US National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part Three

This article is the third in a series that traces the back story of the (non) greenhouse gas theory.* Their purpose is to expose the truth that this so-called ‘settled science’ never appeared on any national science academy’s radar until the 1980’s.


Here we show how James Hansen flip-flopped from claiming the greenhouse gas effect (GHE) was due to aerosols to claiming it was due to carbon dioxide. We show how a ‘pre-GHE era’ calculation was re-packaged to provide the key numbers for this cynical and fraudulent revision of science.

Previously, we saw that not only did the greenhouse gas ‘theory’ not concern the best scientific minds of the 20th Century, we showed why: the ‘theory’ was widely accepted as being refuted before 1951. This is confirmed by the prestigious American Meteorological Society (AMS). [1]

Today’s populist promoters of the greenhouse gas effect (GHE) have sought to denounce these articles by citing papers they claim vindicate their beliefs. However, our previous essay made short work of that delusion. It demonstrated that leading climate researchers prior to the 1980’s either were dismissive of it, or made no mention at all, of any GHE; the vast consensus accepted that once solar energy entered earth’s atmosphere it was the water cycle and convection that ran the show on global temperatures. This pre-1980’s consensus agreed that carbon dioxide (CO2) could not alter the climate because it was discovered that all the long-wave radiation that could be absorbed by CO2 is already absorbed by water vapor (id.). Therefore the effects of latent heat (water) by the process of the hydrological cycle (evaporation, condensation, precipitation, conduction and convection) were proven to dominate instead.

But a growing body of evidence collated by thousands of citizen scientist auditors is pointing to the likelihood that since the 1980’s government climatologists – incentivised by a billion dollar funding stream – employed sophistry and spin to resurrect the long discredited GHE. We know that even alarmists admit that the politics of the day (re: Margaret Thatcher’s  1988 keynote speech to the Royal Society) rather than science was a key motivator. [2] Leading this post-normal era of junk climate science was NASA’s James Hansen. Hansen’s team at NASA cleverly re-branded the hydrological cycle as “the greenhouse effect” despite the fact no national science academies in the pre-1980’s era regarded water vapor as a ‘greenhouse gas.’

This was a major U-turn for Hansen, who in 1967 published a key paper defining the GHE as being caused by dust particles (aerosols). Nowhere in that paper did Hansen attribute any GHE to water vapor. [3]

What’s in a Name?

In short, this is the ‘nomenclature argument’ presented in Part One and should have put an end to the climate change idiocy right at the start. Our thesis there was simple: settled science should have settled nomenclature. But as the National Academy of Science showed in a key 1979 report the term ‘greenhouse gas theory’ didn’t exist. (id.) Therefore, reason and logic dictates there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas if there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas theory!

But as Canadian climate researcher, Norm Kalmanovitch who has studied this aspect in detail shows, there is clear fraud here. Kalmanovitch reports, “The greenhouse effect as defined even by Hansen back in 1981 is simply the difference between two numbers; one a theoretical calculation that always comes to 255 K and the other the Earth’s actual temperature typically taken as 288 K with the difference of 33 K being the greenhouse effect. (This same calculation on Mars comes to 5.5 K)

Kalmanovitch advises. “ This yields Te ̴ 255 K. The mean surface temperature is  T ̴ 288 K. The excess (Ts – Te) and is a pre-Hansen era value but is morphed into being Hansen’s ‘greenhouse effect’ of gases and clouds.” Kalmanovitch and independent scientists at Principia Scientific International (PSI) proved that the term  “greenhouse gas” was applied many years after the above calculation was written (and when consensus science rejected any such notion of a GHE).

 But the passage of time has been the undoing of this 1980’s scam. We have seen that CO2 emissions have stubbornly refused to correlate with atmospheric temperatures. Since 1997 global CO2 emissions have increased by 39.8% but there has been no change in the Earth’s temperature proving Hansen was wrong to fudge the numbers to make a connection between CO2 and global temperatures. According to Hansen’s own mangled numbers Ts has remained constant since 1997 and Te is calculated as a constant value. As Kalmanovitch describes:

The excess, Ts – Te, which according to Hansen “is the greenhouse effect” is also constant since 1997; so in Hansen’s own vernacular there has been no change to the “greenhouse effect” from the 39.8% increase in CO2 emissions since 1997!” As Dr. Pierre Latour (noted for his work on the Apollo Space program) has shown, there is also a fatal calculating error elsewhere in Hansen’s GHE numbers. [4]

National Geographic Says ‘Carbon Equals Cooling’

It isn’t just in English-speaking nations this fraud was sold. PSI is constantly receiving reports from around the world enabling us to better trace the back story of how this scam got going. A jigsaw puzzle is being put together showing the gradual usurpation of accepted climate science by the new Greenhouse Gas Brigade. It was a steady drip fed of dross over decades permeating into the major national academies. From Italy, independent climate researcher, Alberto Miatello, recalls,”the oldest article I could find is a 1976 piece by Samuel W. Matthews, from the National Geographic (November 1976). But it is curious to note that at that time the main fear in the scientific community was NOT of the possibility of global warming, but for a new Ice Age.”

As the evidence shows, this was because scientists before 1980 had understood that adding more CO2 into the atmosphere provided a cooling effect, not warming as shown by the peer-reviewed literature examined in our previous article. [5]

In the Nat Geo piece above (“The Ice from the Future”), Matthews presents the consensus view of climate experts of the day saying “some” scientists believe CO2 can cause warming, but that “other scientists believe these molecules [CO2] pushed outwards by man could generate an opposite effect, namely cool our Earth by mirroring outward the light from Sun.” The Nat Geo piece not only echoes a similar one in Newsweek article from around the same time but is much longer and more detailed. [photo link: courtesy of]

 Miatello concludes that the Matthews article “was showing clearly that the main concern of the scientific community at that time (middle of ’70) was NOT the possibility of heating, but of cooling.”

 From his own studies of how the science has been presented in the literature in Italy Miatello affirms, “Between 1975 – late ’80 any such GHE was being  linked to air pollution rather than to global warming. As we recall, back then we still had gasoline with high sulfur content, lots of ‘fossil fuel’ burning and much higher levels a lot of lung diseases due to smog than in today’s cities.” This is the Great Truth being re-discovered to defeat the ‘Big Lie’ of man-made global warming.

As David Whitehouse put it so succinctly (The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 20 December 2012):

It is the bloggers who are science’s new auditors. Many do not like it and have a cultural difficulty in accepting that the times are a changing. But as the new generations take over, science will become more participatory and more appreciated. All scientific conclusions are open to revision, especially those of climate science.”

