Reader Poll: James Hansen calls for trials of energy executives, what next?

BUMPED for visibility. Originally published on 6/24. Bumped on 6/28 and again on 6/30

This poll will gauge reader perception to the issue that Dr. Hansen of NASA has recently raised that I cover in my post here. One vote per computer, and please spread this permalink to the poll far and wide to get a good mix of input across the blogosphere.

Click on a dot, then click the little yellow vote icon. Poll closed.

I will run this poll 1 week until next Wednesday at 9AM PST, at which time it will close. The results will be submitted to a member of the U.S. Senate for distribution, NASA’s director, and will also be mailed to Dr. Hansen at NASA GISS.

You can subscribe to the results of this poll by RSS. Simply copy the link below into your RSS reader.

http://polldaddy.com/pollRSS.aspx?id=49940E93EC30ACAF

NOTE: A couple of Pro-Hansen sites have staged a “crash party” for this poll. This has accounted for a huge increase in the votes for the first question overnight. This sometimes happens with online polls when agenda driven activists decide to skew it, which is the biggest weakness of online polls.

Addendum: Some other sites that are not Pro Hansen have also now linked to this poll, so I suppose it is becoming a battle between opposing views now. Agenda driven activists on both sides are at work now. 

Update 7/1 It appears that about 8000 votes were added for question 1 overnight. -Anthony

Update 7/2 9 AM PST Poll is closed, more here

About these ads

187 thoughts on “Reader Poll: James Hansen calls for trials of energy executives, what next?

  1. Guys and gals, I need some help. I’ve been reading this blog for a few months now. For some time, I believed that there were only a handful of people willing to question AGW theory. I have been pleasantly surprised to see so many critical thinkers here. Please keep up the good work one and all. Special thanks to Anthony Watts. I’ve never claimed to be a scientist, and frankly some of the topics discussed here have sent me to the books and google simply to discern what was discussed. I’m fairly good with numbers but have little exposure to statistics. At any rate, the help that I need is that I have been challenged to find five “climate scientists” that have a peer reviewed published paper challenging the theory that anthropological CO2 is causing global warming. The caveat is that these “climate scientists” could have never had anything to do with the fossil fuel industry. I know this is a silly quest, yet, I feel that I just may help this person to understand that it may not be as black and white as he thinks. Any help would be appreciated.

    Thanks before hand,

    James

  2. What do you mean by “challenging the theory that anthropological CO2 is causing global warming”?

    The ‘greenhouse’ principle of CO2 is reasonably well accepted, and Man is a carbon-based animal, so almost every activity he indulges in releases CO2; from breathing if nothing else. ANY release of CO2 will have some effect on radiation absorbtion, so few people would claim that Man has NO effect. Most sceptics I know would claim that the effect from anthropic CO2 is so small that it is lost in the noise, there is little evidence of the level of ‘forcing’ that believers claim, and climate changes due to major natural forces are the only important driver, though we do not yet understand these in any detail. So would a paper suggesting that CO2 forcing sensitivity is lower than required by some models meet your purposes?

    The other sceptic line is to question whether ‘Global Warming’ is taking place at all. Temperatures are always changing around the world – there is always a record somewhere. Collections of temperature data from the last 100 years seem to show an increase, but so much statistical correction and trickery has been applied that it is hard to know how to read them. Does a paper casting doubt on these calculations count? The most recent years seem to show a temperature drop – does a paper showing this count?

    Whatever papers you use, I would include the story of the ‘Hocky-stick’. This iconic graph is now throughly discredited, but the original paper pointing this out was refused publication by all the reputable papers for blatent political reasons. This will help to indicate why “peer reviewed published papers” are frequently called for by the believers, and why they are hard to provide from the sceptics….

  3. Pingback: STAY WARM, WORLD… Roger Carr « Stay Warm, World…

  4. I voted

    Energy companies should be investigated to see if Hansen’s claims are true.

    Yeh and when they are proven not to be he should be sued by the companies for all the money he has gained in spouting his doctrine and then sacked by NASA with lose of pension.

  5. What Constitutional Amendment was it that gave Congress the power of a court? I must have missed its passage.

  6. Not immediately germane, but if hydrogen powered engines emit H2O, aren’t they worse polluters than the internal combustion engine, since water vapor is a much more powerful ‘greenhouse’ gas than CO2?

  7. I was terribly conflicted on this.
    Congress should operate based on data, but you know they won’t and never have.
    But I did want him fired. Perhaps we should have the option of putting him on trial.

  8. A hint. Five won’t be enough to convince this person. Only several thousand who agree with him would be enough.

    Two foci of debate might be the corruption of the IPCC process, and attention to the primary data, dropping atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, falling sea levels, and increasing ice.
    =========================

  9. I suggest you take another challenge. Find five scientists with peer reviewed papers that support the global warming hoax that have never had anything to do with government, government grants, the UN or political patronage. That I would say would be a far greater challenge.

    The notion that a government scientist sits in front of a government panel and testifies that citizens should be sent to jail for questioning what the government non-scientist says, that’s just downright Stalinist. This kook non-scientist doesn’t deserve the time of day, he is purely a propagandist. You also might want to ask Dr Hansen why the 70s ice age was a no show. It was such a nice scare, what happened? Is that what comes next? We switch back to cold — The public could get whiplash from all the switching, especially if we have to follow the climate. Oh that’s right, that’s what the ‘climate change’ re-badging is all about.

    Pay more in taxes, so government can PRETEND to control the weather. If you can’t figure out that scam by yourself, not much else to say. And tell me, why can’t oil companies pay for AGW research and governments can? Who benefits from higher taxes, the oil companies or the government. Seems like you start out with a conflict of interest and on the wrong side of the argument.

    Government is no longer an honest broker of science fact … deal with that fact first.

  10. James, climate science is a new, hypothetical field. By that I mean the mechanisms are not understood, obviously, or predictions could be made that align with observations. James Hansen is an astonomer, who like most climate scientists declares himself so and is supported by others in the same shoes. In effect they are ‘peer reviewed’ for authenticity by each other, just like their ‘scientific’ papers. I am desperately trying to avoid sarcasm here, it is so difficult. Seriously, try John Cristy, Roger Peilke Sr. and Roy Spencer for starters.

  11. Okay, so first we would have to get him to be more explicit in defining ‘energy executives’ . – what does that mean exactly – is it just extraction/distribution based big companies like Shell, Exxon, etc. (what annual revenue basis will be used to define ‘big’ and why would it just be big, aren’t the small independents as ‘guilty’ as the big guys?)), does it include distributors, refiners, independent gas station owners, fertilizer makers, coal miners, tar sands (damn those pesky Canadians). Does this include leaders of oil producing countries in which the oil extraction process has been nationalized, like Saudi or Venezuela ( I might go for trying old Hugo)?

    Then we would need a more specific ‘crime’ than high crimes against humanity. Wait, what if it isn’t a ‘high’ crime against humanity and nature, like they haven’t given ‘very much’ money to deniers, then it might be said to be just a ‘medium’ crime, sort of like a misdemeanor against humanity and nature, should they still be prosecuted?

    I’m trying to show just how silly this proclamation by Dr. Hansen really is.

    I really can’t vote in your poll until Dr Hansen becomes a lot more specific about both violators and which crimes against nature have been committed.

  12. Does that include free pens, and car washes with fill up? Are we also to exclude everyone who has gotten money from, been associated with, or been connected to an organization associated with a group connected to alternative energy, politicians and political groups, and environmental organizations.

    I suspect everone who has ever gotten an education would have to be excluded as most if not all universities have gotten grants from at least one if not most of the above.

    This is part of Hanson’s attempt to divert people away from the flaws of AGW.

  13. I voted the first option. Firing him or similar would be likely to turn him into a martyr, however having the whole AGW thing opened up in a court of law is something I would like to see happen.

  14. James,

    Right off the bat I’ll tell you I am not a scientist either (and I didn’t sleep in a Holiday Inn express either). I am a trained engineer with a background in physics and math, tho not statistics. This subject caught my interest a year or so ago and it has motivated me to relearn my calculus and explore statistics. Most times the statistics here and especially on Climate Audit make my head hurt, but I am slowly gaining some understanding. I do much better with the calculations around climate sensitivity than some of the arcane statistics (arcane to me at any rate) I see around here. I also have a background in feedback systems and a tad bit of modeling dynamic systems ( I had at one time started Phd work in Operations Research). I was perfectly willing to accept what the ‘CO2 is all there is’ crowd was telling me until I started looking at the issue more closely.

    What exactly does ‘never having anything to do with the fossil fuel industry’ mean? A strict interpretation could mean they can’t have ever bought a tank of gas, right? That has something ‘to do with the fossil fuel industry’ I assume they really mean ‘not have received monies for research’, like grant money?

    I think the restriction is silly. Truth is truth, no matter the source (or the funding), either the science is correct or it is not. Where the money came from to fund it is irrelevant. Better to restrict it to scientists who have a reputation for honest research and who are not dependent on ‘fossil fuel industry sources’ for funding, even if they have received some funding from those sources, like Dr Lindzen at MIT. He doesn’t need fossil fuel based funding to conduct his research so it can’t be rightly said to ‘influence’ his work. In any case, if he does produce flawed work to please the fossil fuel industry, it would become evident as other scientists rip his findings to shreds, wouldn’t it? I’m still waiting for my check from Exxon, btw.

    I can give you one. Look to the Europeans like Dr Heinrick Svensmark for one. He has never taken or received any funding from fossil fuel. Nigel Marsh (no relation) is another.

  15. Laurence Solomon has a series of articles in National Post called The Deniers, where he interviewed a different non-fossil-fuel-connected AGW-skeptical major scientist every so often. That link is what I saved a year ago, I don’t know whether there have been more updates since then. But he already had twenty-some scientists.

  16. I believe firing hansen would only give reasons to accuse NASA or your government of censoring Hansen yet again, so the congress should just ignore him.

  17. Anthony I dont think you have to worry about Hansen anymore. This poll is not even worth you time or effort. ( a bit like GISS data) you get my gist LOL

  18. Anthony I dont think you have to worry about Hansen anymore. This poll is not even worth you time or effort. ( a bit like GISS data) you get my gist LOL for the record I’ve got a Msc, McompSc, DVM and PhD

  19. James,
    This little challenge is somewhat of a red herring because the logic behind it is false. Your challenger is trying to prove his belief in AGW with an appeal to authority and guilt by association, rather than basing it on the data. I doubt that even if you find five, your challenger will be convinced of anything you say. I’d spend less time on the quest and more on finding a paper or website that explains the science factually. You might look at the late John Daly’s site as a jumping off point http://www.john-daly.com/.

