Open Letter: Alumni on MIT’s Climate Action Plan
Dear MIT Climate Actors,
I, an MIT alum, was just looking at MIT’s so-called Climate Action Plan, particularly its advisory committee, to see if there were any skeptical climate scientists on it — science that doesn’t allow a diversity of opinions is not science.
Not only were there no skeptical climate scientists on it, there were no real climate scientists at all!
The closest you have is Ron Prinn and he is just an old chemist who decided to get in on the profitable field of climate change.
Why don’t you start an MIT Surgery Action Plan and put no licensed surgeons on its advisory committee? You can then sit around and with no surgical knowledge advise how to “fix” surgery, save humanity, and declare yourself saviors.
Oh yeah, that won’t work, you’d be exposed very quickly when people started dying due to your advice and society came looking for you to put you in jail for fatally practicing medicine without a license.
Not like climate change, where any fool can pretend to be a climate expert and won’t get called on it because their predictions of doom occur only after they have made their careers, comfortably retired and died. (Yes, millions will die sooner and live more miserable lives due to your climate “actions” but that is harder to prove.)
I can say all this because I am a real climate scientist, including having graduate degrees in climate science (doing climate modeling and climate proxies) from top universities, having written parts of two major climate models (NASA’s and NCAR’s), and having done hands-on climate proxy work (not just using the misinterpreted results).
Dr. Duane Thresher
- Researcher, tree ring climate proxy modeling, University of Alaska (ARSC and SNRAS).
- Guest Scientist, ocean climate proxy modeling, Alfred Wegener Institute, Germany.
- PhD, Earth & Environmental Sciences (climate modeling/proxies), Columbia University and NASA GISS (working for James Hansen, the father of global warming, and Gavin Schmidt, leading climate change warrior scientist/spokesperson).
- NSF research cruise, R/V Nathaniel B. Palmer in Mertz Glacier region of Antarctica, out of Hobart, Tasmania, Australia; CTD operator.
- MS, Atmospheric Science (climate modeling/tree rings/chaos), University of Arizona and NCAR.
- BS, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, MIT and NASA.
http://RealClimatologists.org/
http://RealClimatologists.org/
http://twitter.com/
Trackback from your site.
Al Shelton
| #
Those climate alarmists are so blatantly dishonest, it is difficult to believe.
Have they no shame??
I doubt that they will answer Dr. Thresher.
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered, than to have
answers that can’t be questioned” ~ Richard Feynman, Physicist
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Dr Duane Thresher:
I can say all this because I am a real climate scientist, including having graduate degrees in climate science (doing climate modeling and climate proxies) from top universities, having written parts of two major climate models (NASA’s and NCAR’s), and having done hands-on climate proxy work (not just using the misinterpreted results).
JMcG:
I too am a climate scientists (actually I’m more of an atmospheric physicist). My focus is in storm theory.
The absurdity of modelling the climate and expecting to get anything useful out of it has always been obvious to me.
Climatology is the offspring of meteorology. It is impossible to change climatology without changing meteorology first.
It’s funny, but when I first set out to tell the world of my new theory of storms I expected people to be thankful that I was reviving an intellectually dead subject. Convection theory was so ephemeral and vague that I knew nobody would or could defend it, as has been the case. However, I never expected the depth of emotions that people have for what is such a non-starter of a theory. I now realize that this is just normal for humans. When a scientific theory is devoid of details and facts people’s minds just naturally fill-in those details with their imagination, like children do with fairy tales. And they are more emotionally attached to these created details than they would be if the details were conveyed to them by somebody or if they had read them in a book.
Unlike any of my fellow students, when I took meteorology classes I was already well educated in physics, chemistry, math and geology. So the brain-washing aspects of meteorological indoctrination didn’t have the effect on me that it had on my classmates and that it, apparently, has had on all other meteorologists. Even then I was skeptical. I had gone out of my way to take the class because I was deeply curious about severe weather. I remember sitting there as the professor explained that convection was what powered all storms. “That couldn’t be right,” I said to myself, “how could such a benign process as convection underlie the power and majesty of thunderstorms, tornadoes and hurricanes? There has got to be something more to it than just that.”
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Alexandre Guedes da Silva
| #
Hi all,
Dear Duane,
MIT and all major universities were trapped by the Media Campaigns orchestrated by the Naturalist movement with the complicity of the International Socialist Political Movement that managed to elect their former leader Guterres as the head of the United Nations!!!
For now the governing bodies of these institutions are compelled to enforce this kind of initiatives to be in the surf zone regardless of their academic or scientific validity, its only a marketing move to pave the way to the attraction of more funding.