As such, anyone who recalls the 1970’s will know the main concern of scientists was to reduce high levels of air pollution created by burning hydrocarbons. The science was thus aerosol-focused as per those peer-reviewed papers of Hansen in the pre-1980’s era. Airborne dust particulates (not the trace gas, CO2) was what was being cited as damaging to the health of people and the planet. The great fear then was not a heating world but for the ozone ‘hole,’ CFC’s, and the acid rain scare as Hansen had well acknowledged. (id.) But because western society had cleaned up its act so well by reducing particulate pollution  a new scare story was contrived to subjugate the masses, and Hansen’s team was well-funded, willing and able to launch their counter-consensus assault on long-accepted science.


*This article is one of a series on this subject. The full set are found as follows: Part OnePart TwoPart ThreePart FourPart Five,Part 6

[1]Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association. It shows the American Meteorological Society had refuted the concept of a GHE in 1951 in its Compendium of Meteorology. They stated that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.”

[2] Lars Myren, Anne Debeil, ‘Climate & Energy Presentation,’ (April 3, 2009), www.desmogblog, (accessed online: December 3, 2012)

[3] Hansen, J.E., and S. Matsushima “The atmosphere and surface temperature of Venus: A dust insulation model” Astrophys. J. 150: 1139–1157 (1967) Bibcode 1967ApJ…150.1139H. Doi:10.1086/149410.

Manabe. S & Wetherald, R.T., Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity,’ Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, May 1967 .

[4] Latour, P.R.,’That Bogus Greenhouse Gas Whatchamacallit Effect,‘ (January, 2012)

[5] O’Sullivan, J., ‘US Academies and the Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part Two, (



Filed under Uncategorized

68 responses to “US National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part Three

  1. Those who were at MIT the same time as Hansen say he is skilled at writing computer code to output data matching his beliefs.. Similar behavior to many of our news-gathering ‘professionals’.

  2. Glenn Tamblyn

    In your first post one of your ‘scientists’ claimed to have gone looking for any references to AGW before 1979 and said he couldn’t find any. Your readers may be interested in these 2 histories of the science of it, going way back before 1979.

    Including the quote from the AMS you used. By the end of the 60’s the basic science of Global Warming was substantially in place. And the first report to governent on the possible risks from it was made in 1965.

    This whole theme you have that it all started in 1980 just flies totally in the face of all the facts. Whoever your researcher was that said that, they obviously don’t know how do a basic literature search. Maybe you need to find a better caliber of scientist John

    • johnosullivan

      I’m pleased to see you actually acknowledge that it is incorrect to assert the greenhouse gas effect has been long established or “settled” contrary to the hype of doomsaying propagandists. But you’ve not heeded my warning to be vigilant of all such claims of these propagandists because you’ve cited two links that are to secondary sources, when it is clear from the in depth research of PSI scientists that we should only trust actual primary sources. As I’ve shown you, it is the primary evidence that proves the scientific claims by alarmists have little if any actual empirical basis.

      • Glenn Tamblyn


        You don’t get it. You and your Scientists are a Secondary Source. And that is the charitable description.

        And nothing I have said agrees with what you just said I said. It’s like some sort of bizarre color vision with you John.Someone shows you Black and turn around and say ‘I’m glad you actually see White’.

        By the way John.The quote from the AMS that you are using says nothing about the Greenhouse Effect. It is a comment about the possibility of warming due to more CO2 which was the view held in 1950 until research during the 50’s & 60’s overturnedthat.

  3. Pingback: Breaking: U.S. National Academies Find Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist | johnosullivan

  4. Pingback: U.S. National Academies and the Greenhouse Gas Effect (Part Two) | johnosullivan

  5. John O'Sullivan

    Frankly you fell into my trap all too easily on this. Unlike you I have the entire AMS Compendium (1951) and make it a rule to check my sources. Clearly you don’t. This is why primary research material (the source of the actual data) is preferable to secondary sources (re-interpretations). Below is a fuller quote. We will let you try to figure out the implications. Readers can then weigh your credibility in this debate.


    “The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere must have varied greatly during geological time, being depleted by the formation of limestones (carbonates) and coal measures, and replenished by volcanic action. Ordinarily the variation was slow, because a great reserve of CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. Arrhenius and Chamberlin saw in this a cause of climatic changes, but the theory was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is also absorbed by water vapour.”

    The AMS continued:

    “In the past hundred years the burning of coal has increased the amount of CO2 by a measurable amount from 0.028 to 0.030 per cent), and Callendar [7] sees in this an explanation of the recent rise of world temperature. But during the past 7000 years there have been greater fluctuations of temperature without the intervention of man, and there seems no reason to regard the recent rise as more than a coincidence. This theory is not considered further.”

    Source: Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association.

    • Glenn Tamblyn


      Unlike you I don’t have access to the compendium so I couldn’t check the source.

      First obvious point. In your expanded quote there is no reference to the Greenhouse Effect at all. Neither endorsing or rejecting. Yet the strongst claim you have made is that this 60 year old statement by the AMS rejects the existanceof the Greenhouse Effect.

      What you have quoted was the AMS position on the possibility of CO2 causing FURTHER warming. Not a position on the Greenhouse Effect per se. They don’t mention that in your quote. So they provide zero support for your central statement.

      Next “Arrhenius and Chamberlin saw in this a cause of climatic changes, but the theory was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is also absorbed by water vapour.”

      Read this again John. They are discussing this in the context of CO2’s possible contribution to climate CHANGE. And they are implicitly accepting the role of ABSORPTION of long-wave RADIATION because they recognise the existing role of Water Vapour and CO2. They just didn’t believe that additional CO2 could increase the effect.

      And they do that by stating what has since become known as ‘The Saturation Fallacy’. Seeing how much absorption by Water and CO2 already occurs at low altitude they assumed that more CO2 wouldn’t have much impact. They were repeating what was the scientific understanding of the day in 1950 – that the radiative aspect of the GH Effect was primarily about what happens at low altitude.

      But the whole point John, which is why your argument is so wrong is that in the following 2 decades the scientific understanding of this was transformed. In the next 2 decades scientists realised that the Greenhouse Effect is governed far more by the behaviour of RADIATION at HIGH altitude. And there H2O is in absolutely miniscule quantities. And CO2 is no where near Saturated.

      So you are quoting an outdated position based on science that was just about to be overturned. Then when you leap forward to 1980 you then leap over the transformation years and ignore them!

      Take this comment from them in 1950: “The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere must have varied greatly during geological time, being depleted by the formation of limestones (carbonates) and coal measures, and replenished by volcanic action”

      Yes.But at that point in time we didn’t know about other mechanisms such as CO2 removal due to Carbonate Weathering. And the Standard Solar Model had barely been developed by the Stellar Physics community so the AMS had no knowledge of how the Sun’s heat output has been growing over the course of the Earth’s history and the role CO2 has had in keeping the Earth fromfreezing in the past. The understanding of the nature of the atmosphere of Venus was still 12 years away with Carl Sagan’s paper in 1962.