    Anthony,
    These poll choices are somewhat uneven and incomplete. Hansen is getting quite silly and should be ignored for his shrillness. He ought to be reprimanded for using his position as a chief scientist improperly. He ought to be criticized for some sloppy science. Congress ought to look into the administration of it’s “science” agencies for evidence of suppression (in any direction, not just top-down as Hansen claims). Etc. It’s even hard to find the right choice among the ones you provide and the others left out. But this isn’t a scientific poll, so who cares? ;-)

  20. While I think that we should work towards reducing all pollution, we will soon see a reduction in global temp due to normal cycles. In 1977 we were told that an ice age was going to kill us all, I fear the cold more than heat.

    Our elected officals in Washington will do nothing anyway unless they are empowered, we need to vote out all 535 of them in my opinion.

    It seems that one party uses Robin Hood policies and the other, the King policies…where is support for the majority?

  21. James, you’re right, it’s a silly quest. You can’t help someone to learn whose only agenda is to try to sandbag you. Try turning it around and say “sure”, just as soon as you give me the name of just one AGW “climate scientist” whose funding, job, and/or reputation as a scientist isn’t dependent on AGW being true.
    Peer review? Give me a break. The AGWers have that racket sewn up, as they will gladly “peer review” each others’ work in order to keep that gravy train rolling along.
    Tell him to try some actual science for a change.

  22. James, I can’t help with your request. However, in my humble opinion, the peer reviewed status of information is overrated, and not as important as it once was. Issues that have as much political and cultural baggage as this one tend to contaminate the pure scientific process, and that includes the review process for publication. Just because something doesn’t get published doesn’t mean it wasn’t meritorious.

    Fortunately the internet makes it possible to disseminate all of that “rejected” information anyway, and people can access it rather easily to examine for themselves.

    Having said that, I’m sure someone can point you to 5 papers anyway. Also, dismissing work by people that have been involved with the fossil fuel industry is a logical fallacy, and you should make your friend aware of it.

  23. /Hmmm…think there should have been a option for recommending hansen/NASA should be investigated

  24. It seems to me that the person demanding your 5 persons has set up a clever game by which he can throw out any paper you produce. This has nothing to do with the ideas, it is simply a new version of the “heads I win, tails you lose” game. Even if you do find something that fits his rules, he will find new ways to disqualify whatever you give him (journals weren’t good enough, bad pedigree, there was some contact you never new about)

    “Peer reviewed” means approved by Hansen and his cronies at the various publishers. It’s a temporarily unbreakable scheme meant only to allow idealogues to play the kind of game your clown is playing with you.

    As far as this poll goes, Hansen will step down from NASA about the time that Mugabe gives up Zimbabwe. Those two have strikingly similar views about themselves and about power.

  25. Dr. Hansen should be required to cooperate fully with all serious efforts to vet his climate models. Releasing unannotated code without a complete data dictionary and integration schema is not cooperation. He should also publish the exact data production pathway for the temperatures and other inputs he used for his models. All of his work is unclassified and done with public funding, he has nothing proprietary to protect. If he refuses to let other qualified engineers and scientists examine these results, which have so embroiled our society, then he should be replaced by a bona fide scientist who will support the scientific method applied without limitation.

  26. Like you, James, I don’t pretend to be a scientist but I can tell when I’m being led by the nose by people with an agenda.
    There’s contributors here who can answer your question directly, but meantime, why don’t you go back to your pal and ask why he believes that scientists who are in hock to Big Government for their annual grants are any more reliable than those who are in hock (supposedly) to Big Oil or Big Coal or Big AnythingElse.
    And try persuading him that guys like the IPCC whose whole rationale is to further the belief in AGW (read their mission statement) are no more (and probably less) objective than the guys who have spent in man-years hundreds of years actually studying the climate.
    He probably won’t listen but, what the hell, you’ll at least have tried!

  27. It is illegal for civil servants to engage in political activities stemming from their job. He should be prosecuted, but won’t because of political cover from Gore, Soros and press core which hates the President.

  28. James,

    While the majority of the peer reviewed literature does come down on the side of AGW, there are some legitimate skeptic voices out there if you look hard enough. I’ll give you a hand; since I’ve been known to challenge skeptic friends of mine to a similar task, its only fair. ;)

    Granted, few of these completely throw out the idea of AGW forcing; most simply argue that natural forcings are more significant than currently modeled.

    1) Scafetta, Nicola; West, Bruce J. (2006-03-09). “Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming”. Geophysical Research Letters 33 (5): L05708.http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL025539.pdf

    2) Stott, Peter A.; et al. (2003-12-03). “Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?”. Journal of Climate 16 (24): 4079–4093.

    3) Svensmark, Henrik (July 2000). “Cosmic Rays and Earth’s Climate” (PDF). Space Science Reviews 93 (1-2): 175–185.

    4) Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, and Arthur Y. Hou (2001). Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82 (3): 417-432.

    5) Spencer, Roy W., Braswell, William D., Christy, John R. & Hnilo, Justin (2007). Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations. Geophysical Research Letters 34.

  29. James Hansen’s comments are way out of bounds for someone in his position, and for that he should be fired for incompetency. This reminds me of the recent words of Ms. Hiedi at the Weather Channel when she made the ignominious comment that all meteorologists who did not agree with AGW should be stripped of their credentials. Who made these people God? These kind of comments are so indicative of who they really are and the AGW religion they literally worship. Motives for saying such silly things aside $$$$, yes, Hansen should be fired because he is no longer competent and credible enough to chair that position. Putting oil execs on trial for AGW, really!

  30. Mr. Sexton:

    I’d suggest you start with Dr. Svensmark in Denmark, and then proceed to Roger Peilkie (SP?)

    I don’t have time right now to come up with the rest, but there are plenty.

    AND with regard to the “peer review” caveat, can I say politely, RUBBISH?

    I worked in nuclear power for 21 years. (Now, as Dr. King put it, “Free at last,

    free at last, thank God I’m FREE!”, been working medical engineering the

    7 years..) and EVERY article in Science and Nature on nuclear energy was

    CORRUPT, STUPID, SILLY and POLITICAL and had little or no basis in fact.

    Pure review my EYE. Those “scientific journals” are worthless political rags

    with pure aggenda’s. Let me give you one specific example: Dr. George

    Miley, of University of Ill. resurrected the “Farnsworth Fusor” in 1998,

    and put out several MS Students and one Phd on the basis of characterizing

    his “Inertial Electrostatic Confinement” device. His submission to Nature

    was rejected because, “The Farnsworth Fusor Cannot work by theory..”

    When he called the reviewer (yeah, he’s not supposed to know who..) the

    man HUNG UP on him as he simply asked, “If the IEC/Farnsworth Fusor

    does not work, where do the 10 billion 5 MeV neutrons per second come

    from when it is turned on?”

    Peer review my eye. That’ is a worthless way to evaluate things. It really has

    NO meaning. One more example: Find the “peer review” for Einstien’s 1905

    paper on Special Relativity. HINT: There was none. “Peer review” is a canard

    and a modern strawman fabrication. Probably more limiting of science than

    worthwhile, period.

  31. On the poll:

    Dr. Hansen should not be fired for expressing his opinions.

    First off, anyone with a view on these matters should be able to express them. A big complaint I’ve had with the AGW crowd is the censorship they promote. To emulate their methods is just unthinkable.

    Second, firing Dr. Hansen would transform him into a martyr. This would only add more emotional fuel to the debate, serving no useful purpose.

    Third, as Dr. Hansen is suggesting major changes to our entire economic and legal system, his methods and data should be closely audited. The results of these audits should be widely publicized and made available on the web. Perhaps we could gather a group of well qualified statisticians to review the entire GISS database and make their observations and suggestions, if any.

    Fourth, as Dr. Hansen prefers the role of advocate over that of scientist, perhaps the duties of maintaining the GISS database should be assigned to another individual. Basic separation of duties; a management principle followed in any organization managing other people’s assets. The rules for the GISS database should be completely transparent. Such matters as adjustments to the raw data for station movements, urban heat island effect, and so forth would be clearly stated. In addition to the adjusted date, the raw data for all the stations should be easily accessible to all.

    Just a few thoughts.

  32. Poll doesn’t seem to be working. Nothing happens when I click on the half sun or on “view results”.

    Anyway my vote is that he should appologize.
    I would also add that if he refuses then he should be fired. It is not appropriate for a government employee to make such comments.

  33. James I think you could start out with Dr. Roy Spencer. But he is known as a skeptic and will probably be discounted because he drives a car that burns carbon based fuels. Your friends will probably fine something wrong with whoever you pick out but there are many WIKI is about as biased as you can get but they still list some. Also try the Oregon list. But remember if they aren’t on the team they will probably be discounted.

    Remember that many scientists start out in industry and the oil and coal industry is located in nearly every state in the union and nearly every nation across the globe. They like to hire young scientists that like to do field work and have open minds and like to learn.

    Make your friends do the same as you. If you can’t name any scientist that has ever been an employ of the carbon fuel industry. Tell them they can’t use any scientist that has ever used a carbon fuel. Turn about should be fair play.

    Remember they cite an IPCC based consensus that has 2500 not named scientists and discount a list of over 32000 scientist with over 9000 PhD as signatures. Very few of the so called experts have a degree in climate science. Nearly all are degreed in another discipline that is related to climate but is also related to fuel discovery both carbon and alternatives.

    My ramblings probably haven’t helped but has given me some relief because I fight the same battles as you. And get the same answers as you. Just keep on trucking.

    Bill Derryberry

  34. I choose the 1st one (put the execs on trial) because I believe this would be a great way of bringing awareness to all of the issues with AGW. This trial should be televised from beginning to end and ALL of the players should be required to testify and that includes, for example, the people at HadCRUT who are holding back information. They need to explain why they are holding back info and then make it public. And the trial should be put on hold while the data is reviewed by the skeptics (as well as the AGW crowd). The Oil companies should be allowed to use all the resources available and that includes the people from sites such as climateaudit.org. (I’m not pro-oil, just a skeptic of AGW).

    If it turns out they make their case, then so be it; AGW is true. At least I’d feel better knowing that we were able to get and review ALL of the data and methods. There are too many unanswered questions with AGW to go along with it and severely lower our standard of living.

  35. I’m looking for a 7th choice that says, “Al Gore and James Hansen should be put on trial for screaming fire in a crowded theater, and conspiracy to defraud the public.”

  36. I wouldn’t worry about the caveat. It would be up to this other person to prove that any link, however tenuous, to “the fossil fuel industry” somehow invalidates their research. The data are what they are, association doesn’t make it less reliable.

