Climate scientist Dr. Duane Thresher: "Start with defunding NASA GISS where this whole global warming nonsense started. It was started by James Hansen, formerly head of NASA GISS and considered the father of global warming. It was continued by Gavin Schmidt, current head of NASA GISS, anointed by Hansen, and leading climate change warrior scientist/spokesperson.
Thresher rips former colleagues: "Physicists and mathematicians who couldn't make it in their own fields, like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt (who actually told me one reason he became a climate scientist was because he couldn't make it in his degree field of mathematics). People who just wanted instant success as fake heroes or showmen rather than doing years of hard slow obscure real science."
"NASA GISS is a monument to bad science that truly should be torn down."
Climate Depot's Marc Morano statement on 2002 article: "Will they reclassify hurricanes from 50 years ago? 100? What about old tornadoes? Will they erase the Medieval Warm period again?!"
Let's get this straight: The National Hurricane center gets federal grant to study historical storms and presto -- Past storms are made stronger based on 'we feel' guesses, 'best call' and 'best-estimates' while they admit 'uncertainty.' 'We feel the Category 5 winds at least made it to the coastline,' Max Mayfield said. 'We feel'?! Hurricane science is now reduced to 'we feel' estimates!? A cynical person might suspect that the National Hurricane Center is revising the past to show increasing hurricane strength in 'global warming' era. Similar 'revisions' occurred with the Medieval Warm Period, The Pause, Sea Levels, Global temperature data, etc."
Max Mayfield, director of the center in 2002: "We'll always have some uncertainty," Mayfield said, "but we made our best call." -- "We feel the Category 5 winds at least made it to the coastline."
Revisions occurred "after receiving federal grants to study the intensity and tracks of all hurricanes since 1910."
"Officials emphasized they were not working with new data, but rather taking another look at old data under a 'best-estimate' approach."
"Other Category 4 hurricanes may also be upgraded."
"According to these and other authors, rising greenhouse gas levels are at least partly to blame for the occurrence and severity of Harvey, and probably for Hurricane Irma as well. But after-the-fact guesswork is not science. If any would-be expert really knew long ago that Harvey was on its way, let him or her prove it by predicting what next year’s hurricane season will bring. Don’t hold your breath: Even the best meteorologists in the world weren’t able to predict the development and track of Hurricane Harvey until a few days before it hit..."
"We should not assume that any time we have pleasant weather, we were going to have it anyway, but a storm is unusual and proves greenhouse gases control the climate. A settled theory makes specific predictions that can, in principle, be tested against observed data. A theory that only yields vague, untestable predictions is, at best, a work in progress. The climate alarmists offer a vague prediction: Hurricanes may or may not happen in any particular year, but when they do, they will be more intense than they would have been if GHG levels were lower. This is a convenient prediction to make because we can never test it. It requires observing the behaviour of imaginary storms in an unobservable world. Good luck collecting the data.
Climate scientists instead use computer models to simulate the alternative world. But the models project hundreds of possible worlds, and predict every conceivable outcome, so whatever happens it is consistent with at least one model run."
'When opinion writers tacitly assume all good weather is natural and GHGs only cause bad weather, or claim to be able to predict future storms, but only after they have already occurred, I reserve the right to call their science unsettled.'
Climate Activists Peter C Frumhoff & Myles R Allen in UK Guardian blame industry for worsening storms: 'We know that the costs of both hurricanes will be enormous and that climate change will have made them far larger than they would have been otherwise...Lawsuits filed in July by three coastal California communities against ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP and other large fossil fuel companies argue that the companies, not taxpayers and residents, should bear the cost of damages from rising seas. They draw on extensive evidence that fossil fuel companies, knowing that their products contributed substantially to climate change, engaged for decades in a coordinated campaign to publicly disparage climate science to avoid limits on emissions.'
Flashback 2016: Marc Morano: "This is all part of a financial scheme. If every bad weather event can have new metrics that make them unprecedented and a record, then they will declare it fossil-fuel-'poisoned weather.' Warmist attorneys general will use any storm now to get money from energy companies claiming that their company made tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and droughts worse. They will use any bad weather event to shake down energy companies. That is why the extreme storm meme is so important."
Warmist Mark Hertsgaard in The Nation: "The victims of Hurricane Harvey have a murderer—and it’s not the storm...What makes this so infuriating is that it shouldn’t be happening. Experts have warned for decades that global warming would increase these sorts of weather extremes and that people would suffer and die if protective measures were not implemented."
"The first step toward justice is to call things by their true names. Murder is murder, whether the murderers admit it or not. Punish it as such, or we encourage more of the same."
"It is past time to call out Trump and all climate deniers for this crime against humanity. No more treating climate denial like an honest difference of opinion."
"When the president announced in June that he was withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate accord, I wrote in The Nation: 'To refuse to act against global warming is to condemn thousands of people to death and suffering today and millions more tomorrow. This is murder, even if Trump’s willful ignorance of climate science prevents him from seeing it.'"
"That judgment grows more apt with each passing day we don’t reverse course. Knowing what we know in 2017, expanding fossil-fuel production is like Big Tobacco continuing to addict people to its cancer sticks: technically legal but, in effect, premeditated murder."