Hansen responds to John Coleman's KUSI Special report

This may be the appropriate place to post this.
I was just watching, while working on my PC, Star Trek NG episode “The Drumhead” (1991) where Picard is put under pressure of a trial into spying by a zealous admiral who threatens him that she has brought down bigger people than him. At the end of the show Picard says to Worf:
“She, or someone like her, will always be with us – waiting for the right climate in which to flourish, spreading fear in the name of righteousness. Vigilance, Mister Worf – that is the price we have to continually pay. ”
Very fitting to us. Keep up the great work at WUWT!

three independent data sources
Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998),
United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data,
and SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research)
Independent?

The “quality” of this data leaves so much to be desired it makes me wonder about the folks and methods doing his claimed “Quality control checks are regularly performed on that data”. If he isn’t aware or nervous about this in light of the siting issues UHI issues and rediculous fudge factors it is mighty hard to take him seriously.
He is right about then carbon trading, one of those broken clock twice a day things.

Ah, Hansen. The ideal Climate Jester will display the ability to fudge the baseline data, cherry-pick the hottest stations and oversalt the cookie-dough mass. Place in pot of model-water, then bring to a raging boil while homogenizing.
If Julia Child saw you making cookies like that, she’d beat you to a pulp with her myriad kitchen utensils.
George Patton would say “Ha, ha, I read your emails. What a waste of fine data.
”
Tina Fey would say “And I can see Alaska from my house…in Miami Beach. Oh look, fresh frozen orange juice on the trees, just like Mom & Dad said about Mr. Spocks coming Ice Age. Bye-eee.”

“I don’t know anything about it but we’re doomed”. Is Letterman trying to drive down the price of beach front property so he can buy some next to Al Gore?

“The agency is confident of the quality of this data”….not the point. Is the agency itself reliable? That is the point.

Think that book is filed under FICTION……

Tim Clark (14:21:08) :
You said it right: Nuts!
Which makes him anything but trustworthy.
The absolute lack of response in regard to the content of the acquisitions made by Coleman, E.M Smith and Joseph D’Aleo tells me the they are on the right track.
The same goes for the Anthony’s surfacestation project
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/professional-discourtesy-by-the-national-climate-data-center/
All result in a mountain of rock solid evidence that can’t be ignored.

“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data”
So what does NASA do with the data and if they do nothing, why do we need NASA involved in climate data?

…if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control,…
And there you have it. In physics, nothing is created or destroyed. This single statement answers every question I have regarding what motivation is behind his appearance of being on a holy crusade to save the planet. Or he is simply dissembling.
Either way, this isn’t about science.

“The analysis utilizes three independent data sources provided by other agencies. Quality control checks are regularly performed on that data.”
Maybe we should dig a little deeper and check the sensor
configurations for sea ice extent. We may be getting raw data
that has been improperly collected.

Bunch of nitwits and I am being extremely kind.
Hansen is lying like a rug.

What to do with Hansen. He’s an embarrassment to himself and NASA.
There’s also a crisis at NBC late night television over the Tonight Show.
Wait … I have the perfect solution.
Zucker at NBC hires Hansen away from NASA as their new late night comedic talent. It keeps up NBC’s very proper Green image, solves the Leno/Conan dust up, and Hansen is free to speak his mind without any appearance of a conflict that exists now as a gov’t employee.
And then when the whole thing implodes, NBC Universal fires Zucker for driving NBC even further to the ratings cellar and fires Hansen as a no-talent joke, who then rides off to join Gore in his crusade [Hansen & Gore later split the AGW movement into a bitter civil war over purity of beliefs]. Leno takes over at 4th place Tonight Show, behind Letterman at CBS, ABC’s Nightline, and the high-flying Conan show – FOX Tonight.