    Also, some prominent scientists who do not toe the consensus line have reported that research funding tends to go away if you don’t believe in AGW. Which means there will be precious few truly skeptical scientists who are able to get published simply because they can’t get funding.

  37. Perhaps James Hansen does not actually expect actual show trials in the United States. But it might be possible that some European “Court” could issue subpoenas or arrest warrants and hinder the executive’s ability to travel and do business.

    I note that after the Congressional “show trial”, Exxon/Mobil began to dispose of assets in the U.S. (gas stations to start).

  38. The answers aren’t mutually exclusive. E.g, if I’d like to see Hansen fired should I be for Congress accepting opinion over data?

  39. The counter-caveat is that “climate scientists” pursuing papers on anthropogenic warming theory must show that they have received no money from the huge Environmental Lobby or with ties to Carbon Offset trading, and that their academic scientific background is legitimate and not a policy-push.

  40. Pingback: Reader Poll: James Hansen calls for trials of energy executives, what next? &laquo Publius’ Forum

  41. This is tantamount to the Catholic Church imprisoning Galileo because he had the temerity to cast doubt on the Ptolemaic Solar System. It is thoroughly ironic that Dr. Hansen is calling for the prosecution of those with opposing scientific views at a time when the entire Greenhouse-Anthropogenic Global Warming “theory” is about to collapse under the weight of its own version of Ptolemaic epicycles.

    As a professional geoscientist in the oil industry, I know that the study of climate change is far from a settled science. There is a legitimate scientific debate on this subject. It is absolutely outrageous, and unacceptable, that a public employee be allowed to threaten the public with criminal prosecutions if they disagree with him.

  42. Hansen should be tried for accepting bribes from Soros and others in exchange for politicizing the scientific work of his agency.

  43. Congress should be fired because most of them are too ignorant to know that the opinions of scientists are the not same as science and for basing policy which huge detrimental economic consequences on the opinions of a few cultish, self-proclaimed guardians of the planet. Science is not a democracy where the majority view is equivalent to fact. On the other hand, those who hold power in the scientific community can be very totalitarian in their desire to suppress the views of those who disagree with their opinions.

  44. You didn’t have the choice I really want.

    Put Hansen on trial (at least a civil trial for defamation of character, libel, etc).

    If one were to investigate deeply, one might find grounds for criminal prosecution of treason. Like all government employees this scoundrel took an oath of office and may have broken it, which would be treason.

  45. Vote to ignore.

    He very badly wants to be fired; it would give him martyr status.

    Treat him like the two-headed chicken hatched from a square egg that he is.

    REPLY: Interesting insight.

  46. What concerns me more, as someone who is ex-NASA, is that James Hansen is director of GISS. If you are a NASA employee, any research paper you write has to be submitted for agency approval before you can submit it to a journal. (The more important or controversial the paper, the higher up it goes within the agency, with the Life-In-Mars-Meteorite paper going all the way up to Goldin). Hansen is clearly not someone who can be relied upon to make objective judgements about climate science research results.

  47. Perhaps Hansen should only be denied a heated office for the rest of his career. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

  48. I imagine Hansen did not mean his statements literally.

    He was merely making a “statement” that he doesn’t like seeing anti-global warming science being promoted (because obviously his research is right and ignoring his research has vast consequences for the planet.)

    Hansen, however, IS the problem because he refuses to accept that there is problems with his research and his models. There are numerous problems with it, some of which are more than serious enough to call into question whether there will be negative impacts from global warming at all.

    If Hansen wants less CO2 emissions, he needs to convince the PEOPLE to use less fossil fuels, not prosecute oil executives. He himself should be using less fossil fuels and not trying to force it on the rest of us by prosecuting people and enacting new laws (making electricty usage illegal for example).

    Hansen is the problem. Let’s get rid of him and let some other objective scientists tell us what the impact of global warming is likely to be so we can properly plan for the future and enact proper policy.

  49. He’s got a stated intent to violate the Hatch Act. That should be fun. Perjury could be fun, too. Discovery would be lots of fun.

    Does anyone know if his statements Monday to the select committee were under oath? I saw that 20 years ago, it was “testimony”. Monday was described as “a briefing”.

  50. First oil execs, then the rest of human kind. 6.7 Billion people on earth emitting 1 kg of CO2 per day = 2.4455 Billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year. With 2042 world population projected to be 9 Billion people, will Hansen say STOP BREATHING AND MAKING BABIES???

  51. James Sexton,

    I agree with the folks here that say that data is data. Let’s say that the assumptions of the opinions of oil-funded research is correct? Is it still wrong even if it ends up being correct just due to association. How about like another reader suggested, we find an alarmist paper not supported by government agencies or the good-ole’-boy, umh, I mean pear-reviewed, network?

    Also, I would like to see the oil people brought to court. All and both sides of the data shown in court is a great avenue to expose both sides of the AGW argument purely, as John Coleman said at the NY conference a few months ago.

  52. Hansen should be retired. But based on his proclivity for playing the martyr and his love of media adulation and grandstanding, I am sure both Houses of Congress will launch an immediate investigation into his termination. Remember, Senators Schumer and Clinton represent him in the Senate. As a senior employee of the Federal Goverment Hansen is bound by a Code of Conduct. However, a good lawyer in a court filled with the right jurors could probably prove that Hansen was fired for political reasons. In the mean time, NASA and its management would be run through a political grilling by various Congressional sub-committess.

    In the end, Congress would force NASA to hire another Hansen type personality. It the GOP ever regains control of Congress again, it should shutdown the Climate and Atmospheres Branch of Goddard Space Institute altogether.

  53. Hansen is the problem. Let’s get rid of him and let some other objective scientists tell us what the impact of global warming is likely to be so we can properly plan for the future and enact proper policy.

    Who is going to decide who the objective scientists are? And how will we know that their opinions of what the impact of global warming might be are correct? Hansen isn’t the problem. The problem is that people treat him and others like gods. A great number of people do not seem to understand the difference between science and the opinions of scientists. Hansen is one scientist and he has his opinions. If he had a real theory that after testing was shown to be correct, that would be one thing. But he doesn’t. Rather, he and Al Gore engage in shameless self-promotion, proclaiming themselves to be the lone warriors battling all the evil deniers in the moral crusade for the survival of the planet. They gain power not because of proven scientific prowess, but because of people’s propensities to believe in conspiracy theories and their fears of cataclysm. This stuff sells. Just look at how many disaster shows there are on the Weather, National Geographic, Discovery, TLC, and History channels.

    Einstein had a cult-like status in his day, but at least he had come up with brilliant theories that were tested and validated. Even so, he originally didn’t think the atom bomb was possible because he hadn’t considered chain reactions using neutrons. Even though his theory was correct, his opinion of it’s application to atom bombs was incorrect. We need to learn to separate the science from the scientist.

  54. Jack,
    The right to free speech is not absolute. There are times when it must be limited. For example, when you are speaking in some official capacity for another party then you must limit your statements to only those which agree with the other party. In the specific case of James Hansen he is clearly speaking in his capacity as a NASA manager and researcher, so the scope of what he can say should be limited by NASA, which I’m sure has policies in place regarding these issues.

    Every employer I’ve ever worked for had clear policies that if approached by the press or a customer we were supposed to refer them to the company. If we didn’t and something we said was out-of-line (in the opinion of the company), we could be fired and potentially sued. Government employees are generally under even more restrictions in this regard, so I don’t understand why Hansen gets away with it.

    The bottom line is, if he wants the most unfettered speech possible, all he has to do it quit NASA and then he’ll be free to say (almost) anything he wants.

  55. I guess I’m a shill for Big Oil. Back in the 70’s I got a free set of steak knives from Shell Oil. My degrees are in Political Science and Computer Science with a minor in Engineering. Because I spent many years in electronics, particularly communications via radio waves, I have been a student of natural influences on radio wave propagation. That leads one to solar cycles and orbital mechanics. Amazingly [said with tongue in cheek], it turns out these also have a great influence on weather and climate, as does vulcanism. With new research on multi decadal oscillation patterns of the Earth’s major oceans (think El Nino) one can readily find the drivers for climate change without even considering puny humans. However, you can’t tax Mother Nature or pass laws controlling her, so that’s a non-starter. Thus… AGW. It’s the answer to a fascist’s dreams. The whole scam is very incestuous. Government funds “scientists” who then tell the government they “have to do something” which then requires millions more for the scientists to work out what to do which then requires laws and taxes which cause effects the scientists need millions more to study…. ad nauseum.

  56. While I know people are saying they want the oil execs put on trial only because they believe it will allow discovery to take place and thereby bring the scientific basis of the theory into legal review, think of what kind of precedents would be set for bringing people to trial on the basis of thought crimes? I’d much rather put up with jerks like Hansen then open up that Pandora’s Box.

    Hansen, as a government employee, is guilty of misconduct and should be immediately terminated and his government pension forfeit. He is using his government position, title, and implied authority to deliberately defame and slander highly successful people who provide invaluable services to humanity. Unlike himself, they provide true value and should be respected, not trashed by insignificant pieces of drivel like him. Hansen recently engaged in similar behavior when he used his implied authority, without any consent of his superiors or executive department heads (even using NASA stationery and letterhead), to try to threaten and intimidate a textbook company (Houghton Mifflin) into recalling textbooks that didn’t adhere to Hansen’s lunatic scriptures.

    In his actual responsibilities for data collection and interpretation, he not only engages in the suspect fabrication we are all aware of, but he has actually destroyed taxpayer-funded data by writing over original data sets thereby deleting them. Is this so his work can’t be reviewed nor his adjustments questioned? By law, as a government servant using data technically owned by the taxpayers, he is required to archive his data, algorithms, and processes for public review. He defiantly refuses to obey and adhere to this mandate.

    This man has gone on too long. He is a very dangerous fanatic. Grounds for civil and/or criminal legal action against him should be examined. Perhaps if he was fired, being the megalomaniac that he is, he would bring the lawsuit on his own that everyone wants to see. Only if he is personally involved as a litigant would his work be subject to discovery. In any case, he needs to go.

  57. Fire.

    I think the precedent of having a corrupt ideologue in charge of just about anything at NASA, not to mention reviewing papers for publication, is worse than his having “martyr status” with the press… he already gets more coverage that Britney Spears, for crying out loud, what harm could it do?

  58. Hansen’s rants are symptoms of an underlying problem that has the potential to discredit sound science for years. He is a spokesman for a cabal that is hijacking the culture of professionalism and integrity in scientific research.

    The cabal includes radical environmentalists, opportunistic politicians, global socialists NGOs and bureaucrats, investors, and collaborating scientists and media. They have succeeded in promoting an unproven hypothesis that is contradicted by years of empirical research and climate data into an orthodox belief system. This orthodoxy is applied to regulate funding for research from governments. To date the cabal’s success is phenomenal.

