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

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

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

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.

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.

Sorry for the freudian slip, Hansen is an astRonomer.

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.

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.

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.

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

You left out tarred and feathered.

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.

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

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.

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.

I voted to put the energy execs on trial because if that were done, perhaps we can use the courts to get into the bowels of NASA to challenge their assertions and integrity.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com

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.

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.

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

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.”

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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???

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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. …

Al Gore, the IPCC, and their cohorts should be put on trial for the fraud they are perpetrating about global warming.

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!

Yeah ofifcally he has lost his mind,what little he had.

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.

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.

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.

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

Interesting……………
The ‘Old’ Consensus?
INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290

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…

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

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.

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.

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?

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I had the poll results open from last night, so I thought I’d make a link everyone can track the progress on. I’ll add results as we go forward. Hopefully Anthony can chart the results over time… Mike.
Hansen Poll Before Crash Party

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Canada has a whack job as well, named Suzuki .
He wants AGW deniers jailed.
Fruit flies are his specialty.

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

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?

——————————————————————————–
HEAT OF THE MOMENT
31,000 scientists reject ‘global warming’ agenda
‘Mr. Gore’s movie has claims no informed expert endorses’
All 31,000 ACCREDITED scientists have signed a petition.:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html

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”.

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.)

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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/

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.

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

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.

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!

David Yetter, Miskolczi’s model has numerous fatal flaws. I’ve put up a number of links, but pretty much all you need to know is that the best trashing took place on the Climate Audit Bulletin Board.