Hansen is mistaken in his understanding of ‘jester’. Historically it was the guy who told it how it was. This example from wikipedia;
“In literature, the jester is symbolic of common sense and of honesty, notably in King Lear, the court jester is a character used for insight and advice on the part of the monarch, taking advantage of his license to mock and speak freely to dispense frank observations and highlight the folly of his monarch. This presents a clashing irony as a “greater” man could dispense the same advice and find himself being detained in the dungeons or even executed. Only as the lowliest member of the court can the jester be the monarch’s most useful adviser.”
That sounds like the guys who run the blogs?
It’s role that’s very important in modern business and governement – someone with the wit and the balls to point out flaws in the consensus; Check out;
http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadershop/9780977685622.html
cheers David

“Quality control checks are regularly performed on that data”. “Those” data, please, Dr Hansen.

The Climategate Email disclosures make it difficult to place too much reliance on the utterances of those who so earnestly , in the style of the original authors of those Emails, protest that they are above suspicion.

Here I thought court jesters were valued because they would say the truth, unvarnished and without politics, although humorously thus people would not take jesters seriously.
If we “contrarians” are to be called court jesters, so be it. We know we will be having the last laugh.

But surely the importance is this.
Hansen is a great man in AGW if lesser than the Great Goracle Himself but equally unwilling to engage in any debate yet he has chosen to make a statement refuting any inaccuracy let alone wrongdoing.
In his statement he appeals to authority, that the data is confirmed elsewhere and so forth.
But why does he need to do this? He has never done so before, merely dismissed any critique as being malicious and politically motivated.
How can a tiny television station, however well informed, concise and careful in it’s report rock a mighty organisation like NASA and its Mandarins?
Hansen has no reason to suddenly come and defend his position, if it is, as he and others maintain , the established truth. And as such cannot be questioned, or so he has always said.
A simple contemptuous dismissal would do better than this piece of meretricious justification.
But then of course it is not the political crime that matters, it is trying to cover it up that attracts the media these days.
A remarkable result and a very bad call by Hansen and NASA I think but time will tell.
Kindest Regards.

“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis.”
and Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman.

“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis.”
Why didn’t he just say:
“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data.”

Is Dr. Hansen denying the accuracy of the charges made in John Coleman’s part 4? Or is he asserting that those actions don’t constitute manipulation of climate data?
Maybe it depends on the meaning of the word “is”….
🙂
Mike Ramsey

NASA, the organization that lost a shuttle crew because they didn’t accurately know the temperature range of an O-ring material. Now trusted to accurately know the temperature range of the planet.

I suppose that Hansen beefed up his QC program after counting September’s Siberia temperatures as October’s in 2008?
I seem to recall that the error wasn’t caught due to personnel shortages in the QC area – no one had time to do a reasonableness check on the data.

Harry (16:14:22) :
This is the fundamental problem with AGW Climate Scientists.
[snip]
One is either interested in ‘The Facts’ or ‘The Agenda’.
One cannot be both a scientist and an advocate.  Science demands that you “land” where the data sends you.
Advocates, like any salesperson, have predefined landing zones that they steer the conversation to.
This is why in my business a consultant cannot be a salesman.
Mike Ramsey

Well whoop de doo ! we have it from the Oracle; Dr Hansen himself. The Winters aren’t cold enough to kill the Pine Bark Beetle.
I’ll be right back with a fix for that problem Dr Hansen.
And Letterman simply demonstrates what a total buffoon he is.
I can’t wait to see all this wonderful green replacement energy that we have to move to anyway. If environmentalists think that industry screws up the environment now, with all their structures; wait till those evil oil structures are all replaced by those veritable Rembrandt creations of the green energy revolution; they’ll just take up 1000 times as much space as those oil messes; so a lot more people will get to admire their beauty.

Too bad Letterman didn’t ask him about the fence. err… the fence that keeps us all from falling off when we get too close to the edge of the earth.