      What you are quoting is the last comment by the establishment before an information revolution threw old understanding out the window.

      If you are so interested in the AMS, what were they saying about this in 1960,1965, 1970? What do they say today?

      Have you any understanding of how much additional data emerged in the 50’s & 60’s compared to the years before – CO2 monitoring, High Altitude and Satellite observations, The International Geophysical Yearin 1957, Isotopic studies of CO2 variants, Portable Interferometers that could be suspended from balloons or slung under aircraft, Computers to do real world scale calculations rather than just slide-rules, Detailed spectroscopy of the gases including how their spectra vary with temperature and pressure, the first detailed studies of water vapour decline with altitude, the first studies of the composition of the Stratosphere.

      John, you (like some other people) seem to have this absolute fantasy that the science and warnings about Global Warming are some product of the 1980’s – queue references to Margaret Thatcher, James Hanson or whoever. That is just simply historically wrong.

      The science and warnings about Global Warming originated in the late 50’s and 60’s. As have pointed out to you before, the first warning to government on the subject was in 1965.

      On one of the other threads I commented on Manabe & Wetherald 1967. Read through the references at the bottom John. Look at the dates. The 50’s & 60’s, and all AFTER the AMS report you quote. One of those references was one I have mentioned before:

      “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change”, Gilbert Plass, Tellus, 1956.

      In 1956, James Hansen was 15!
      Al Gore was 8!
      Maggie Thatcher was 31 but wouldn’t enter parliament for another 3 years!

      This scientific revolution was already begun before you were born John.

      I know you have a lot of skin invested in this notion of yours, not to mention book sales. But the basic historical evidence just totally diasgrees with you. Admitting your wrong isn’t easy; often our Ego’s won’t let us do that.But you really are barking up the wrong tree and your reputation will suffer hugely because of it.

      Go have a happy Xmas John and maybe do a bit of soul searching. Or at least reading some of those old papers to even understand what the scientific community where thinking during those key decades.

  6. Glenn amazingly writes this howler:

    “You don’t get it. You and your Scientists are a Secondary Source. And that is the charitable description.”

    Yet while making this unsubstantiated charge against the PSI group,he accepts the IPCC reports as being credible when it has been exposed last year as corrupt due to the high number of grey literature in it many that are unsubstantiated material.

    The IPCC has long lost their credibility as a scientific body because it was NEVER structured to be an independent scientific body apart from the corrupting influence of the U.N. membership and Environmentalists.

    Donna LaFramboise clearly showed on numerous blog entries and a book that the IPCC is not worth the level of attention it still receives and the few short term claims it made have all been shown to be failures.

    The book:

    The blog entries on the IPCC machinations:

    One example in her blog: Climate Bible Gets 21 ‘F’s on Report Card

    You guys run on secondary to gutter level pseudoscience quality all the time and that is because you do not respect the SCIENTIFIC METHOD process.

  7. Pingback: Another Alarmist Author Admits Spreading Greenhouse Gas Theory Bunkum | johnosullivan

  8. Rob Honeycutt

    Pardon me for pointing out the elephant in the room here, but if there is no GHE as O’Sullivan suggests, why is the Earth’s climate not the same as the Moon’s?

    • johnosullivan

      The reason our wet planet doesn’t experience the extremes of hot and cold seen on the dry moon is because of the unique properties of latent heat as detailed in the Ideal Gas laws. This is long established and well understood science (to those who studied the ‘hard’ sciences – unlike most climatologists). In fact the 200+ scientists and researchers at Principia Scientific International (38 with PhD’s) acknowledge this. They understand that the hydrological cycle serves to drive water around the climate system to ensure day times are never too hot nor night times too cold. PSI scientists crunched the numbers and proved that there is no need to factor in the mythical properties of ‘magic gas’ in any so-called ‘greenhouse gas theory’ to demonstrate that conduction and convection are the key modes of energy transport within a gas – not radiation.
      I recommend this paper by Joseph E Postma to demonstrate how it works:

      • Rob Honeycutt

        John, There is nothing to drive the hydrological cycle without well mixed GHG’s. I’m well aware of Postma’s work and it just hasn’t stood up to even the slightest scrutiny from the scientific establishment.

  9. John O'Sullivan

    I guess you’ve not heard of the Coriolis Effect? It’s a perpetual motion machine that drives our planet. No need to factor in any ‘greenhouse gases.’ Simply drop the superfluous nomenclature that wasn’t even used by the National Academy of Science (NAS) until the 1980’s. That was when climatology took a wrong turn and decided to re-invent a ‘theory’ known to have been debunked since before 1951 as admitted by the American Meteorological Society (id)
    Also, haven’t you seen the evidence proving that carbon dioxide is not a well-mixed gas? See more here:

    • Rob Honeycutt

      I’m clearly familiar with the Coriolis Effect, but it’s not a “perpetual motion machine.”

      The rest of you comment is just a random regurgitation of your posts and rather pointless because you’re completely wrong. You never did answer John Cook’s question about what the NAS was referring to when they clearly state that doubling CO2 will result in a warming of 3C. Do you think that the NAS was referring to something OTHER than the greenhouse effect?

      • John O'Sullivan

        The Coriolis Effect certainly does serve as Earth’s perpetual motion machine. Without it constantly at work we’d all be dead. You also don’t seem to understand the issue at hand: settled science requires settled nomenclature. If we were talking about space and time over 13,000 words we’d probably mention the Theory of Relativity, if we were talking about the origin of the species we’d also mention the Theory of Evolution.
        But why is it over 13,000 words there is NO mention anywhere in the NAS report on CARBON DIOXIDE of the ‘greenhouse gas theory’?
        Ball’s in your court, Rob.

      • Rob Honeycutt

        Okay, my ball…

        John, just answer the one single question. What was the NAS talking about when they said, in that very same report, that doubling CO2 would drive 3C of global surface warming?

  10. John O'Sullivan

    Good question – it isn’t the greenhouse gas ‘theory’ because evidence all through the document contradicts that. For example, the document states:

    “The effect of cloud albedo by itself gives a negative feedback.Thus if clouds at all levels were increased by 1 percent, the atmosphere-earth system would absorb about 0.3 m–2 less solar radiation and lose about 0.5 W m–2 less thermal radiation. The net effect would be a cooling of about 0.4 W m–2, or, if this occurred together with a doubling of CO2, a decrease of .Q from 4.0 to 3.6 W m–2.”