The crude reality is that no educated person believes in science that pleases politics and academics are normally educated persons!!!
Cheers,
Alexandre
Reply
Carl
| #
While your list of credentials is impressive, credentials are not scientific evidence.
I am afraid that you are going to loose the argument if your position is that those on the alarm side of anthropogenic global warming do not have impressive credentials. They do and that is the primary argument that they use. “We are scientists; you can trust us” or “They are scientist; you can trust them.”
The argument that “you can trust me because I have impressive credentials” is the logical fallacy called “argumentum ad verecundiam” or appeal to authority.
All that matters in science is whether or not what a person is saying is supported by empirical data, empirical observation. What initials they have after their name carries no weight in a scientific debate.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Carl,
Very good! So why don’t you consider the NCDC data of measured surface temperatures relative to measured air temperatures during the nighttime.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Carl:
I am afraid that you are going to loose the argument if your position is that those on the alarm side of anthropogenic global warming do not have impressive credentials.
JMcG:
This is true, Carl. Unfortunately PSI is not any different in this respect. And I think this is why PSI has been largely ineffective.
The scientific aspects of PSI have been managed by engineers. And engineers don’t really understand science. I think of them as “church ladies.”
Many Church Ladies are Engineers
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics/cYO3qQy3G0w
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Rosco
| #
“And engineers don’t really understand science.”
Are you kidding me ?
The guy who claims there is no such thing as water vapour – there is only liquid water in the atmosphere ?
What is the density ?
Name just one thing climate scientists or “expert” people such as yourself have ever constructed that in any way compares to the marvels of the modern world that engineers fabricate every day !
I wouldn’t even contemplate anything designed by a “climate scientist” !
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Rosco:
The guy who claims there is no such thing as water vapour – there is only liquid water in the atmosphere ? What is the density?
JMcG:
This is the problem. You engineers don’t have the intellect to deal with ambiguity or subtlety. So, in order to get a point across to you one has to spend a lot of time teaching you how to think. And your arrogance makes that impossible.
Whether you like it or not, you have already (effectively) conceded that you can find zero reproducible evidence of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere:
Moist Air Convection Myth
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16462
Rosco:
Name just one thing climate scientists or “expert” people such as yourself have ever constructed that in any way compares to the marvels of the modern world that engineers fabricate every day !
JMcG:
Completely irrelevant. Apples and oranges.
As with most of the rest of the population, engineers generally lack the ability to distinguish between what they understand and what they only believe. What distinguishes engineers is that they have technical skills that give them false confidence. (I suggest you read the link in the previous post. You are the epitome of a ‘church lady’.)
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Carl
| #
Whether PSI has been “ineffective” or not depends upon your definition of “effective”.
If the question is, has PSI been effective in providing a platform for a wide array of people from differing backgrounds to exchange ideas about contemporary scientific questions, then the answer would be overwhelmingly yes.
If the question is, has PSI succeeded in persuading the United Nations to abandon its anti-hydrocarbon energy agenda, then the answer would be no, but then again neither have you, nor has any website that is skeptical of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming meme been effective in persuading the United Nations to abandon its anti-hydrocarbon energy agenda. wattsupwiththat.com, cfact.org, climate depot.com, etc., have all failed in their attempts to get the United Nations to stop pursuing its anti-human political objective to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions to save the planet.” Neither the credentials that the contributors to those websites possess nor the scientific arguments that they have advanced have been made a dent in the belief system that is driving today’s anti-carbon dioxide hysteria–the Sustainable Development political ideology.
If the question is, has PSI succeeded in altering the general public’s perception of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, then the answer is more nebulous, but here is what wattsupwiththat.com, cfact.org, climate depot.com, PSI, etc., are up against. They have no control over the flow of information to the general public through the news media, they have no control over what the Pope says, which determines what ~one billion people take on faith to be true, they have no control over what students from kindergarten through graduate school are being taught by teachers and professors about the evils of “carbon pollution”, they have no control over what a scientifically illiterate Supreme Court rules, which in the U.S.A. has legally classified carbon dioxide as an air “pollutant”, they have no control over what gets published in the IPCC’s serial reports that many people cite as though it were scientific gospel.
But then controlling what information the general public is exposed to has never been the goal of PSI. Reread PSI’s mission statement. The website is nothing more or less than a platform for “scientists from around the world” to deliberate, debate and publish thinking on a range of issues “without a preconceived idea of outcomes.” In pursuit of that mission PSI has provided you and many other people a platform to share their scientific hypothesis and scientific findings. It, of course, also provides a platform for those who disagree with your ideas to tell you why they think you are wrong. That is what “science” is–an exchange of ideas, an unfettered debate within an open forum.