The dead pine trees don’t burn any more than live ones do. Sometimes the needles and fine branches burn off dead (or live pine) but wood above 7.5cm in diameter is not normally considered to be fuel for forest fires. For the most part the dead trees slowly decompose which means that they are eaten by fungi, bacteria and insects. This is the normal fate of almost all wood in the forest and it does very little to contribute to a spike in CO2. Beware of con men who want to generate “bioenergy” from the trees to save us from the CO2 the dead trees would give off slowly by burning them up quickly. Every huckster in town has their finger in the AGW pie.

Dr H makes the hackneyed defence of appeal to authority. In my book that’s just a man, older than his time, muttering to himself. He is the authority! With power comes responsibility. With responsibility, if things turn out badly, comes guilt.
I’m reminded of the words of Alec Guiness in the film “Bridge Over the River Kwai”
“What Have I Done?”
Sir, you have sown a seed that germinated, grew and became a Tempest that now threatens the life-style of those that you have striven to protect.
I feel sorry for you.
I don’t feel sorry for your less-deserving colleagues!

“The planet cools by radiation AND convection. And, it is not GHGs that keep the planet warm, it is the ratio of the mass of the atmosphere to the mass of the planet; that, and laws of thermodynamics.”
someone suggested that the moon acts on the atmosphere just like the ocean tides causing it to be thicker in some areas and thinner in others. It’s constantly changing.
Does anyone have any reports on this effect??

Can you be a scientist and still be a dunce?

…if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control,

You mean, the weather and climate anywhere has been under human control in the past? When was this??

All copies of Part 4 of John Coleman’s video “Global Warming – The Other Side” have been hacked and now contain a virus, including the one on this site.
I am making this post as a warning. My computer crashed on Part 4 here, on this site, and I checked three other sites with the same results.
That’s all I know.
[ I think it is your computer that is having issues. Watched part 4 fine. Please don’t thread bomb. -mod ]

u.k.(us) (16:31:37) :
cheap shot?
A very expensive shot, that cost lives and set back our space program.
I remember seeing a bit of a press conference afterwards, as they were investigating. At one point, the one guy took a piece of the O-ring material out of a glass of ice water, and snapped it. Forget the exact words he said, something like “You can’t fool nature.”
The multi-part booster design to start. Supercooled liquefied gases around them, could have been spillage or venting against them. And in the end, just because it was cold.
In several ways, NASA was better when it was seat-of-the-pants, staffed with people who knew every last detail, with crews and management who understood that everything had to work, no excuses, no failure. Their landers and such are successful, because they are one-shots designed to be simple and effective without errors, they absolutely must work.
Our grand shuttle program, enormously complicated, was shut down and many important programs were set back, because someone didn’t get the specs right on an O-ring.
NASA deserves scrutiny, there is a lot riding on their work. If we allow Hansen and cronies to get away with their tricks while promoting something that is benefiting them professionally and financially, what happens if, perhaps, someone recommends a certain O-ring material, maybe even “adjusts” the specs a bit, because they’ve done consulting work for or maybe even own stock in the manufacturer? Coworkers notice what others are quietly allowed to do. If they try it themselves, ah, who’s it going to hurt?

Following is an extract from the Hansen interview on ABC Lateline, an Oz current affairs programme.
TONY JONES: Okay, can you tell us how the Goddard Institute takes and adjusts these global temperatures because sceptics claim that urban heat centres make a huge difference; that they distort global temperatures and they make it appear hotter that it really is.
So do you adjust, in your figures, for the urban heat zone effects?
JAMES HANSEN: We get data from three different sources and we now, in order to avoid criticisms from contrarians, we no longer make an adjustment. Even if we see there are eight stations in Alaska and seven of them have temperatures in the minus 30s and one of them says plus 35, which pretty obvious what happens, someone didn’t put the minus sign there, we just, we don’t correct that.
Instead we send an email or letter or a letter to the organisation that produces the data and say, you’d better check the Alaska temperatures, because we don’t want to be blamed for changing anything. But as far as adjusting for urban effects, we have a very simple procedure.
We exclude urban locations, use rural locations to establish a trend, and that does eliminate – though urban stations do have more warming than the rural stations, and so we eliminate that effect simply by eliminating those stations, but it’s very clear that the warming that we see is not urban, it’s largest in Siberia, and in the Arctic and the Antarctic, and there aren’t any cities there, and there’s warming over the oceans, there are no cities there. So it’s not urban warming that’s just nonsense.
So if I understand the above statement correctly, GISS uses only rural (whatever is rural, airport is rural?) data to establish a trend, then adjust the urban data to that trend.
Or does he mean GISS doesn’t use urban data at all? Can’t be.
IN any case, the late John L Daly’s website has an excellent article on surface temp records. It’s about 9yrs old now but nothing has changed, same old fudging of data.