    Scientific journals and peer review have been corrupted e orthodoxy. Contradictory research is answered by smears, false accusations of conflicts of interest, and deamonizing that is enabled by the willing media.

    One of the most serious problems that undermines research is the monopoly from government funding. The cabal is succeeding in forcing scientists to collaborate with the AGW hoax through their dole of funding.

    Two bad things happen. Research, analysis and innovation become mediocre. Honest and legitimate research funded by the private sector is discredited without justification. It is this source of funding that produces much of the innovation and discoveries in applied research.

    Undermining research for perceived bias or conflicts based upon the source of funding alone, whether public or private, cannot be justified. The expertise and experience of funders is a critical to honest assessment of research, whether is the government of private sector.

    Perceived conflicts of interest are best dealt with by complete disclosure of funding, methodology, controls, and data sets used. The research of Hansen, his minions and fellow travelers, is more questionable than any funded by Exxon because it is secretive, based upon suspect data that is revised without disclosure of methodology or justification. Many observers the product of GISS and IPCC to be dishonest, even fraudulent.

    More broadly, in todays environment it is difficult for scientists to get research grants from NSF and NIH without conforming their work to the prevailing narrow minded orthodoxy. Sadly, government operates as a blunt instrument in most of the areas it influences or regulates. The legitimacy of research should be determined by its substance, not it form.

  59. I would rather trust oil company-sponsored scientists because the companies have a profit motive in getting the science right. Betting on a warming climate when things are going to cool off can put a lot of resources in the wrong place, as can the converse. Selling air conditioners to eskimos isn’t a great profit prospect if a new ice age is pending. Likewise for selling furnaces in Tahiti if AGW is correct. Government money is more likely to lead to higher taxes and greater restrictions so I really do worry more about that side of financing!

    BTW, my MSc is in management and I had to disect a lot of BS to determine where money and resources really had to be placed – and there were a lot of agendas to obscure the proper path.

  60. I got a fellowship from NASA in graduate school and they made me sign a form including an oath to uphold the Constitution. (Unlike Hansen, I take these things seriously).

    By calling on the government to censor and even prosecute oil executives for their ideas and for exercising free speech, Hansen should be fired. He violated his oath. For that, unlike the production of anthropogenic CO2, there are consequences.

  61. Not quite off-topic: I know it’s a popular myth that the Church came down on Galileo like a tone of bricks. It did so but not really because of Galileo’s view but because of Galileo’s ineptitude at politics.

    Galileo was convinced of the heliocentric view — mostly because of the phases of Venus. We know that later evidence supports him but that evidence wasn’t available to Galileo. Heliocentrism was a politically sensitive topic. Galileo argued (not entirely unsuccessfully) that heliocentrism wasn’t contrary to scripture. Nonetheless, he was placed under injunction not to advocate or defend heliocentrism however NOT restricted from discussing it as a hypothetical concept.

    His friend and supporter, Pope Urban VIII, agreed with him, in fact, encouraging him to give arguments both for and against but cautioned him against advocacy of heliocentrism without stronger proof. The resulting Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems however was written in a manner that made the Pope look like a fool. Additionally, it came across as advocacy for heliocentrism. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! The part that everyone remembers was the backlash resulting from Galileo’s (perhaps unintentional) insult.

    Oddly, there’s more of a parallel between James Hansen and Galileo than not — at least in Hansen’s mind. He’s obviously convinced of his position; he’s a tad short on overwhelming evidence; and he obviously perceives of himself as being at odds with the political establishment. And, apparently just like Galileo, he can’t resist arrogant posturing.

    His previous “muzzlings” at NASA were deletions of his advocacy of AGW from official documents. Regardless of how Hansen saw them, I think NASA was in the right. The fact that NASA is now seemingly backing off from its previous position is showing perhaps a disconcerting change in the political atmosphere.

  62. The idea of getting this thing into court has some appeal. It would be a great way to get the facts in the open. The oil companies can certainly afford the very best lawyers. But congress cannot put anyone on trial except in the case of impeachment. A trial could only happen if Hansen convinced a prosecutor that the oil execs committed a crime or if Hansen sued them. But to sue them he would have to show that he was somehow harmed by them. That seems unlikely. So I think the court case will not happen.

  63. BTW this is a bit off topic but it is an interesting comparison.
    The federal government is in debt to the tune of $9 trillion. In addition they have $45 trillion in unfunded future liabilities. David Walker, the past Comptroller General of the US government, has publicly stated that it could bankrupt America if something isn’t done about it.

    On the other hand the oil companies are making profits.

    So which one is more fiscally responsible?

  64. Do not lobby to get Hansen fired.

    Sure, you might feel better but nothing of substance results. He and the AGW cult want a martyr. He’ll be feted in the media, interviewed everywhere ad-nauseum. Instead, his excesses may actually repel some thinking people and his outrageous stances soe those first seeds of doubt that may lead some more thinking people to become skeptical warmists or whatever. I was a skeptical warmist until I saw the cooling data.

  65. Did this frightening individual row to Washington? Or did he ride a pushbike? If he did either, did he eat to fuel his internal combustion? Likely he used calories that were assisted in their growth, transported to his local shop and packaged using “fossil” fuel as fertilizer, fuel and wrapping.

    If he did neither his carbon footprint for the trip would be a sight to behold.

    Guilty. Banish the man to a cave.

  66. I say try the Executives with the prosecution having to carry the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And if we could just have Richard Feynman as the judge.

  67. “Oddly, there’s more of a parallel between James Hansen and Galileo than not — at least in Hansen’s mind.” DAV

    LOL! Fighting yesterday’s battles! I call it the Carl Sagan Syndrome.

  68. Anybody who seriously believes AGW is seriously deficient in either scientific ability, or integrity, except AL Gore. He is seriously deficient in both.

  69. Give him a field job, in Antartica, where he can study the warming climate. Something in the interior, would give him some perspective. I would be willing to bet a large portion of the AGW cheerleading squad, spends the vast majority of their days isolated from the very thing, they claim to have superior insight into.
    A couple of winters working outside, would take the edge off his delusions of “tipping point run-away greenhouse”.
    We should also tie his pension and those of his cronies, to the accuracy of their forecasts. If it gets cold enough, they will owe us money.

  70. Questions for Hansen? Any prosecutable actions suggested by the following excerpts from a June 13 WSJ article? Maybe the excessive profits mentioned in the third excerpt would serve as a basis for prosecution? Any problem with the retailers that are seeking protection in bankruptcy court? What should be the penalty for engaging in the activities listed in the last excerpt?

    … Exxon Mobil Corp., purveyor of one of the most recognizable gasoline brands in the world, is getting out of the domestic retail gasoline business. …

    … Retail gasoline marketing profits have been dropping since 1999, and the sale by Exxon, BP and others suggests that some companies believe there won’t be a rebound anytime soon. …

    … Through the first six months of the year, gas stations have made an 11-cent-a-gallon profit, but half of that has been eaten up by credit-card processing fees, says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service in Wall, N.J. …

    … Some gasoline retailers have begun seeking shelter in bankruptcy court. …

    … Exxon will continue to be involved in the vast majority of the links in the energy chain. It searches for crude oil, drills wells, pumps crude out of the ground, transports it on tankers to refineries and delivers it in big oil trucks to gas stations. …

  71. You don’t have a button for:

    Hansen should be criminally sued for knowingly publishing fraudulent data which has lead the world governments into billions of wasted spending.

  72. Hey, aren’t you all perhaps missing something about Hansen? It seems to me , as a UK citizen, that he is manouevreing for an ‘important position’ in a new Democrat administration. Then he can really let himself go, heaven help us!

  73. I went to NASA’s website to a section called “Ask NASA”, to ask them if Mr. Hansen is speaking for NASA and if not, why he as allowed to represent them when expressing personal opinions?

    I think NASA needs to hear from the people because in general, the soft-headed liberals that are touting this climate crisis garbage are NASA’s worst enemy. NASA is alienating it most strident base of support.

    To make a comment to NASA, please go to the following link:

    http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/ask_nasa_form.html

    By the way, great writing, keep it up!

  74. There seems to be a button missing on the poll, so I’ll just add it here:

    “Hansen should be involuntarily committed to a mental institution before he finds a sharp object and causes irreparable harm to himself or others.”

  75. Jim Hansen in Hungary’s leading financial newspaper:

    http://hvg.hu/vilag/20080624_james_hansen_nasa_globalis_felmelegedes.aspx

    The title means: “Reviving the global hysteria: are we will die out or boiled up?”

    I believe this expression can show everything about the situation in my country. The media is spreading fear throughout the society about the coming so-called “climate catastrophe”. Interestingly, it doesn’t mention that global tempeartures isn’t increased since 1998, and the net increase in the last 20 years was only about .2°c (.36°F). Of course I don’t doubt that global temperatures rised in the last century, but the recent positive trend is far below the projections.

    My favourite is “high crimes against humankind”. He is accusing oil corp. execs with spreading doubt about his AGW hysteria, while he uses the same tools in order to advertise his own theories, which are based on anecdotal evidences and falsified data. Misguiding hundreds of millions of people in the world and spreading fear IS a real crime against the whole humankind…

  76. Dave,

    yes, he is. I believe he would be a candidate for that ‘Global Warming Czar’ cabinet position Obama is talking about creating, or maybe he’d be the deputy to Al Gore.

  77. M. Jeff,

    That works out to a 2.6% profit. No one stays in business making that kind of profit. Gas stations make their money on the same thing car dealers do, repairs.

    funny that Congress isn’t up in arms about the ‘excessive’ profit by the brewery industry, they make the oil bidness look like pikers (along with the six other industries that have higher profit % than ‘big oil’) as far as ‘excessive’ profit goes.

  78. Government funds “scientists” who then tell the government they “have to do something” which then requires millions more for the scientists to work out what to do which then requires laws and taxes which cause effects the scientists need millions more to study…. ad nauseum.

    The main problem with this logic with respect to this blog entry is that the current administration wishes Hansen would shut up. Yet, even though they’re paying him presumably a lot of money, any time they try to keep him reigned in they get accused of all sorts of crap which isn’t really true.

  79. Giordano Bruno, however, WAS severely persecuted by the Inquisition, in part for his scientific views, and was consequently burned at the stake in 1600. He was a contemporary of Galileo’s, and his execution no doubt played a role in Galileo’s capitulation until his death.