    NAS also confirm what PSI science says that CO2 is not a well-mixed gas, a real blow against GHE believers expecting to see CO2 radiative heating impacts higher in the stratosphere and beyond. On that the NAS found, “the strong gravitational stability produced by cooling from below suppresses convective and radiative transfer of heat and thereby concentrates the CO2-enhanced heating in a thin layer near the ground.”

    The NAS certainly didn’t find any positive radiative feedback from clouds because they say Manabe and Wetherald found that “cloud radiative feedback effects are relatively small intrinsically and are rendered even smaller by the tendency of their short and long wave components to compensate.”

    They didn’t think much of James Hansen’s modeling skills either because they declared, “we conclude that the surface T’s due to the upper water-vapor-cloud feedback may very well have been overestimated in the H[Hansen] series.”

    Looks to me they were affirming the key role of latent heat (not any GHE) when they stated, “It is well known that the oceans are a thermal regulator, warming the air in winter and cooling it in summer.” Again they see the role of water under-estimated by Hansen when they stated, “It seems to us quite possible that the capacity of the deeper oceans to absorb heat has been seriously underestimated.”

    Later in the report they again admit that the moderating impacts of latent heat. The NAS also show us that climatologists would be foolish to attribute contemporaneously link levels of CO2 with temperatures as they insist, “volumes of [ocean] water involved give a delay of the order of decades in the time at which thermal equilibrium will be reached. This delay implies that the actual warming at any given time will be appreciably less than that calculated on the assumption that thermal equilibrium is reached quickly.”

    This is in sharp contradiction the GHE alarmist claims that the rise in temps from 1975-98 was directly linked to the concurrent rise in CO2 concentration.

    The NAS were also distinctly unimpressed with modeling generally, “Existing parameterizations of cloud amounts in general circulation models are physically very crude.” The say the models give “somewhat improper accounts of the CO2 impact.”

    I specifically sought out anywhere in the 13,000 words where the NAS would identify “back radiation” as one of the two mechanisms that supposedly allows CO2 to return extra heat to the surface. Not surprisingly the “back radiation” appears NOWHERE in the document. No mention of the other (contradictory) version of the GHE either (the ‘delayed cooling’ gambit).

    All in all, this key NAS report from 1979 is a really good a stab in the eye for the most recent incarnations of the alleged GHE ‘theory.’

    • Rob Honeycutt


      I’m now reading the 1979 NAS report. The second paragraph of the forward states this:

      “For more than a century, we have been aware that changes in the composition of the atmosphere could affect its ability to trap the sun’s energy for our benefit. We now have incontrovertible evidence that the atmosphere is indeed changing and that we ourselves contribute to that change. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are steadily increasing, and these changes are linked with man’s use of fossil fuels and exploitation of the land. Since carbon dioxide plays a significant role in the heat budget of the atmosphere, it is reasonable to suppose that continued increases would affect climate.”

      Are you REALLY REALLY going to try to deny they’re talking about the greenhouse effect? I mean, come on. REALLY???

  11. Rob Honeycutt

    You expend an awful lot of effort to not answer simple questions.

    You can not possibly state that the NAS was not referring to the greenhouse effect when they said doubling CO2 would cause a rise of 3C in surface temp. That statement CLEARLY is referring to the greenhouse effect. The figures are absurdly close to Arrhenius’ figures for greenhouse gas estimations from 60 years earlier!

    By what other mechanism could CO2 push temps up by 3C if not through the greenhouse effect?

    I’m sure I can find some of the scientists who contributed to that report. Should we ask them if they agreed with GHG theory at the time of writing the report? Would you accept a statement from the horse’s mouth if it was contrary to what you’re trying to portray here?

  12. John O'Sullivan

    Rob, you are entirely missing the point. Nowhere in that NAS document does it postulate by what mechanism CO2 can cause both cooling and warming. Critically for the version of the ‘GHE’ as stated by the IPCC, all the features I pinpointed from the document hinder, not help your case for it being the GHE. If it was the GHE then why didnt they call it so? Clearly what is described is NOT a match for your claims.

    As I showed you above the statements are very clear. If you can, then please show me which if any version of the ‘theory’ fits those NAS statements. I’m not aware of ANY. You don’t seem to understand how science works. A hypothesis needs to be precisely stated, the mechanism explained and the predicted outcome shown to have occurred before it can be called a theory. The NAS document clearly states that CO2 causes BOTH cooling AND warming, it admits CO2 is not a well mixed gas (contrary to what IPCC says), the NAS state the oceans moderate the temperatures because of the prime importance of latent heat and any impact from CO2 is undetectable for decades (all conflicting with the ‘theory’). And no where in the NAS do they dare call the above the greenhouse effect. if CO2 is NOT a well-mixed gas then how can it ‘trap’ heat at the surface as per the ‘blanket’ analogy? How can it alter temps in the stratosphere (or at any higher altitude) if the NAS already conceded it stays tight to the ground due to gravity??
    Now armed with those key facts please show me ANY standard version of the ‘theory’ that accommodates all those features and prove your claims. If we are to go by what the NAS says then the impacts from emissions of CO2 aren’t felt for DECADES. You can’t just leave out the inconvenient parts of the scientific evidence you don’t like. You’re in denial if you cannot concede, at the very minimum, the ‘theory’ as popularly known only began to be put together post-1979. It is not ‘settled science’ and judging by your flip-flopping and evasiveness nor does it have any set parameters. It’s all just hand waving pseudo-science to those trained in the ‘hard’ sciences.

    • Rob Honeycutt

      I’m not missing the point at all, John. As I’m reading the report, the entire thing is all ABOUT the greenhouse effect. You’re saying they don’t use the phrase but the entire document is explaining it and exactly why it is such an important issue.

  13. Rob Honeycutt

    I honestly find this whole thing somewhat fascinating. You’re clearly not a stupid person, John. But you’re trying to avoid the basic facts so hard that you’re willing to contort yourself into any manner of positions to get around it.

    John… If anyone reads any part of the 1979 NAS report it is completely clear that they are describing the greenhouse effect in detail. Your “huge story” is a big nothing bomb.

  14. Rob Honeycutt

    John, let’s look at the opening statement in your first article here…

    “This story is huge. America’s prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and related government bodies found no greenhouse effect in Earth’s atmosphere. Evidence shows the U.S. government held the smoking gun all along – a fresh examination of an overlooked science report proves America’s brightest and best had shown the White House that the greenhouse gas effect was not real and of no scientific significance since 1979 or earlier.”

    This is a complete and total lie! As I pointed out, the second paragraph of the FORWARD shows that you are totally wrong! You could not be MORE wrong, John. You’re presenting a conclusion that is diametrically opposed to the entire document you’re citing.

    I mean, I am astounded that someone could even come to the conclusion that you did. It’s perfectly surreal.