If PSI had the preconceived objective of altering the United Nations’ political agenda or to sway public opinion then that wouldn’t be “science” because “science” does not have a political agenda nor is it propaganda. Again, its goal according to its mission statement is simply to provide a platform for a wide array of people from differing backgrounds to exchange ideas about contemporary scientific questions. In that regard It has been very effective indeed.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Carl,
Again, very, very, well stated.
But it is known fact that there is a fundmental division among wattsupwiththat.com, cfact.org, climate depot.com, PSI, etc. I seem to remember that some one has stated: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
So, the problem is us. You and I are divided. You state that the earth’s surface is usually warmer than the atmosphere above it and I state that between sunset and sunrise this is not commonly, if ever, true. In another comment here, you have written: “All that matters in science is whether or not what a person is saying is supported by empirical data, empirical observation.” I totally, absolutely, agree with you.
We, you and I, have had a conversation about the previous stated difference.
https://principia-scientific.com/climate-nocturnal-inversions-refute-2nd-law-arguments/ and https://principia-scientific.com/scan-data-clarifies-nocturnal-inversion-mechanism/ At that time I did not have the empirical data (measured surface temperatures) with which to support my statement. For I had not yet discovered the data of the NCDC project of NOAA which is measuring the temperature of the earth surface at many sites every hour of everyday for more than 7 years. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/qcdatasets.html S I now do have empirical data to support my statement.
Maybe the following is not necessary, but I must write what I have also learned so that there can be no evidence that I am not disclosing how this surface temperature is being measured. For I know for several weeks I was assuming a wrong method of the surface temperature measurement.
For I had assumed it was measured by a method similar to that which you used in your experiment. But while reviewing the NCDC data for a location of which I was familiar, I found surface temperatures lower than neg30C. I immediately knew they could not have laid some temperature sensing device on the soil surface as you had.
For it was apparent a snow surface temperature had been measured by measuring the upwelling infrared radiation (UWIR) from the snow surface. And the surface temperature calculated from the measure UWIR by using the S-B radiation law. Now because of reading many of your comments I know you are troubled about such a calculation because the S-B law contains an empirical factor which needs measurement.
However, I previously had pondered that a melting snow surface could be used to calibrate a radiometer’s measurement to be 0.00C just as an ice-water slurry, using snow as the ice, is used to calibrate a thermometer to the same temperature.
And I must add. It only makes sense to measure of the snow surface instead of the soil surface beneath the insulating soil layer. For, it is not uncommon for higher latitude land surfaces to be covered by snow during extended periods during the winter season and portions of the polar regions year around.
And I must admit that I previously overlooked the obvious and did in see the empirical evidence that air temperatures over melting snow surfaces are always greater than 0C.
You have my email so please contact me so we can have a more detailed discussion.
Have a good day, Jerry .
Reply
eugene watson
| #
It’s so simple – there is no empirical evidence that supports the AGW or the global green house hypotheses so they are both false – see Karl Popper on the ‘scientific method’ and ‘falsifiability’.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
EW:
It’s so simple – there is no empirical evidence that supports the AGW or the global green house hypotheses so they are both false – see Karl Popper on the ‘scientific method’ and ‘falsifiability’
JMcG:
I agree. It really is that simple. If you try to argue the evidence with them then you fall into their trap. And when they can’t provide said evidence, ask them why they want to rearrange the world economy based on a notion they won’t or can’t test experimentally. If they start talking about computer models ask them if they will sign a petition to disclose to the public the very low statistical certainty associated with all computer models.
Reply
Alexandre Guedes da Silva
| #
Dear friends,
Some people believes that “engineers don’t really understand science”, others believes that “humans are warming the planet”, others believes in “UFOs”…..
In fact, we do not need to explain believes because they are irrational by nature, they just pop up from our minds as our best guess on subjects that are beyond our “comfort zone”.
What I know is that a “Chartered engineer” should as a professional actor abide by the practices, rules and ethics of its profession which implies a solid understanding of science and its advancements.
I also know from practice that humans get warmer in direct exposure to the sun and could easily die from hypothermia when immersed in cold water. These facts lead me to the obvious conclusion that is the planet/nature that acts upon our temperature and not the other way around.
About UFO’s I really don’t have really any fact to present so let’s believe it or not …
Cheers,
Alexandre,
From a sunny beach at Cascais, Portugal
Reply
Luisa Misemer
| #
very good post, i definitely adore this web site, persist with it
Reply