  80. To all with input towards my request for help…..thank you very much. It wasn’t that difficult to find well credentialed scientists that cast a skeptical eye towards the AGW/CO2 theory, once I got pointed in the right direction. The most difficult time I had was to try to determine whether they’ve received payment from a fossil fuel industry or not. I went with the ones that didn’t seem likely. I know it was a red herring task and I doubt that I changed his seemingly narrow view, but I also know others were/are reading our discussion. BTW, I voted for Dr. Hansen to be fired. If he wishes to express opinions such as he’s expressed, that’s fine. Just wish he wouldn’t do it on my dime. Thanks again.

  81. As a former Federal employee, I know this behavior would not have been tolerated by me, my co-workers, or my supervisors. I see no reason to make a “special” exception for a real jerk that everybody is afraid of offending.

  82. James, all the payment claims are from alarmist sites with their own agenda, please do not ignore these scientists based on this, those claims are pure BS. Sourcewath has no more credibility than Wikipedia and Exxon Secrets is funded by Greenpeace, as for Desmogblog read this : Who is James Hoggan? (Financial Post, Canada).

    There are extensive Peer-Reviewed papers discrediting AGW:

    Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
    (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007)
    – Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon

    Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
    (Climate Research, Vol. 13, Pg. 149–164, October 26 1999)
    – Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas

    Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?
    (Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002)
    – C. R. de Freitas

    Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
    (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
    – Richard S. Lindzen

    Can we believe in high climate sensitivity?
    (arXiv:physics/0612094v1, Dec 11 2006)
    – J. D. Annan, J. C. Hargreaves

    Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
    (AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 88, no9, pp. 1211-1220, 2004)
    – Lee C. Gerhard

    – Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
    (AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 3, p. 409-412, March 2006)
    – Lee C. Gerhard

    Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
    – V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos

    Climate Change Re-examined
    (Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
    – Joel M. Kauffman

    CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
    (Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1998)
    – Sherwood B. Idso

    Crystal balls, virtual realities and ‘storylines’
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
    – R.S. Courtney

    Dangerous global warming remains unproven
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
    – R.M. Carter

    Does CO2 really drive global warming?
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 351-355, July 2001)
    – R.H. Essenhigh

    Does human activity widen the tropics?
    (arXiv:0803.1959v1, Mar 13 2008)
    – Katya Georgieva, Boian Kirov

    Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
    – C.D. Idso

    Evidence for “publication Bias” Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 2008)
    – Patrick J. Michaels

    Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
    (Physics, arXiv:0707.1161)
    – Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

    Global Warming
    (Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)
    – W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas

    Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
    – Dennis Ambler

    Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate
    (Topics in Catalysis, Volume 32, Numbers 3-4, pp. 95-99, March 2005)
    – Chung-Chieng Lai, David Dietrich, Malcolm Bowman

    Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
    – Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong

    Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
    – M. Leroux

    Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation
    (arXiv:0803.1239v1, Mar 10 2008)
    – Serge Galam

    Global warming: What does the data tell us?
    (arXiv:physics/0210095v1, Oct 23 2002)
    – E. X. Alban, B. Hoeneisen

    Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
    (Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, p. 183-183, April 20, 1999)
    – S. Fred Singer

    Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
    – A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis

    Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    (Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)
    – Soon, Willie

    Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
    – Indur M. Goklany

    Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
    (Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
    – Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo

    Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
    (Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)
    – Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

    – Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002)
    (Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)
    – Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

    – Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al.
    (Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)
    – Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

    On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?
    (Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August 2006)
    – L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar

    On a possibility of estimating the feedback sign of the Earth climate system
    (Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 260-268. Sept. 2007)
    – Olavi Kamer

    Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
    (Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003)
    – A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese

    Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data
    (Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
    – Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

    Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings
    (arXiv:0707.1276, July 2007)
    – Soon, Willie

    Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
    – Klaus-Martin Schulte

    Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming
    (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
    – Richard S. Lindzen

    Some examples of negative feedback in the Earth climate system
    (Central European Journal of Physics, Volume 3, Number 2, June 2005)
    – Olavi Kärner

    Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
    – S. Fred Singer

    Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
    – Richard S. Lindzen

    Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
    – Vincent Gray

    Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
    – Olavi Kärner

    The Carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18, January 1999)
    – N. Calder

    The Cause of Global Warming
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 1, 2000)
    – Vincent Gray

    The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)
    – Douglas J. Keenan

    The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
    – David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis

    The “Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)
    – H. Jelbring

    The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
    – A. Rörsch, R. Courtney, D. Thoenes

    The IPCC future projections: are they plausible?
    (Climate Research, Vol. 10: 155–162, August 1998)
    – Vincent Gray

    The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change – the Failure of Science
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
    – William J.R. Alexander

    The UN IPCC’s Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
    – Wojick D. E.

    “The Wernerian syndrome”; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions
    (Environmental Geosciences, v. 3, no. 4, p. 204-210, December 1996)
    – Lee C. Gerhard

    Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
    – Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm

  83. If I had a free hand the way I would deal with Hansen would be to let the full weight of the bureaucracy of the federal government land on him. First audit his taxes for the last 20 years with a very very sharp pencil. Then start cancelling his grants one by one with the explanation that this is a cost saving measure. Thirdly, do away with his job since it is not consistent with NASA’s mission. Then if he still wants to remain in government service I would let him be part of the motivation platoon at MCRD Paris Island for a month. Then he needs to be predicting the weather from Afghanistan.

    Sadly, I do not have a free hand and it might not accomplish much except make me feel better.

  84. Let’s see: He’s now 67, and reaches mandatory retirement age in 5 years.

    We really should pity poor James Hansen: soon, he’ll be but a footnote in history, with no long-term legacy. Just a trail of lunatic mutterings.

    Years from now, we’ll see him trying to modify a Delorean…

  85. James Sexton,

    You surprise me. I had figured from your first post you were probably a setup. But for lack of evidence I held my peace and suspended my disbelief. However, your followup post seems to indicate that you were indeed acting in good faith.

    I encourage you to continue to look at the evidence from both sides, as befits liberal tradition. I am currently a strong skeptic, but I also recognize that I cannot properly own any belief that is not falsifiable, given sufficient evidence.

  86. I’d like to predict the future,
    but surely if I do,
    the One who owns the future
    might pull a switcherroo.

  87. PoetSam,

    Some have done so extremely successfully. Herman Kahn (inventor of futurology, though he didn’t coin the term) did it very well. he is the one who put paid (almost singlehandedly) Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome. His methods still pertain.

  88. Poptech, you cite Gerhard Gerlich & Ralf D. Tscheuschner. Probably a mistake – the paper is serious junk.

    There are plenty of valid reasons for doubting that increasing CO2 will produce warming on the scale asserted by the IPCC, but unfortunately the arguments in this paper are not among them.

    This is the lunatic fringe of scepticism, and does healthy scepticism a great disservice.

  89. Here’s my take…

    Dr. Hansen has the _duty_ to be controversial if necessary;
    it’s part of his job. NASA hired him to think. Many of you have
    no concept of this. If his field of inquiry leads him to a conclusion
    then his job is to present that. His conclusion is that the situation
    is dire. What if Dr. Hansen was warning about Hitler in 1937 and was
    controversial in doing so? Today we’d view him as a hero. Say what
    you will, but clearly Dr. Hansen sees himself as a white hatted good
    guy with a dire situation at hand. Do you people really think what
    he is doing doesn’t take guts? Do you think for a moment he figures
    he’s safe and secure forever, and that up to half of the population
    is _not_ going to ask for his head? Think about that. NASA isn’t in
    the habit of hiring stupid people.

    Dr. Hansen’s GISTEMP code looks like crap but also appears to work.
    My guess is that he’s right. Temps have gone up in the last century
    or so, and his algorithms seem to be proper for the job. They’re
    looking at the code on climateaudit. The code is messy but I think
    the overall conclusion will be that it doesn’t artificially make
    anything change.

    That said, his assumption that it’s CO2 is plainly wrong; e.g. the
    temp records are pretty clear that the northern hemisphere is the
    one that’s warming whilst the southern remains fairly flat. “Warmers”
    dismiss this with hand waving and theoretical possibilities of all
    sorts of clever ocean current inventiveness (no data, just theory.)
    Meanwhile it’s clear that land use changes result in warming, and
    what is there in the northern hemisphere but a lot of land use change
    over the last 100 years? One would presume that when one says global
    warming one is referring to, well, the entire globe, and if it’s
    truly CO2 then common sense says that the atmosphere ought to be
    hemispherically insensitive to say the least.

    In addition, I find it quite remarkable that nobody has seemed to
    twig on the simple fact that computer models designed specifically
    to look for CO2 influence seem to always discover CO2 influence.
    Rather funny how that works. Climate models aren’t really very good
    at land use changes, nor are they very good at svensmark’s solar
    influence on cosmic ray theories. Climate models don’t discover
    anything. They’re programs, and at their core, not very bright.

  90. GISTEMP may “work” but it’s not showing the truth of temperature trends.

    Look example Australia, Brisbane, Eangle-Farms

    Non-adjusted (cooling trend visible)

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501945780000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    Adjusted (warming trend visible)

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501945780000&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1

    See this for longer temperature trends.

    http://lustiag.pp.fi/MTP_231007.pdf?bcsi_scan_F28E09D73845DEF5=K5VtePAJhpowJAAuNEvhokwAAADKknMz&bcsi_scan_filename=MTP_231007.pdf

  91. A person with a delusion is absolutely convinced that the delusion is real.

    Examples …..

    Dr. John C. Mather is a Senior Astrophysicist in the Observational Cosmology Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. He was awarded the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics, shared with George F. (“fingers of god”) Smoot. Mather writes big bang fiction like ………
    “The cosmic microwave background (CMB) spectrum is that of a nearly perfect blackbody with a temperature of 2.725 +/- 0.001K. This observation matches the predictions of the hot Big Bang theory extraordinarily well, and indicates that nearly all of the radiant energy of the Universe was released within the first year after the Big Bang.”

    Dr James E Hansen is director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies and he in fact wrote his doctoral thesis on the climate of Venus highlighting CO2 as a problem that caused a runaway Greenhouse effect which is all bogus. But with AGW we see Hansen’s incorrect assumption in all its glory expressed as the deductive method chasing and distorting data to make it fit. Who can forget his recent “destruction of Creation” epistle that Steve McIntyre observed as a Jor-El complex. Now this frothing delusion is likening fossil fuel CEOs to those of cigarette companies and calling for trials. What next?

  92. Fascinating.
    Absolutely fascinating.
    That’s quite a change in the poll numbers overnight.
    Checked the numbers then went to fix breakfast; ten minutes later there were 52 new votes calling for there to be trials on energy company execs but only 2 new votes calling on Hansen to be fired.
    Looks like there’s been a panic attack since yesterday, when 48% of the vote was for Hansen’s firing (now only 22%). Do you think that maybe the word’s gone out to “The Movement” to ensure a correct result? That or maybe enough True Believers with volatile ISPs stuffing the ballot box. Having seen the vitriolic venom with which True Believers respond when feeling attacked, I can believe both.