  15. John O'Sullivan

    Again I request you SHOW US here by citation to any peer-reviewed paper a version of the GHE that fits those exact NAS quotes. If you can’t then you’re waffling.

    • Rob Honeycutt

      John, you clearly state in your opening paragraph that they state in the 1979 NAS report that GHG theory is “not real.” Those are YOUR words. When the fact is the entire report is stating that “We now have incontrovertible evidence” that man-made CO2 is warming the planet! Those are THEIR words.

      You have completely misrepresented everything about the report.

      • John O'Sullivan

        The NAS stated CO2 was shown to cause both COOLING and WARMING. That is NOT the GHE. It is you who is desperate to misrepresent the report because you are conspicuously dodging the inconvenient admissions made therein.
        Again, please answer these two simple questions:
        (a) if the GHE is settled science and you are correct then why does the NAS contradict CORE aspects of the ‘theory’?
        (b) Why is there nowhere in those 13,000 words that the best brains in US climate science call it the GHE?

    • Rob Honeycutt

      And John, if you want citations of peer-reviewed papers, there are THREE full pages of citations in the report itself!

  16. Rob Honeycutt

    In reading the actual 1979 NAS document what is most striking to me is how CONSISTENT it is with current understanding of the greenhouse effect! I know that since then our understanding has improved and uncertainties have been narrowed, but in the grand scheme of things what we understood 33 years ago still holds true today.

    • John O'Sullivan

      What in the following NAS statements is “consistent” with the GHE theory?
      CO2 causes BOTH cooling and warming
      CO2 is NOT a well mixed gas
      CO2 takes decades to show any climate impact
      The oceans are key climate moderators due to latent heat

      The four NAS statements above refute the standard model GHE theory. If you can’t admit to it or, in the alternative, post here a citation from peer reviewed science proving otherwise then you are simply deluded.

      • Rob Honeycutt

        Now I’m reading the Manabe paper and they clearly state that doubling CO2 will cause an increase in surface temperature of about 2.3C. That is the greenhouse effect. That is CO2 causing warming.

        CO2 causes warming.
        CO2 clear IS a well mixed gas.
        It does not take decades to show climate impact.
        The oceans are a buffer for warming.

      • Rob Honeycutt

        Now I just got the portion of the Manabe paper where they discuss “CO2 cooling.”

        John, the whole passage is about why that is an INCORRECT conclusion. Anyone is welcome to read it. You past the link to the paper in your article. Page 250, “The basic shortcoming of this argument may be that it is based only on heat balance of the earth’s surface, instead of that of the atmosphere as a whole.”

        So, essentially, you read over the part that destroys everything you propose and double down on your mistake.

      • Rob Honeycutt

        The long and short here is that there is NO claim that CO2 cools. There is only a statement showing why that is an incorrect conclusion.

  17. John O'Sullivan

    You have merely inferred that the NAS was describing the GHE. But as I demonstrated the sum of those stated NAS features contradicts ANY version of the theory. Stop waffling and start citing actual peer-reviewed papers that define your ‘theory’ to fit the NAS position whereby:
    1.) CO2 causes BOTH cooling and warming;,
    2,.) is not a well-mixed gas;
    3.) admits latent heat is a key climate moderator;
    4),states that there is a delay of decades before a change in CO2 causes impact

    The above four elements are precisely what the NAS stated is found to be occurring in the atmosphere. Please answer my questions – at minimum give us ONE reason why the NAS didn’t mention the GHE at all.

    • Rob Honeycutt

      John, you’re avoiding the obvious. Originally you falsely stated that the 1979 NAS report shows that GHG theory is “not real.”

      After that you’re done. You’re wrong in the most basic and demonstrable way. After that you’re squirming and contorting yourself into a complex pretzel formation in order to salvage what you want to believe. I mean, dude, seriously, you should be a yoga instructor!

  18. John O'Sullivan

    No, Rob, you’ve avoided the obvious facts stated above. I’ve repeatedly challenged you to provide actual citations that fit the evidence above. You’ve failed.

    • Rob Honeycutt

      John, how are we to even get to any of your claims when your opening statement is such a flat out lie?

      Going through your entire first article you’re not addressing any of these other questions you’re proposing. You’re merely stating that the NAS doesn’t use the term greenhouse gas theory, which is nothing short of idiocy since everything stated in the report is addressing the issue of greenhouse gas concentrations and the implications of that.

      You have to first strike all your false claims if you want to get down to claims that you think are viable. Then we can address those.

  19. John O'Sullivan

    You infer my quotes from the document are fake and I am a liar even though the report repeatedly suggests there may be cooling. Go check them again, admit you are wrong and apologize or desist in posting your drivel here. ALL my quotes are from the document. For example, check section 3.2 CLOUD EFFECTS (3rd para.) which states:

    “The effect of cloud albedo by itself gives a negative feedback [COOLING].
    Thus if clouds at all levels were increased by 1 percent, the atmosphere-earth system would absorb about 0.3 m–2 less solar radiation and lose about 0.5 W m–2 less thermal radiation. The net effect would be a COOLING of about 0.4 W m–2, or, if this occurred together with a doubling of CO2, a decrease of .Q from 4.0 to 3.6 W m–2.” [emphasis added for the hard of learning]

    As such, it is you who is either the proven liar or the one who lacks reading and comprehension skills. Clearly, I’m wasting my time with you.

    • Rob Honeycutt

      John, cloud effects ARE a negative feedback. Clouds are not CO2. None of that rejects the the greenhouse effect. Cloud effects don’t have anything to do with the greenhouse effect, so I’d suggest it’s YOU who is challenged in your capacity to comprehend what you’re reading. The section you’re quoting from is from section 3, “Physical Processes Important for Climate and Climate Modeling.” Changes in greenhouse gas concentrations is a “forcing.” In order to do climate modeling scientists have to take into account “feedbacks” that are a responses to forcing.

      You’re making the astoundingly wrong assertion that cloud effects are a forcing, which is directly contradicted by the very words you’re quoting here: “The effect of cloud albedo by itself gives a negative FEEDBACK…”

      Every time I get to a point with deniers like you where they can’t defend their position they always avoid answering questions, call me a liar, and then run away. It’s cowardly.

      • John O'Sullivan

        Wow! You now assert “cloud effects ARE a negative feedback.” Well, I’ve got news for you. ALL IPCC models assume water vapor to be a POSITIVE feedback, as do most versions of the junk GHE ‘theory.’ The assumption by your fellow believers is that water vapor is the atmosphere’s main ‘greenhouse gas.’ Such authorities infer that climate warming will be enhanced by increasing water vapor amounts. If you did not know this then clearly you’re out of your depth.

        AGAIN I politely ask you to SHOW US which version of the GHE you are alluding to. Please provide a link.

