Profile picture
, 94 tweets, 13 min read Read on Twitter
Thread: Global Warming Realists Comment on D-Day (and Much More!)

1. There is a group called “Global Warming Realists” consisting of distinguished physical scientists, engineers and others who regularly combat the global warming hysteria among the Left.
2. They fully understand the science, as well as the hoax that is the “Green New Deal.” As a once-upon-a-time oceanographer myself, I am privileged to occasionally get cut in on some of their dialog. I am going to convey some poignant comments from an email string here.
3. Here is the first email:


In this group we often have disagreements but we are united in our opposition to the AGW-scare.
4. Our disagreements and our united opposition are only possible because many people from many nations gave their lives to defeat fascism.
5. The morning will be the 75th Anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy which began Operation Overlord that enabled the defeat of fascism without allowing it to be replaced by Soviet Communism spreading across all of Europe.
6. I will celebrate my remembrance of those who died on D-Day while sitting on the jetty at Trebah (which is about 5 minutes from my home).
7. As can be seen in the photos and videos at this link the 29th US infantry Division were loaded from that jetty onto ships which carried them to Omaha Beach where they were slaughtered on the morning of D-Day.
8. The village of Mawnan Smith is less than a mile from Trebah, and the link also shows pictures of the 29thpassing Mawnan’s Red Lion Inn when on their way to Trebah.
9. (Incidentally, Mawnan’s Methodist Church is about 30 paces from the Red Lion, and it is hoped I will be well enough to conduct Worship there on Sunday before having lunch in the Red Lion).
10. I hope I can be forgiven for posting this off-topic post which I have written because I genuinely believe we should value the sacrifices of many people from many nations so we have the freedom ….
10A. … without which we could not conduct our campaigns to oppose the AGW-scare.

ss//Richard Courtney
11. [Note: Richard S. Courtney is an independent consultant on matters concerning energy and the environment. He is a technical advisor to several UK MPs and mostly-UK MEPs.]
12. Here is the second email:

Dear Richard and Allen,

Yesterday, June 4th was the 75th anniversary of one of the most remarkable weather forecasts in history.
13. Meteorologists assigned to the office of the Supreme Allied Commander Dwight David Eisenhower had to decide whether or not conditions on the beaches of Normandy would meet the minimums that Ike had established for the invasion.
14. It was a tough call, because the area was experiencing the worst June weather in decades. The American meteorologists who were not academically-trained fiercely disagreed with the academically-trained Norwegian meteorologist Sverre Petterssen.
15. The Americans initially convinced Ike to order the invasion on June 5th. But Petterssen convinced him to postpone the invasion by one day to the 6th of June.
16. The weather on June 5th turned out to be terrible, and Petterssen was correct about a slight break on June 6th, enough to get 156,000 American, British, French, Canadian and other allied soldiers ashore before the weather closed in again.
17. It was the perfect forecast of very imperfect weather. June 6th became The Longest Day.
18. In the 1960s, I was privileged to know University of Chicago Professor of Meteorology Sverre Petterssen. Prior to his service on Ike's staff, Petterssen had been head of the Department of Meteorology at MIT.
19. I remember having dinner at his house, where I noticed a small framed note from Ike: "Thank you for your assistance with the invasion of Normandy, June 6th 1944, Dwight David Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander." Here is Petterssen in his Norwegian Air Force uniform:
20. And here is his account of the events surrounding D-Day:
21. As one of the most famous meteorologists of the 20th century, Petterssen is remembered at the University of Bergen.
22. Petterssen's role in the postponing of the invasion by one day was pivotal to its success. Here is what Wikipedia has to say:
22A. He is most remembered for his work in what has been called the most significant weather forecast in history, the D-Day Forecast, where he contributed significantly to the postponement of D-day by one day.
22B. Three groups of meteorologists gave advice to General Dwight Eisenhower, and D-Day was originally planned for 5 June 1944.
22C. But he got in big trouble with his academically untrained competitors, especially from the United States, who believed that the weather repeated – and had found a recurring weather pattern in the 20s that they felt was positive.
22D. And General Dwight D. Eisenhower was relying on his men.
22E. Pettersen, who was not always diplomatic, made it clear that this was nonsense and quasi science but Eisenhower was convinced, and the invasion would take place on 5 June.
22F. But at the morning meeting on 4 June Pettersen presented a weather map showing a storm on 5 June. To strong protests from the American quasi-meteorologists, D-Day was postponed.
22G. The German war fleet was laid in Port: They thought there could not be any invasion because of the storm.
22H. But the Norwegian meteorologist knew his meteorology: His analysis showed a 36-hour gap between two storms the morning of 6 June – just enough to make the giant attack with more than 100,000 soldiers, planes, paratroopers and boats."
22I. The forecast provided by Sverre Petterssen caused Eisenhower to decide at 0430 on 4 June to postpone D-day to 6 June. Initially it was proposed to postpone the operation to 19 June. This was the weather on 5 June 1944:
22J. On 19 June the worst storm to date in the century struck the English Channel. If D-Day had been launched on 5 June as originally planned, the Allied casualties would probably have been much higher, and even higher if launched on 19 June.

