0C warming over the next century” – please explain the analysis you have carried out to come to this conclusion. Or did you just pick that range because you liked it?

“there is still a positive warming trend when you take out cycles like the PDO and effects of the sun and other such influences” – quite right. “…but that trend, even if all due to CO2, appears to be far below catastrophic sensitivity levels.” – quite wrong. Try reading the recent IPCC report. There’s a good chapter on attribution of climate change.

“Should a decreased solar output yield decreased temperatures? Or, if that output is still higher than a historical average, will it still drive temperatures higher? The answer likely boils down to how fast equilibrium is reached, and I don’t know the answer, nor do I think anyone else does either.” – you confess your own ignorance, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that everyone is as ignorant as you are. The response time scales of different parts of the climate system are quite well known, actually. Here’s a little experiment that you can do to investigate how quickly the atmosphere can respond to changes in incoming solar energy: go outside at midday. Then go outside 12 hours later. Which one was colder? Why? Repeat the same experiment six months later. What differences were there?

“try to learn from criticisms in the comments and improve or modify my positions next time I post on a similar subject” – I’ve seen no evidence of that at all. Perhaps you could point out an example of where you’ve modified your views in response to comments.