Study Objectives
Summary Preliminary Report January 23, 2013
Anthropogenic Global Warming Science Assessment Report April 2013
Executive Summary, Bounding GHG Climate Sensitivity for use in Regulatory Decisions February 2014
Bounding GHG Climate Sensitivity for use in Regulatory Decisions February 2014
An Objective Look At The Global Warming Controversy (University of Louisiana-Lafayette) Sept. 21, 2015
AT THE CROSSROADS, Energy and Climate Policy Summit, Texas Public Policy Foundation Conference, Austin TX Nov. 19-20, 2015
Economic and Political Considerations
Misconceptions (To Be Supplied)
Conclusion and Recommendations

The Right Climate

There are competing points of view regarding the causes of climate change in our current environment. One group has concluded that human activities in the burning of fossil fuels have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which has caused a recent acceleration of a 300 year trend of global warming. This point of view is usually called "Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming" (AGW.)  The most prevalent alternative point of view is that natural variations account for most, if not all, of changes in climate.  The professional conflict between the advocates of these two hypotheses generally comes down to a debate between AGW advocates attempting to predict future climate change through unproven computer models, and the AGW skeptics point of view based on observed data and effects of CO2 on temperature changes in Earth’s present and past climates. In addition, there is often disagreement about how the existing climate data is interpreted, and the conclusions drawn from these interpretations.
We are gathering together a group of highly educated and experienced scientists & engineers from various disciplines to take on the challenge of evaluating the narratives of both the advocates of AGW and also the skeptics of AGW. A great effort will be made to understand and objectively reconcile the differences by detailed discussions of the conflicting elements of the narratives. We are being successful in our attempt to include members of the study group from both sides of the AGW argument, and we believe this is important to study all appropriate inputs and viewpoints.  
Because the United States and some other nations have prematurely accepted the AGW advocates points of view and conclusions as correct, a large amount of manpower and money is being spent on an attempt to ameliorate the supposed rise in global temperature. And, also because of the colossal impact on national economies needed to make significant climate changes (if this were possible,) we believe it is critical to be certain of the reality of the conclusions on this subject. During the course of the study, reports will be provided for peer review as well as for information to the general public. When we have preliminary reports that are used for studies within the group, these will be password protected until they have reached a mature state.
This study is very difficult because of the extremely complex nature of the physical and chemical interactions between the sun and earth that effect our climate. However, we are encouraged because a number of the members of the study group were successful in using scientific discipline to resolve unusual problems involved in the national effort of early manned spaceflight to achieve the goals of the Apollo Lunar Exploration Program. The motto of the Mission Flight Controllers:
“Achievement through Excellence”
And the motto of the Mission Evaluation Room engineers who supported Flight Operations:
“In God we trust, all others bring data”
These were not only words that guided us during Apollo, but more importantly, words that defined how we did our work. This is what made us proud to be called “Astronauts,” and “Rocket Scientists.” We will attempt to adhere to these attitudes in order to achieve the goals of this study group. 
E-mail comments to me, please: Jim Peacock, Webmaster
(NASA retired aerospace engineer, USAF R & D, Apollo, Sky Lab, & Space Shuttle)