  93. I have been watching the poll results over the past 24 hours and it is quite clear that there has been an invasion of watermelons. Option 1 (pro-Hansen), which was trailing by a huge margin for a long time is now “in the lead”. Such a change clearly indicates that such polls are useless without verification of identity and elimination of multiple voting. I’d scrap it if I were you, Anthony.

    Otherwise, an excellent site!

  94. clearly Dr. Hansen sees himself as a white hatted good
    guy with a dire situation at hand.
    Well, at least you got that part right, G. Alston. This puts him squarely in the same megalomaniac camp as Gore. Of course he’s being paid to think – as a scientist though, not as a politician.
    As a scientist, Hansen is a disgrace. His mind (or what’s left of it) has become infected by AGW Religion, and he is on a Torqeumada-like crusade. My vote was that Congress should ignore him, as megalomaniacs hate that, but I could just as easily have voted that he should be fired. I really couldn’t care less about the martyr issue. So what? Let the pathetic, whiny AGWers have their martyr.

  95. I see that the poll results have changed dramatically overnight. It appears that Hansen supporters are now running the show.

  96. The only problem with having this case go to trial is the jury.

    Why do people think that 12 people, who probably believe that Hollywood is the source of all wisdom on the planet, will do a better job of judging the facts, then they did in the OJ trial.

  97. The number of votes has roughly doubled over the past nine hours (12:30 – 9:30 pm, Australia 26 [USA 25] June).
    The manner in which the percentages have changed in this time span causes me to speculate the poll has been highjacked in a stacking ploy by AGW extremists.
    Whereas in the first 24 hours this poll seemed to show a very nice balance, a balance I would expect from the kind of thoughtful people who read here, it is now beginning to show an imbalance.
    If this imbalance continues I believe it will render the results suspect, and therefore of very little (to very negative) value.

  98. Everyone that supports Hansen should just turn off all electric devices, stop driving gasoline cars and stop heating their houses with electric or natural gas. Plan on living in a sod house and I would say ride a horse but they give off methane. You cannot play the game like Al Gore and his 230,000KW electric usage.

  99. 6/26AM–I wonder if the poll has been gamed overnight–there are a _lot_ more votes for positions that don’t seem to be supported by the comments. Is it possible to fake the computer ID?

  100. Have you noticed recent poll results!

    It would be interesting to know what has caused the influx of pro Hansen votes.

    REPLY: A couple of sites have started a “crash” campaign, it happens.

  101. Well, the code “works” in that it gives the desired outcome. That doesn’t mean the station adjustments are valid in the first place.

  102. Do you people really think what
    he is doing doesn’t take guts?

    To be very clear, no guts, whatsoever.

    About as much guts as shouting, “Ho-Ho-Ho Chi Minh” on Columbia campus in 1968.

  103. James,

    Consult 5 theologians and have them deprogram your challenger.

    Global warming is Al Gore’s religion it’s called Warmonism and it’s devotees are called Warmons.

  104. Lessee here. Agenda driven activists crash poll to try to prove that their side is right and not populated by agenda driven activists.

    Ok, my irony meter just exploded.

  105. Pingback: BizzyBlog » Things I’d Like to Post About Today ….. (062608, Afternoon)

  106. A shame, how this poll has been hijacked by AGW activists.
    This is another attempt to suppress a public or scientific debate.

    As climate facts continue to shatter AGW models and predictions, I hope that 2nd tier scientists out of the centers of the global warming agenda will come forward and speak against their bosses, for the sake of their children, their families, their countries and mankind.

  107. I think the first question is actually what everyone should tick. That would be enormously funny and if congress actually even pondered that option, it would show the stupidity of Hansen’s remark.

    There is a reason that media have buried Hansen’s comment.

  108. Fred, that is no mistake. It was asked if papers existed supporting skepticism of AGW, this paper clearly does. While you might disagree with it’s conclusions as I do with those that support AGW this has nothing to do with it existing. There exists various degrees of skepticism and to shut out one because it does not agree with your position actually does more of a disservice to skepticism as a whole.

    Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
    (Physics, arXiv:0707.1161)
    – Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

  109. Perhaps the problem is the limited number of people who read this blog. Anthony, I thought you would be happy that the larger number of participants in the poll has resulted in a better representation of the views of those in the blogsphere who’re interested in AGW.

    REPLY: If you define “limited” as having more traffic than RealClimate.org, then I’d guess you’d be correct. – Anthony

  110. Well need i say that i find this whole war on carbon emissions a top shelf derangement and a joke of cosmic proportions if it wasn’t so tragic.

    Like the bigbang universe nonsense this AGW is a paradox. When you have a paradox then you know you have the wrong assumptions. Just as there is no way everything can be created from nothing …. and as if “nothing” could exist too, with AGW we should know that it has no chance of even getting past its first assumption of catastrophic warming because of earth’s one-way cooling bias. Its second assumption of depleting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is a bizarre, anti life bias with no hope of success.

    Cripes this AGW is an extraordinary, twisted, religious playpen with high priests like Hansen promoting when you should die, that you are not welcome to this world, that you are a burden until you die, that we are all guilty of this carbon sin. Just why should we be so damned respectful of this lying, superstitious belief with its weird respect for lazy minds living in ratbaggery? Are people just so naive or stooopid not to comprehend that carbon is life which should induce a modicum of humility as the reason for our very existence?

    I’ve never felt it unexceptional to have seen through all this religious poop at about eight years of age although perhaps i may have come endowed with reasonably sensitive crap detectors. When one looks around today it just seems so absurd to have let the world fall sucker to these religious deadheads with their weird psycho brain problems, …….. that get themselves into high positions in science and politics.

    I would like people like Hansen to be put on trial to account for their corruption of science. Only then will it be possible to flush these charlatans down the dunny.

  111. Pingback: Diebold committed to delivering votes to James Hansen « International Journal of Inactivism

  112. Andrew W (19:05:19) says “Perhaps the problem is the limited number of people who read this blog.”

    Reality:
    Blog Stats
    Total 1,560,886
    Average Per Day 10,054
    Average Visit Length 1:17
    Last Hour 501
    Today 10,246
    This Week 70,377

  113. You make valid points Anthony and M. Jeff,
    Clearly with over 10,000 visits to this site a day and only ~5600 votes cast, most of the votes are in fact from this sites own readership.

    REPLY: Actually I can’t tell where the votes come from. Nobody can, so you are just making an assumption that may or may not be true. All I know is I got some notices as pingbacks (which I don’t always post) from other blogs where they were saying they were inviting readers to crash the poll in support of Hansen. Last night question 1, at about 3000 total votes had about 100 votes, today after those invitations on other blogs question 1 votes soared while the others did not.

  114. “you are just making an assumption that may or may not be true.”

    Fair enough, but if you’re holding a vote, and as long as people only vote once (who knows if there is multiple voting) I don’t see that you have grounds to reject the result as unfair. Your description of “agenda driven activists” applies to you and your supporters also.

    REPLY: Who’s rejecting the results? And where have I said “unfair”? I made a note below the poll because some commenters where wondering why question #1 shot up overnight. I pointed out the poll had a weakness and why. Again I think you are making assumptions.

    The poll service has a mechanism to keep people from voting more than once. You can read about it at polldaddy.com

    If my intent was an agenda, then why didn’t I write: “vote on the poll to undermine Dr. Jim Hansen”, whereas some of the other websites that drove traffic here wrote in favor of supporting him, and ecouraged the activity.

  115. As the great Oscar Wilde once said: “There is only one thing worse in life than being talked about….and that is not being talked about.” The hijack response to your poll is entirely understandable given the ever increasing influence of your excellent blog and the ever more desperate position in which AGW proponents find themselves. I would treat it as a compliment that this poll merits such a dedicated effort from its detractors – clearly your articles carry as much weight with them as they do with your many regular readers.

    In any case, I believe a court case would, in reality, be the last thing the AGW crowd would want, given the inherent weakness of their case.

  116. Liberals do not beleive in science. They do not beleive in allowing debate. They do not beleive free speech.

  117. Bill Marsh (04:56:46) – why let such details get in the way of a good soundbite. That might involve some actual thinking ;)

    I find activists in general to be a pretty mindless bunch – just through social circles I’ve met so many over the years. Most are not nearly as smart as they like to think they are, and mistake being ‘informed’ or ‘educated’ with sharing the same opinion. Even in University when someone quoted some number (like tons of wheat per cow, species lost, etc.) and I’d merely ask where they got that number from, or some details on how that number may have been arrived at they’d get mad, but they certainly wouldn’t be able to provide a reliable source.

    I actually started to really doubt the AGW theories the more I read sites like realclimate and desmogblog and realised they were more interested in attacking anyone who questioned their dogma, or in particular their models. That, and when I found out exactly how shoddy that Oreske’s paper was (by actually reading it). That it was published at all, never mind with such a glaring error as a missing keyword made me really suspect the emphasis on ‘peer-review’ – at the very least there seem to be two different standards of scrutiny applied. They’re not beyond fudging data to support their theories – that’s pretty clear now; they lie over and over again and cherry-pick whatever data they haven’t fudged.

    If they really had the truth behind them, why would it be necessary to resort to such propagandistic tactics? Why the need to manipulate an internet poll, this need to control what people think in every forum they can? I find it odd that AGW proponents use the phrase ‘denier’ in reference to the Holocaust, but it is they who are always on the hunt for dissent, and who try to expel it from every dark corner much like the Nazis hunted Jewish families hiding in walls and underneath floorboards.

    I think alarm is being ramped up now precisely because there has NOT been a warming trend in the 2000s. I see so many sites that claim that it IS still warming, and this is flat out – ‘scuse the language – bullshit. The models are wrong, I think J. Hansen knows they’re wrong, but he has so much ego invested in them that he can’t afford to be shown wrong so he and his acolytes at RC, etc. are on the attack and have thousands of mindless activists to do their dirty work. I see Hansen’s call to put oil executives on trial as a sign of utter desperation.

    Ironically, while writing this, some Jehovah’s witnesses came to my door. I had a brief chat with them. They could tell I didn’t agree with them, and left a booklet and made their way after a few minutes. They were certainly far more polite, accepting of disagreement and less dogmatic than most AGW-prosthelytizers are.

    As for Hansen, this is just another length of rope that he’ll eventually hang himself with. He seems to be getting crazier; if this summer ends up being cooler too he may very well just go off the deep end.

  118. When you do distribute results to Congress and others, kindly document the sites that called for stuffing the ballot box. Include both the site and the URL that calls for the “crash party”. The suggestion to time-line results compared to the timing of calls to stuff the ballot box is good.