The rest:…
22K. Contrast the remarkable triumph of Sverre Petterssen, who was working without any numerical weather projections, with today's self-styled 'climatologists' who cannot even hindcast the climate correctly, using the most modern computers.

ss//Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
23. Note: Dr. Fulks is a member of the CO2 Coalition and is an adviser to the Heartland Institute.
24. Here is another email from Dr. Fulks that I hope you will find to be as fascinating and stimulating as I did. He responds to a “Professor Mahoney” who is a global warming advocate (and his academic discipline is in the social sciences, not physical science!):
25. Dear Professor Mahoney,

Paul sent me your thoughts on climate and on my presentation to his group of military officers. With his permission, I am responding.
26. I understand that both of you are Navy veterans. That makes my first order of business to thank you for your service. I appreciate what all those who serve have done to preserve and protect this great country.
27. Although I have never worn a uniform, I have done extensive work for the US Defense Nuclear Agency and for Diplomatic Security at the US Embassy in Moscow. I was once even a great sailor.
28. But that was 65 years ago. My mother took her two young sons across the Atlantic to Sweden on the MS Gripsholm. My father wisely flew to Stockholm.
29. It was a rough 11-day voyage where all of the 127 First Class passengers were seasick, except for three small boys. A five-year-old, a three-year-old, and one friend had the run of the ship, literally. My mother was too sick to keep after us. So we had a grand time.
30. For meals, my brother and I would go to the fancy dining room and ask for the Head Waiter, because he spoke some English.
31. Then I would explain that we wanted the large tray of pickled herring, much to the chagrin of other passengers who were having difficulty keeping anything down. Of course, that was then, and this is now. I still like pickled herring, but I'm not much of a sailor anymore!
32. Now I am an astrophysicist (like the Great Global Warming Guru James Hansen), and my feet are firmly on the ground. For the last quarter century or so, I have worked on scientific scares and integrity of science issues.
33. When I worked for the Defense Nuclear Agency, we were asked to check up on Carl Sagan's claims regarding 'Nuclear Winter.' That was one of Sagan's sad forays into politicized science.
34. He maintained that a horrific exchange of nuclear weapons with the Soviets would devastate our climate, turning us into a perpetual winter for years. When we redid his calculations using his climate model, we got his results.
35. But when we used our own expertise as to how a war with the Soviets would play out, we could get a Nuclear Spring, Summer, or Fall. In other words, there was no definitive answer and claiming one was simply dishonest. We were stunned.
36. That was my first brush with politicized science. I thought that scientists would always do their level best to discover the truth. NOT TRUE. We are no better than anyone else! This fits into your "political" explanation for the climate controversy.
37. A study of the professional members of the American Meteorological Society found that those supporting the prevailing paradigm (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) typically gave two explanations for their outlook.
38. It fit with their politics and with their belief that the vast majority of scientists supported their perspective. Skeptics, in contrast, argued the science.
39. This substantially worried the authors, because the underlying purpose for their study was to find weaknesses in the skeptical psychology. Skeptics realize that real science has no legitimate political or consensus component. Real science is pure logic and evidence.
40. This study also found that the group of professional meteorologists they studied were pretty evenly divided between alarmists and skeptics, but that the precise division depended on the question asked.
41. For instance, virtually all of us will tell you that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that has some warming effect. The disagreement comes as to how much.
42. Most knowledgeable scientists will agree that the Global Temperature should rise about one degree C for a doubling of CO2, in the absence of feedbacks.
43. With positive feedbacks from water vapor, alarmists get 2 or 3 degrees C of warming, while skeptics argue for negative feedbacks and hardly any warming. That is the controversy in a nutshell.
44. Note that knowledgeable supporters of the paradigm have given up on the catastrophe angle. "We don't have that kind of evidence" according to Ralph Cicerone, the recent past president of the US National Academy of Sciences and a strong supporter of the paradigm.
45. You are certainly correct that science has typically proceeded by dramatic paradigm shifts, as opposed to slow steady progress. The best-known shift came from a little Jewish man in 1905 who challenged our basic notions of space and time.
46. The scientific world was properly skeptical, and even Albert Einstein himself realized that his ideas needed experimental confirmation. His proper use of the Lorentz Transformation was not enough for the scientific community.
47. Even when he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921, the Nobel Committee hedged their bets by citing his explanation of the Photoelectric Effect in addition to Relativity. This progression of science was textbook.
48. But most other paradigm shifts have involved a stubborn Establishment, unwilling to consider very clear science.
49. Alfred Wegener (also an astrophysicist) proposed 'Continental Drift' in the early 20th century to explain what every schoolboy knows today: the continents fit nicely together like a jigsaw puzzle, and fossil records trace ….
49A. … from one continent to another as though they were once connected.