        Your statement that “Cloud effects don’t have anything to do with the greenhouse effect” is positively laughable. You’re just making a fool of yourself. The IPCC, NASA, Hadley CRU and NOAA ALL claim clouds (water vapor) as positive feedbacks as per this NASA link for example:

        Dr. Dessler insists, “No one has really rigorously quantified this feedback, and that’s basically what I’ve done. The cloud feedback is indeed positive. It does amplify the warming we get from greenhouse gases.”

        Then to round off your delusion you then have the temerity to claim “Every time I get to a point with deniers like you where they can’t defend their position they always avoid answering questions, call me a liar, and then run away. It’s cowardly.”

        AGAIN, it is you who is avoiding the questions, it is you who first called me a liar. PLEASE ANSWER those questions I repeatedly posed for you:

        1) If the NAS report from 1979 was referring specifically to the GHE theory then why did they omit to call it that?

        2) If you insist the NAS was referring to the GHE theory then which version of the ‘theory’ includes those four elements (stated below) that the NAS claimed as essential:
        1.) CO2 causes BOTH cooling and warming;,
        2.) is not a well-mixed gas;
        3.) admits latent heat is a key climate moderator;
        4) states that there is a delay of decades before a change in CO2 causes impact

        If you cannot stop being a hypocrite, are unable to comprehend what your own preferred authorities are stating and still you refuse to answer those two questions above, then please don’t come back here wasting my time and making yourself look even more foolish.

      • Rob Honeycutt


        Oh, come on. Surely by now you know the difference between atmospheric water vapor and clouds! WV is a positive FEEDBACK. Clouds are a negative FEEDBACK due to their albedo effect.

  20. Rob Honeycutt


    You said… “Your statement that “Cloud effects don’t have anything to do with the greenhouse effect” is positively laughable.”

    Again, read what I said. You are confusing forcing and feedback. WV is a feedback. Cloud effects are a feedback. These are RESPONSES to any changes in globally averaged surface temperature.

    And now you’re calling me a “hypocrite?” Where the heck did THAT come from? You getting desperate for a reason to depart the conversation?

    As for your questions:

    1) It’s an utterly stupid question when so much of the document specifically, and in fine detail, discusses exactly what the GHE is.

    2) No, CO2 does NOT cause both warming and cooling, nor does the document make such a claim. YOU just don’t know the difference between a forcing and a feedback.

    3) CO2 is a well mixed gas and the NAS document does nothing to reject that.

    4) Latent heat… again you’re reading what you want to believe into the document and it has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

    5) Point to me where the claim of decades delay in CO2 response is and I’ll show you where you’re wrong. Again, you’re likely cherry-picking a phrase, interpreting it to mean something it doesn’t mean, and ignoring everything else that rejects what you’re claiming.

    Look, John, you’re getting all huffy thinking that I’m making a fool of myself but you’re the one who clearly doesn’t understand even the most basic aspects of the science. You’re presenting an entire NAS document that discusses the greenhouse effect IN DETAIL and are making the claim that it doesn’t accept the GHE because it doesn’t specifically use exactly that phrase. That’s just complete lunacy! And you’re getting bent out of shape about negative feedback from cloud effects when you don’t know the difference between cloud effects and water vapor, nor do you understand the difference between a forcing and a feedback.

    • John O'Sullivan

      As I expected, you STILL refuse to answer the simple question as to what would possibly inhibit the best and brightest minds of US climate science from stating the name of the ‘theory’ you say they allude to over 13,000 words in a report about the impact of CO2 on climate. Rather than give a straight answer to a good question you dismiss my line of inquiry is “utterly stupid.” Well, that demonstrates to me the great embarrassment the omission of the term causes you.

      You then say I don’t know the difference between forcings and feedbacks. Well there is huge difference. A climate ‘forcing’ is what we can empirically measure. We often call a forcing in the climate system ‘the sun’ but a climate sensitivity ‘feedback’ is a hypothetical concept. It lives in the minds of GHE doomsayers who wish to make the absurd claim that there could be ‘runaway global warming’ due to ‘feedback’ from a trace gas (CO2) that is empirically proven to be a coolant. In other words a ‘feedback’ is a junk science imponderable existing in the fantasy world of computer models.

      As to the section I referred to where the NAS authors say future warming could be delayed decades, look under ‘Summary and Conclusions’ here:

      “To summarize, we have tried but have been unable to find any overlooked or underestimated physical effects that could reduce the currently estimated global warmings due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to negligible proportions or reverse them altogether. However, we believe it quite possible that the capacity of the intermediate waters of the oceans to absorb heat could delay the estimated warming by SEVERAL DECADES.” [emphasis added]

      • Rob Honeycutt

        Those 13,000 words are REPEATEDLY DESCRIBING the greenhouse gas theory and it’s effects. YOU are ignoring the blatant fact that everything stated in the report is consistent with greenhouse gas theory and are bizarrely focused on the specific use of the phrase. That just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!

        You say, “A climate ‘forcing’ is what we can empirically measure.” No, John, that is not correct. As I just finished pointing out to you, we have quantifiable numbers – ones that YOU originally presented – for feedback responses. A forcing is something that acts to push the climate one direction or another (i.e., changes in solar activity, Milankovich cycles, changes in anthropogenic CO2/CH4, etc.). Feedbacks are the resulting response to forcing.

        With this phrase “climate sensitivity ‘feedback’” you’ve completely mangled the science. There is no such thing as “climate sensitivity feedback.” Climate sensitivity and feedbacks are two completely different things.

        And here, “…‘runaway global warming’ due to ‘feedback’ from a trace gas (CO2) that is empirically proven to be a coolant.” Here you’ve got to be on drugs. CO2 does NOT have a cooling effect on climate. Runaway global warming is an extreme condition and is not suggested as any immediate possibility by most climate scientists. There is a point where we will not have the ability to control where the climate equilibrium comes to rest, and that is the condition we desperately need to avoid.

        And the “decades delay” is the difference between “equilibrium climate response” and “transient climate response.” It’s also referred to as “thermal inertia.”

  21. John O'Sullivan

    Now it is very evident you have no idea what you are talking about. The GCM’s don’t differentiate qualitatively between water vapor and cloud. But if you would care to cite somewhere in any IPCC report where an energy budget not only makes a distinction between the physical properties of water vapor versus cloud, but also provides numbers as to their relative impact on the climate system, then that will be something!

    But as you appear to increasingly be a self-taught armchair climate expert perhaps you can teach me what divergent physical properties these various components of the hydrological cycle possess. For example, at what stage does H20 acquire negative or positive feedback during the physical phase change, at the molecular level what is the boundary condition in play? In climate science modeling please show us where the GCM’s differentiate between the quantification of atmospheric water vapor versus clouds.
    I know you don’t know what you’re talking about. And as per usual, you will fail to cite ANY science paper to back up your pet pseudo science.