    I shall file your results, and file the sites and URLs under “despicable tactics”.

    One the other hand, perhaps dissenting web sites should be made aware of this tactic? With a URL to the poll?

    Thank you.

    Re:
    “NOTE: A couple of Pro-Hansen sites have staged a “crash party” for this poll. This has accounted for a huge increase in the votes for the first question. This sometimes happens with online polls when agenda driven activists decide to skew it, which is the biggest weakness of online polls.”

  119. Heh, fair enough Anthony, but it does seem that many of your regulars are upset at the wider distribution that the poll has had, even (and bizarrely) labelling other peoples decision to vote as attempts to suppress free speech.

    Regards

  120. I voted “Congress should put energy execs on trial as Hansen suggests” because the US Congresscritters and Hansen should be given every chance to beclown themselves. We need them to stand up so that we may publicly ridicule the tards. For heavens sake, it is past time that we allow the nutroots to own the narrative. We have to be able to subject them to well deserved public scorn and what better way?

  121. well that would show hw crazy it is and I am sure some voted jsut to say ok we did what you say now what?

  122. Hi Anthony,
    I’m not familiar with the PollDaddy software, but I’m assuming you chose something reasonably secure, that can at least block casual attempts at multiple-voting.

    Assuming that everyone can vote only once, I don’t believe that terms like “skew” and “ballot stuffing” are appropriate here, it’s just “voting”. Even if it’s an orchestrated campaign, it’s an open online poll and every vote is legitimate as long as there is only one vote per person.

    What I don’t get is why there are so few votes in total, 6092 votes after 4 days up. With 10,000 page views per day (and no, I don’t know how that converts to individual readers) I’d have expected a larger turnout. It’s only two extra clicks from reaching the page, after all.

    REPLY: The poll software does have a vote stuffing blocker. But, there is a site that gives instructions on how to defeat this poll system, with the lame caveat “but we don’t encourage it”. See here Like server hacking, just about any online poll security can be gotten around. I don’t have access to the “works” of the poll, so I don’t know if there has been repetitive voting or not.

    The total page views are for the entire site and all of it’s pages, including the over 650 stories that have been filed thus far. So any particular story will have far less. This post has 4,059 views directly, but I have no tracker for the poll indirectly as “main page” views.

  123. Anthony: I haven’t read every comment on this thread, so this question might have been answered, but is there any way the daily or hourly results can be plucked from polldaddy’s results?

    REPLY: Possibly, but I have to spend money to subscribe to the premium service to find out. Haven’t decided if I’m going to do that or not.

  124. How about exiling Hansen in perpetuity to the South Pole station?

    I don’t think it is too much of an exaggeration to compare the likes of Hansen with Joe Stalin’s favorite biologist, Lysenko– the same ideologically-driven perversion of genuine science, which is characterized by free inquiry into physical processes.

  125. I posted the following comment on dotearth:

    What about Big Auto? They gave us SUVs, mini-vans, and the Hummer that need the gasoline provided by Big Oil.

    What about Big Appliance? They make washers and dryers and refrigerators that need the electricity provided by Big Coal.

    Same goes for Big Consumer Electronics, as their televisions, sound systems, and gaming machines not only consume loads of electricity, they don’t even turn completely off when one turns them off!

    Don’t forget Big Agriculture. Not only are their fertilizers carbon-based, but they insist on transporting their goods all over the world on vehicles and ships requiring Big Oil’s dirty product.

    What about Big Technology? Have you seen how much energy Google’s server farms require, or how much power the top-500 supercomputers demand? Whoever let that happen needs to spend some serious time behind bars next to Big Coal!

    What about Big Homebuilding? As a practice, they have not been installing solar on the roof, on-demand hot water in the basement, and adding extra insulation in the attic. Hard labor for them!

    All of those above have done nothing but keep the poor, unwitting public addicted to their destructive product. After all, we have very simple alternatives right in front of us.

    Want electricity to run your TV? Help build wind turbines in your community. Want to stay warm next winter? Just throw on an extra sweater. Want hot water for you next shower or bath? Now is the time to install a solar system. Need food? Plant a garden and raise chickens and pigs. Want to go on a trip? Certainly you have heard of a horse and carriage. Long commute to work? Allow extra time for that bike ride.

    The sooner we get rid of those dastardly culprits, the sooner we can wean ourselves of carbon – it should be easier than giving up cigarettes.

  126. Even though I voted to get Hansen’s ass fired I think having a fair trial to expose the fallacy of Hansen’s claim that we’re in dire danger from global warming would be a good thing.

  127. After further review, I’ve changed my mind on what should be done…
    He should be laid off.. along with every other employee at NASA.

    The whole organization is broken beyond repair.

    REPLY: I don’t know about that, the recent Mars landing went exceptionally well.

  128. Hansen is a ClimaTautologist. All accepted evidence, all accepted observations and all accepted conclusions support his premise of AGW. Evidence, observations and conclusions which do not support his premise are non-operative.

    ClimaTautology (n)
    The practice of relating every extreme weather event to Climate Change, in order to create fear and/or secure funding.

  129. Well, isn’t it a surprise that the poll results have changed so dramatically?
    Actually not at all.

    That’s because sceptics tend to be independently minded people who assess things on the range of knowledge available to them, then read the options and as you would expect vote in a broad number of ways. So initially there was a spread between the results.

    Devotees, however, vote according to to their faith and thus all pile in on one particular option to support one of their high priests.

  130. Global warming is nothing more than sinister social engineering predicated on junk science and flawed data. It is the Pet Rock of the new millenium. The aging hippies and limousine liberals bandwagon, except this time around instead of a VW Magic bus with peel and stick dasies, it’s a kerosene spewing corporate jet and 20,000 sq. ft. house for Al Gore and gas shortages, massive inflation and unemployment for the masses.

    read: A.G.W. is make believe like elves, leprachauns and unicorns.

  131. Anthony,

    I am a skeptic, new to your blog. Thought it may be useful for you to be aware of the ability for an individual to vote repeatedly by continually refreshing the following website:

    http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/rss-msu-monthly-anom_042008.png&imgrefurl=http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/a-review-of-the-major-global-temperature-metrics-for-april-2008/&h=770&w=1437&sz=31&hl=en&start=27&um=1&tbnid=whcbG5HifJI1fM:&tbnh=80&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djune%2B%2522global%2Btemperature%2522%26start%3D21%26ndsp%3D21%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

    REPLY: Yes, I see what you mean. You’ve discovered a weakness in the polldaddy.com software. It pretty much renders the poll useless when a hole like this is found.

  132. When SDA gets involved, your poll has been officially FREEPED, and the result useless.

    REPLY: So it’s ok when other non SDA sites get involved, but then they do and it’s now useless? Your bias is showing.

  133. I like to start off a conversation with a natural variation denialist by stating;
    Significant AGW is physically impossible! It relies on water vapor positive feedback that has been proven not to exist! They actually pretend that water acts like an explosive compound or nuclear bomb and undergoes a runaway chain reaction. In fact you can show that by adding one CO2 molecule and then removing it again the process still runs away until the oceans boil dry. In fact you can show that any heating of any magnitude from any source will cause the oceans to boil dry! How stupid is that? Because positive feedback does not exist then the effect of CO2 has been modeled at 5-20 times greater than it actually is.

    If they get irrational then point out some more basic science such as “emotion clouds judgement” and “science is based on a comparison of theory and observation, why wont you believe the observations?” and “personal attacks are pointless in science, Einstein could have been a mass murderer but his theories would still be correct”

    The key to arguing with people is establishing intellectual superiority. They normally use moral superiority to justify their belief but telling them they believe in a theory that is physically impossible will probably trump their belief. ask them if they know what beer’s law is. if they don’t then you can tell them them how silly they are and that maybe they should learn the fundamental equation that determines the absorption of energy by CO2.
    finally if all else fails and they refuse to even contemplate the opposing side you get to point that ” science demands that both thesis and antithesis must be examined equally.” ie if they refuse to consider the opposing views then they are not conducting science.
    cheers

  134. Anthony,

    When your poll becomes a matter of battling blogger types, you lose all connection to reality. I mean come on. This is just a game now. How many wingnuts can each side recruit to jack your survey?

    REPLY: I suppose we are all wingnuts of a sort for choosing a position. Why not recruit a few of your own, I’m sure Ti-Guy could put in a few thousand votes.

    On second thought, I’m not too worried about either you or SDA impacting it that much

  135. bigcityfib is another “progressive” type who is constantly outmatched by Kate.

    You have to laugh at the AGW side if trying to stuff this poll is their big stand. Are they admitting that the debate isn’t over, hmmm?

  136. Now that there apparently is a battle of the bands going on with this poll, it would be interesting to see how voting patterns changed over time based on timestamps of the votes. Sociologists love this kind of behavioral data.

  137. Anthony notes:
    “A couple of Pro-Hansen sites have staged a “crash party” for this poll.”

    What a great hack to increase readership – The more acolytes sent by the priesthood means more people are reading your blog and getting the other sides of the story. With a little luck, you’ll get some more converts.

    The poll was never up to standards of good political polling, probably not even up to that of bad political polling. (The University of NH was very good at getting the poll results they wanted and getting them on the the main TV station here.) I view polls like these mainly as entertainment, and this one just became more entertaining, and maybe more worthwhile.

  138. Hello again Anthony,
    I’ll confess this up front, I’ve now voted twice, using the Google image page put up by Glenn. It’s not malice, I just wanted to check if this really did break the software.

    I wasn’t familiar with PollDaddy’s security features, and I hadn’t come across it as serious polling software before. I’ve checked it out now, and PollDaddy seems to be a “just-for-fun” polling feature whose only discernible benefit is that it’s available for free on WordPress.

    I’m afraid I have a criticism to put to you. If you’re planning to run a serious poll to submit to the U.S. Senate, the onus is on you to select the right tool for the job. Technical competence is an issue with these things.

    REPLY: Unfortunately, the fact that the blog exists on WordPress.com limits my ability to place quite a few things. This is the only approved polling software they allow.

  139. Why do people think that 12 people, who probably believe that Hollywood is the source of all wisdom on the planet, will do a better job of judging the facts, then they did in the OJ trial.,/i>

    Yeah, Hollywood found OJ “guilty”.

  140. For those that think getting oil execs on trial would be a good thing …

    clearly you don’t know how quickly litigation can become a train wreck. It is slow, cumbersome and expensive … precisely what busy productive people (like those running an oil company) don’t want or need to get entangled with. A perfect venue for useless opinionated people with nothing better or more productive to do with their time. And since the government has virtually unlimited legal resources to through at it … inherently one-sided, even against oil companies and their legal and financial resources.