50. But the geological Establishment fought Wegener until his death and 30 years beyond. They finally gave up with the discovery of Atlantic seafloor spreading.
51. Similarly, two obscure Australian physicians, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, were ridiculed for their supposition that a bacterium could be responsible for peptic ulcers.
52. When they received the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2005, the Nobel Committee specifically noted how badly they had been treated by the medical Establishment.
53. I found the book you like about paradigm shifts by Thomas Kuhn here:…
54. You start to go wrong with your analysis when you characterize the climate controversy as a political conflict between "industrialists and environmentalists."
55. There is surely a huge political component, but it is an ideological divide between the Left and Right that is driven by cold cash. Leftists seem to sense this when they accuse "Deniers" of being employed by the oil companies.
56. In truth, there is very little money flowing from the fossil fuel industry or corporate America to Skeptics. The enormous flow of cash is going to the 'Climate Cartel.'
57. They brag about being a ONE TRILLION dollar per year enterprise today, consisting of everything from massive government grants to scientists who go along with the scam, to windmill and solar companies that profit from "fixing" our climate.
58. Another component of the political controversy has to do with Post-Modernism, where Post-Modernists (Leftists) reject science and notions of reason, absolute truth, and objective reality.
59. Physicist and mathematician Alan Sokal very effectively took issue with these attitudes by publishing a famous paper in 1996 that fed Post-Modern prejudices but was utter nonsense, something he later termed "Fashionable Nonsense."
60. His feat was recently replicated by two Portland State University researchers, Boghossian and Lindsay, who managed to get a totally outrageous paper published:
61. You go completely off the deep end when you repeat the climate propaganda available on the web.
62. There are "official sources" all over the Internet that carry this propaganda, including those constructed during the Obama era when he insisted that all government agencies had to toe his political line.
63. Unfortunately, they all bowed to his wishes (including the DoD), since he had the power to cut their budgets to zero if they did not comply. The Trump Administration has taken down some of the worst of them but not all yet.
64. Furthermore, virtually all of the scientific societies (which have become scientific labor unions) saw great value in promoting climate catastrophe as a vehicle for endless funding. So you will find the propaganda there as well.
65. NEVER trust as accurate anything on these websites that is not signed by a reputable scientist. The worst of the propaganda is usually written by PR people.
66. At NOAA, their chief propagandist is Deke Arndt, a man who failed to get his PhD in meteorology, but found great success promoting the climate scam.
67. What is pure climate propaganda? The assertion that 97% of scientists support the climate scam, for starters.
68. That is an assertion from an Australian psychologist (John Cook) who correctly realized that it had great potential for convincing people who had no scientific training and therefore thought that science was just another consensus activity like politics.
69. The reality is that nearly 100% of those who make their living from the scam support it and the rest of us do not.
69A. You have likely heard the famous quote from Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
70. Another bit of pure propaganda is the follow-up assertion that the Petition Project was bogus. It was necessary for alarmists to put down the collection of 31,000 + signatures of American Scientists who objected to climate hysteria.
71. Yet the efforts of Dr. Art Robinson, Dr. Edward Teller, and many others made a very sturdy point: Alarmists do not enjoy the level of support they claim. Yes, opponents were briefly able to place a few spurious signatures on the petition.
72. But you should have checked. They were all removed. You were duped:
73. You will still find a chemist friend of mine, the late "Michael R. Fox, PhD" whom alarmists claimed was an actor. You will also find some of the greatest scientists still alive today, including the great meteorologist Richard Lindzen and the great physicist Freeman Dyson.
74. Dyson held the same position at the Institute for Advanced Study that Albert Einstein once held.
75. By the way, Scientific American is neither scientific nor American anymore. It is owned by the same German company that publishes Nature magazine, a journal that will not publish any article critical of perspectives they support, especially climate alarmism.
76. That makes them unscientific at best, pure propaganda at worst.
77. I hope this adequately addresses your concerns. This is a huge subject that is fascinating from so many perspectives. It is also a subject that makes many of us wonder if science will survive for another four centuries or even another four decades.
78. Some of the problems I have outlined here are not limited to just one subject. Critical subjects like medicine and epidemiology are hugely at risk too. 90% of the peer-reviewed papers published in epidemiology and 30% of the papers in medicine do not replicate.
79. When those who should know better fail to stand up for objective reality, it can be easily lost. Some of us would rather not return to the Dark Ages, when superstitions and politics ruled the day.

ss//Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
80. Dr. Fulks has a really nice way of saying, “You’re full of crap,” doesn’t he? I’m going to address more of the global warming/climate change/scary-phrase-of-the-day scam in subsequent threads! It’s a complete hoax. ///The end.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Stu Cvrk
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!