    You see Rob, to the rest of us mere mortals there is no physically distinguishable thermodynamic property difference between water vapor and clouds. In physics and chemistry they are accepted as one and the same. Now either cite ONE paper that proves water vapor DOESN’T have the same properties as clouds or stop posting crap on my blog. Thanks.

    • Rob Honeycutt

      Just read the report you’re quoting from. Section 3.2, third paragraph, “The effect of CLOUD ALBEDO by itself gives a negative feedback.” [Emphasis added]

      Atmospheric water vapor is a positive feedback. The negative feedback they’re referring to is due to the reflective quality of clouds; cloud albedo effects, which are a negative feedback.

      I’m honestly really shocked that you don’t understand such basic stuff.

      • John O'Sullivan

        Quite simply the hydrological cycle is nothing other than a cooling mechanism – simple as. Although you GHE religionists want to claim your models prove otherwise they don’t. That’s the basic stuff you don’t want to comprehend. Water cools, get over it.

  22. Rob Honeycutt

    And as for where in the IPCC reports will you find this? Please read IPCC AR4, section Water Vapour and Lapse Rate. Paragraph 4.

    “In contrast to cloud feedback, a strong positive water vapour feedback is a robust feature of GCMs (Stocker et al., 2001), being found across models with many different schemes for advection, convection and condensation of water vapour. High-resolution mesoscale (Larson and Hartmann, 2003) and cloud-resolving models (Tompkins and Craig, 1999) run on limited tropical domains also display humidity responses consistent with strong positive feedback, although with differences in the details of upper-tropospheric RH (UTRH) trends with temperature. Experiments with GCMs have found water vapour feedback strength to be insensitive to large changes in vertical resolution, as well as convective parametrization and advection schemes (Ingram, 2002). These modelling studies provide evidence that the free-tropospheric RH response of global coupled models under climate warming is not simply an artefact of GCMs or of coarse GCM resolution, since broadly similar changes are found in a range of models of different complexity and scope. Indirect supporting evidence for model water vapour feedback strength also comes from experiments which show that suppressing humidity variation from the radiation code in an AOGCM produces unrealistically low interannual variability (Hall and Manabe, 1999).”

    Cloud feedback (albedo) ≠ as WV feedback. In fact, the operate in opposite directions. Clouds are negative, WV is positive.

    Game, set, match.

    • Rob Honeycutt

      And just to make this really really simple for you, John. The difference in the phase change is with the albedo effect of clouds.

  23. John O'Sullivan

    Again you prove you haven’t actually studied the literature. if you had you would be aware of ‘Evaluation of Cloud and Water Vapor Simulations in CMIP5 Climate Models Using NASA “A-Train” Satellite Observations.’
    This states;
    “The uncertainties in convective parameterizations and cloud microphysics in climate models lead to uncertainties in the accuracies of simulations of water vapor and clouds and corresponding uncertainties in climate predictions. Chapter 8 of the IPCC 2007 report [Randall et al., 2007] concludes that, “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates.” Improving the accuracy of cloud and water vapor simulations byclimate models is thus of critical importance [e.g. Cess et al., 1996; Soden and Held, 2006; Bony et al., 2006; Waliser et al., 2009].

    This is why your references do not show how to qualitatively and quantitatively distinguish between the phase changes of the hydrological cycle. Water vapor is claimed as a positive feedback while cloud as a negative feedback but there is no empirical evidence beyond such glib distinctions. All that has been asserted are guesstimates. That is because the atmosphere is a chaotic system and the cloud/water vapor variables are non quantifiable – it is physically impossible to assess the numbers.
    As they say “game, set and match.”

    • Rob Honeycutt

      The uncertainty levels are NOT change the basic FACTS that cloud effects are a negative feedback and WV vapor is a positive feedback. You just don’t get it, do you! There ABSOLUTELY IS empirical evidence going all the way back to John Tyndall’s original research 150 years ago!

      “…cloud/water vapor variables are non quantifiable.” OMG. This is stunning. Because they have high uncertainty levels is NOT the same as being “non quantifiable.” I mean, just look at the very passages you keep quoting from the 1979 NAS report!!

      “Thus if clouds at all levels were increased by 1 percent, the atmosphere-earth system would absorb about 0.3 m−2 less solar radiation and lose about 0.5 W m−2 less thermal radiation. The net effect would be a cooling of about 0.4 W m−2, or, if this occurred together with a doubling of CO2, a decrease of ΔQ from 4.0 to 3.6 W m−2.”

      What are all those figures, John? If these are “non quantifiable” then what are all the numbers about?

      I swear, this is the biggest facepalm conversation I think I’ve ever had on the internet. Just absolutely pathetic. You clearly do not know when you’ve lost.

      • John O'Sullivan

        The term “non quantifiable” applies whenever something is specifically absent in our real world – that chaotic place, with its de-coupled, non-linear system (Earth’s climate). The difference for a fantasist like you is that those NAS guesstimates seem to have a metaphysical life of their own that in your mind somehow turns a binary set of zeros and ones into tangible, corporeal meaning. But they don’t exist. Get over it.

      • John O'Sullivan

        ok for a moment let’s look at your reverence for the discredited science of John Tyndall. Here is a man who 150 years ago measured opacity and relative opacity, not absorptivity and absorption as he seems to claim. In fact, Tyndall uses the terms”opacity” and “absorbing power” interchangeably throughout his work. This is indicative of a fundamental misunderstanding, which is nonetheless studiously avoided by nearly all authors who claim that Tyndall’s work proved the “Greenhouse Effect”.
        Worse yet Tyndall and all the other ‘fathers’ of the GHE actually believed in the junk concept of the ‘luminferous aether’ something Albert Einstein made short work of with his science.

      • Rob Honeycutt

        Then where do the numbers come from? Care to go look at the published literature and see exactly HOW those numbers are derived?

        Honestly, I don’t think you do want to. You want to maintain your denial. Facts would get in the way of your predetermined conclusions.

      • Rob Honeycutt

        RE: Tyndall
        John, then why is it that THE ENTIRE FIELD OF RADIATIVE PHYSICS accepts Tyndall’s work, save a infinitely tiny fraction of physicists. I mean not even Roy Spencer or Richard Lindzen, or even Anthony Watts, agrees with you on this point. These are the most prominent “skeptics” of AGW in the world. I mean, not even Chris Monckton agrees with you!! You stand alone on a sad island of despair.

  24. John O'Sullivan

    You claim those 13,000 words are describing THE the greenhouse gas theory and it’s effects. But which hotpotch version Rob?