    It will become a battle of articulating a “crime” for something society has previously encouraged, deemd legal, and rewarded, fighting over whose experts are expert and in what area, what data is admissible and what is not. A court is not the best place to decide scientific facts … legal facts perhaps, but not scientific ones.

    And that doesn’t even get in to the jury versus bench trial issue.

    Whomever is put on trial has nothing to gain, and virtually everything to lose. Let’s put Hansen on trial instead. It would theoretically serve the same purpose. And I think it is much more apparent that he has overstepped his authority, violated his duties and responsibilities, and behaved in an unethical manner. (Even if he’s right about AGW, which I seriously doubt is the case.)

  141. As stated, this is now battle of the blogs. As such, the outcome means about as much as who ends up being Homecoming Queen, for the same reasons.

  142. to RobJM who said “if they refuse to consider the opposing views then they are not conducting science.”

    No one on the AGW side is conducting science anymore. They are conducting religion with religious methods. As such, hoping that you could say or show them anything at all that would change their beliefs is futile. Convincing a muslim to become a baptist would be much, much easier.

  143. Hansen is in gross violation of the Hatch Act. The only reason he hasn’t been fired is because of political cover from Gore and Soros.

  144. Let’s call Hansen’s bluff. He needs to fold or show his cards.

    Hansen needs to publish everything on the Internet. He’s a “public servant” so any work done while in government service belongs to the public. Publish his notes, journals, data, emails, source code, etc., etc. on the Internet and we can really determine if the science really supports his conclusions.

    I highly suspect Hansen’s science is as weak or weaker than it appears to be. That’s why Hansen wants to silence his critics instead of engaging them.

    Does anybody else suspect the man’s ego is the biggest part of him? He was on the forefront in the 1970s talking about the next ice age and within a few years he made himself a very public proponent of AGW. He also likes to claim censorship yet makes 100s of public interviews which are published world-wide.

  145. Exactly. I would support putting Hansen on trial because it wouldn’t interfere with the economy and might improve the efficiency of NASA.

  146. I don’t believe that anyone is free from investigation, however Congress is not a court of law. Congress should spend their timecoming up with ways to make the energy markets more competitive and finding solutions to future problems, rather than reacting to problems of the past. We need to move forward.

    http://www.folsomnative.wordpress.com

  147. They should just ignore him…and, in all reality, that’s the most probable outcome. Firing him or supportng him doesn’t really make any difference.

    It’s the indifference that will make a difference.

  148. It is really the PEOPLE who should be put on trial.

    It is the 6.5 billion PEOPLE on the planet who are using and demanding the products that produce green house gases.

    Now one could argue the people are being mislead that these products don’t produce green house gases or that green house gases are not a problem. But the people are being blasted every day by the horror stories surrounding global warming and are made to feel guilty on an hourly basis about green house gas pollution.

    We should prosecute James Hansen for all the green house gases he personally emits every day (with the 60 mile commute he travels and all the air travel and the electricity his models consume every day and the amount of electricity his global warming horror stories consume every day across the planet. )

    Hansen and Gore and some of the biggest emitters of anyone.

  149. Anthony –
    You know I love you – but web polls aren’t worth the electrons that distribute them. They’re fun, but like an amusement ride, they’re there for the thrills…

    But now I’m getting motion sickness! ;-)

  150. Pro-Hansen’s are winning. LOL!
    You shouldn’t post link embeded polls anymore Anthony. Think of all the traffic you could get!

  151. Congress should spend their time coming up with ways to make the energy markets more competitive and finding solutions to future problems, rather than reacting to problems of the past. We need to move forward.

    Well, the best way I can think of if for Congress to get the heck out of the way and let the private sector do its stuff.

    That’s the way to move forward. It’s worked every time it’s been tried.

  152. Anthony, I think you should delete the poll. It’s obvious people can vote more than once and the results will be used to further the Hansen cause.

  153. This ‘poll’ needs visibility? It looks like Hansen’s supporters have no problem finding it.

    I happened to check on the numbers yesterday while there was another surge in voting happening. It was unbelievable – how can anyone keep punching in 20-30 votes a minute? Now that’s putting faith-based action on a whole new level.

  154. I see Hansen as a Pied Piper of arrogant scientists who think they know enough about reality to leap to conclusions. At least that is my hope.

  155. I saw this poll last week and “Fire Hansen” barely led “Congress Ignore”. “Charge Oil Execs” didn’t register.

    So, the lesson here? Climate realists don’t cheat well.

  156. Anthony.

    Next time you post such a poll, you should find a programmer that would program you a special script: to answer the poll, someone should be able to answer a few climatology-101 questions. People who fail should be refused to access to the poll.

    Questions should be fished out of a databank of easy climatological questions so that answers could not be memorized by activist morons.

  157. The results of this poll demonstrate the power of the media and the environmental extremists. The logical answer – collect more data and act accordingly – is totally overlooked by people whose minds have already been made up.

    My blog covers less controversial issues. Considering the lack of clear thinking on the part of those responding to your poll, I’m not sure they’d be happy reading my thoughts.

    Jim – http://jimsjourney.wordpress.com/

  158. Sorry to say, one vote one computer is so easy to overcome that the poll is all but worthless; save that it fully illuminates how desperate (sad) are those who advocate man-made global warming. Only those who know their argument is a lost cause would stoop so low as to fiddle a simple, on-line poll. They’d probably steal candy from a baby too.

    How to get more than one vote on one computer? Switch it off and on again, or, simply close your browser, disable and re-enable your LAN (internet) connection (always assuming your IP address is regenerated anew when you do so), and restart your browser. How do I know this works? Al Gore told me.

    Never mind, Anthony. The fact that so many losers are so desperate to get one over on you only proves how much they fear the truth… and you.

    Keep up the good work.

  159. Sorry to say, one vote one computer is so easy to overcome that the poll is all but worthless; save that it fully illuminates how desperate (sad) are those who advocate man-made global warming. Only those who know their argument is a lost cause would stoop so low as to fiddle a simple on-line poll. They’d probably steal candy from a baby too.

    How to get more than one vote on one computer? Switch it off and on again, or, simply close your browser, disable and re-enable your LAN (internet) connection (always assuming your IP address is regenerated anew when you do so), and restart your browser. How do I know this works? Al Gore told me.

    Never mind, Anthony, the fact that so many losers are so desperate to get one over on you only proves how much they fear the truth… and you.

    Keep up the good work.

  160. OOPS! It appears that I’m repeating myself. Sorry about that. You’d better delete one of my comments (and this one). The losers may accuse me of stacking the comments against them. And we don’t want any crying babies, do we?

  161. Since Hansen’s 1988 global warming predictions were so far off the mark, isn’t he the one who is spreading falsehoods here?

  162. Hansen is a hack. If he were honest, he’d admit that all the models have to be rerun with the correct boundary conditions. The atmosphere is not infinitely deep, but all the AGW computer models are based on old solutions to the differential equations governing the greenhouse effect that used an infinitely thick atmosphere as a simplifying assumption.

    Ferenc M. Miskolczi’s paper “Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres” recomputes the greenhouse effect with for finite depth atmospheres, and unlike all the baroque computer models that Hansen and his ilk use, gets a model which matches observation for both Earth and Mars without tweaking. And guess what: the predictions from Miskolczi’s model show the greenhouse effect in a finite-depth semi-transparent atmosphere cannot yield the catastrophic effects the AGW advocates use as an excuse for imposing rationing.

  163. Don’t know about the overnight hit, but if you include the weekend in the count, Question 1 surged by approx 25,000.

    Quite a change from the early polling when, before the crash party ensued, Question 3 was around 47% and Question 6 around 40% {had to check out Michael Smith’s link above from 26 June with saved images – see: http://15651.home.comcast.net/~15651/Hansen_Poll_Before_Crash_Party.htm}. The results speak for themselves. I believe that first image; its results are about what I would expect from the readers of this site who exhibit a healthy degree of sketicism {and not just about the AGW fantasy}.

    So Question 1 went from 1% to 50%. Perhaps we ought to use a GISS algorithm to adjust the results…put in about 1½ million votes each in Questions 3 & 6…that’d put the results more in line to the original pre-crash party. I’m sure Hansen would heartily approve of such tweaking.

  164. I hate polls. Debate is much more informative and capable of changing one’s views. It is also rather sophomoric and smacks of the new dumbed down News Is Entertainment industry.

  165. What do you expect from Hansen supporters? If you don’t like the data, ‘adjust’ it so that you get the result you want.

    The Hansen supporters in this poll have learned well from their master! Fudge it , fudge it, fudge it!

  166. ANY internet poll is meaningless. This poll was meaningless when Anthony posted it. ires random or at least representative sampling – internet polls fail that prerequisite.

    Still, this is interesting. Anthony first says:
    “please spread this permalink to the poll far and wide to get a good mix of input across the blogosphere.”

    So, the link gets spread far and wide, and teh polls starts getting a wider ‘mix of input across the blogosphere” and Anthony says this:
    A couple of Pro-Hansen sites have staged a “crash party” for this poll. This has accounted for a huge increase in the votes for the first question overnight. This sometimes happens with online polls when agenda driven activists decide to skew it, which is the biggest weakness of online polls.

    And then changes the permalink!

    Further down he says:
    “A couple of sites have started a “crash” campaign, it happens.”
    So, when people do what you invite, and spread teh URL and opportunity to vvote, its a “crash” campaign?

    And then. when a reader points out that one can vote multiple times:
    You’ve discovered a weakness in the polldaddy.com software. It pretty much renders the poll useless when a hole like this is found.

    Anthony, this is an INTERNET POLL.. It is “pretty much… useless” by definition before it is even posted.

    I ldo ook forward to seeing you forward the results, though, Anthony. Currently, the results say that 56% % of respondents support Hanson and favor energy executives being tried or investigated.

    REPLY: Thanks for the comment Frank (or is it Steve?), BTW if you’ll check the permalink on this post you’ll see that it is in fact not broken but for about an hour. The link changed when I changed the timestamp on the post to bump the position. Once I realized that WP changed the URL because it was day/month linked in the URL, I fixed that. Of course it wouldn’t matter what I did, if I left it in the same location I’d be criticized for “burying” it in older posts. Also, since you keep changing persona’s on this blog, and have 5 that I know of linked to your IP shown by WordPress, why not choose one persona and stick with it instead of the cloak and dagger routine? It’s hard to treat anything you say as credible when you don’t act credible yourself. Why do you need the multiple personalities? Do you have blog personality disorder?

    Be sure to check the results post, which you apparently missed.

Comments are closed.