    Nowhere in the NAS report is the term ‘back radiation’ mentioned. We know that the IPCC claim back radiation is the mechanism whereby CO2 is alleged to get a further shot at adding heat to the surface (pure junk science!).

    But perhaps the NAS was describing an alternate GHE? Perhaps they meant the ‘delayed cooling’ GHE? But there are others, Rob. In fact there are no less than 53 variants taught at leading universities. So much for ‘settled science’ eh?

    Also discrediting the notion of a GHE is the fact that CO2 is not a well mixed gas. How do we know? Japanese satellite data tells us.

    Rob, you are a sophist if you are seriously contending the feedback number I presented to you cited from the NAS report are somehow ‘my’ numbers. Don’t be absurd.

    As for your ludicrous assertion that CO2 is not a coolant it is empirically proven to operate as a coolant both in the atmosphere and in the refrigeration industry. The numbers are proven here in this peer-reviewed paper:

    The author found that “The result of these calculations is that the carbon dioxide attenuates
    the total absorptivity/emissivity of the water vapor, working like a COOLANT, not a warmer of the atmosphere and the surface.” [emphasis added]

    The paper says its findings confirm:
    “experimentation made by H. C. Hottel 11, B. Leckner 12,13, C. B. Ludwig14, A. F. Sarofim15 and their collaborators 14, 15 on this matter, the combined effect of overlapping absorption bands causes a reduction on the total absorptivity of a mixture of gases4, 5, 6. My assessment reinforces the argument made by H. C. Hottel 11, B. Leckner12, M. Lapp13, C. B. Ludwig14, A. F. Sarofim15 and their collaborators14,15, because my calculations coincide with the results obtained from the algorithms derived from their experiments”.

    But we shouldn’t be surprised CO2 cools the atmosphere. Just look at its specific heat capacity compared to water. Leading industry expert, Dick Topping Director of Appliance Research (TIAX, LLC) writes: “The use of CO2 as a refrigerant dates back more than a century, but it fell out of favor in the air-conditioning and refrigeration industry with the development of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) . Multi-national corporation, Linde, a world leader in the field, also calls CO2 a “High quality natural refrigerant.”

    Climate scientists (who lack training in the ‘hard’ sciences) are mostly oblivious to these facts and instead claim a logarithmic heating effect due to CO2 (utter garbage). What they don’t understand is that CO2 is a superb EMITTER of heat energy and thus CANNOT “trap” radiation.

    I’m pleased you now concede I was correct in citing that the NAS admitted any warming/cooling could take decades due to thermal inertia. And I don’t expect any apology from someone as conceited as you.

    • Rob Honeycutt

      Nasif Nahle? Give me a break, John. You’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. It’s not even published research. It’s just Nahle’s strange fantasy world.

      And a blog post from Tim Ball? The liar that claims to be a “climatologist” when he’s never even published a paper on climate in his life. Tim is a geographer, which is perfectly respectable, but he’s falsely spinning that into him being a climatologist. That’s nothing short of deception.

      John, you’re just proving yourself to be a total loser.

      • John O'Sullivan

        I knew the ad homs from you were going to get worse the more desperate became your position. Name calling isn’t scientific refutation. That’s the childish approach. FYI Dr Ball is soon to be declared the winner in two key libel suits (one against Michael Mann the other IPCC lead modeler, Andrew Weaver). As such Tim will be much richer – as well as proving Mann and Weaver both fraudsters and corrupt/incompetent scientists. Mann has even threatened to sue me for libel. I wish he would. I fancy taking him for a million or so,too. We shall see who the real losers are then, won’t we?

      • Rob Honeycutt

        John, that’s a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. Go back and read your full series of posts and trying counting the number of ad homs that YOU have put forth, and thereby defining the tone of this blog.

      • Rob Honeycutt

        Let’s start with the image on James Hansen where behind him the words say, “Hansen is full of crap.” That’s ad hom.

  25. John O'Sullivan

    Re: Tyndall,
    yes, Tyndall is proven wrong. Unless you actually believe he was right about ‘luminiferous aether’! Frankly, the field of climatology is populated by second rate scientists most of whom never took a course above college level in thermodynamics. This is why Principia Scientific International (PSI) has so many experts from the ‘hard’ sciences better equipped to sort out the mistakes of poorly tutored earth science folk. Among our number is a Nobel Physics prize nominee, engineers who distinguished themselves by their work on the Apollo space program, we have Sweden’s most cited math professor and 200+ other specialists (38 PhDs.)
    Frankly, its true that our experts have higher class degrees in thermodynamics than Lindzen, Spencer (Watts has no degree) and our rigorous peer-review process has identified numerous errors by both alarmist and skeptic climatologists.
    This is why climatology is held in such low regard by the other sciences.

    • Rob Honeycutt

      Do have any concept how much research there is out there on this topic? John, there are over 100,000 published research papers on all areas of climate change. The science has been intensely scrutinized by all the National Academies repeated times. They’ve been scrutinized by every scientific organization on the planet and they ALL, without exception, come to the same conclusion. AGW is real and is a serious concern for humanity.

      And yet YOU seem to think your 38 “experts” somehow trump all the leading scientific bodies on this planet. YOU think your 38 are somehow smarter than the rest of the scientific world.

      Your hubris is dumbfounding.

      Have any of your “experts” ever published a paper on climate change in one of the major scientific journals that shows anything contrary to the prevailing opinion on climate?

  26. John O'Sullivan

    As I expected the ‘appeal to authority/consensus’ argument rears its ugly head. Listen. Rob. rather than bad mouth real scientists why not go see if you can refute them ok? Wise up to the fact that climatology is a refuge for third raters who couldn’t cut it in the ‘hard’ sciences. The fundamental laws of science are universal, regardless of how climatologists would like to have it. The reason Tim Ball has beaten Mann and Weaver is because their ‘science’ is secret science ‘pal reviewed’ and fraudulent. The IPCC has set back the field more than 30 years. Just because there are hundreds of other incompetents in climatology who are either unable or unwilling to apply ‘hard’ science to better fathom these issues is just too bad.

  27. John O'Sullivan

    Re: ad hom,
    Rob, any ‘scientist’ who lives off the public dole and yet refuses to comply with freedom of information requests to show their hidden data deserves disrespect. While scientists who are openly and objectively putting forward refutations of the secret science of well-funded climatology deserve high praise. None of my colleagues gets a penny for their outstanding efforts in exposing the greatest fraud of all.
    Finally, criminals like Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver are getting a good beating in the courts. With my legal colleagues I intend to pursue others. Hansen needs to go to jail. Mann, too.

  28. Pingback: National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 4 | johnosullivan

  29. Pingback: ” CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other” … | pindanpost

  30. Pingback: National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 5 | johnosullivan

  31. Pingback: National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 6 | johnosullivan

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s