Carbon Dioxide (14:49:34) :

Nasa have been known to manipulate images and go to radio silence or use code words in verbal comunications with astronauts.
Remember the inexplicable two minutes of silence shortly after Apollo 11’s lunar landing?

Now you got my attention, Carbon Dioxide.
I remember watching the landing, but I don’t recall any two minutes of silence. I’m not saying it did not happen, it very well could have. I was so caught up in the moment, I just didn’t notice.
I just didn’t know it was inexplicable, if there was a couple of minutes of silence. Even if someone had pointed it out at the time, I would have just thought, “Hmmm… just some sort of snafu in that long chain of links from Earth to Moon. Oh my. Will you look at that, they are walking on the moon.”
Is there something more I am missing?

Bulldust (18:28:24) :
If that were true then I could just hold off on reporting the seven fold spike in my bad debt expenses and all the new equity I issued to make up for the lost cash. That’s not lying to the new (and old) shareholders, is it?

[snip – we don’t link to crop circle websites and others of that ilk]

Didn’t know Letterman was such a kook! Out of touch with reality I’d say. Sounds like he’s just hears the soundbytes…living in the MSM. Guess that’s what you get!

rbateman: “Can I believe that someone who says things to incite civil disobedience is not going to sit silent while others discuss how to cook the books to further his own doings? NOT”.
WELL SAID
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

The transcript of David Letterman with “yep….yep……yeps” from Hansen.
LETTERMAN: “I just saw the other day another massive iceberg has busted off and is headed toward Australia.”
LYSENKO: [Nods]
LETTERMAN: “And the glaciers of Mt. Kilamanjaro are melting and will flood the valleys….and on and on.”
LYSENKO: “Right.”
LETTERMAN: “And the Maldives will be submerged in 20 to 30 years.”
LYSENKO: “Yep. Right. Yep.”
LETTERMAN: And 50% of the species that we now know will be, in my son’s lifetime, eradicated.
LYSENKO: [Nods]. “Yep. Well you know in my book I talk about what happens as Greenland and Antarctica begin to melt faster…..blah blah blah….greater pressure gradients and stronger storms…..blah blah blah.
In this “WARMEST” decade ever, as you call it, Jim…..then how has the ACE index been so low????
Again….message to Jim Hansen and his henchmen.
Your tale of scare tactics and myths….are soon to be over.
Your reign is over.
Be a man, step down and stop funding your activism from the public dollar!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Hansen would be wise to shut up while he has the chance.
There will be plenty of time for his CO2 later in the legal system.

An that IS the real beef of the argument, folks…the one that burns me up….even more than the AGW scare. (OK….not more, just equally).
If Hansen elected to stop receiving a paycheck from Uncle Sam, so he could continue his extremism, I would respect that.
But he doesn’t.
And so the American taxpayer should be OUTRAGED.
The “Storms of His Grandchildren”…will be the storms they unfairly have to endure…when history proves that Granddad is a FRAUD!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Chloro Phil (14:30:16) :
“I don’t know anything about it but we’re doomed”. Is Letterman trying to drive down the price of beach front property…
He is driving down his ratings, that’s for sure. I used to love him. I would stay up way past my bed time to watch him. I don’t recognize what he is now. He’s sooo political now that he has creepy James Hansen on the show.
I remember he used to make jokes about people like James Hansen.
Maybe his heart operation changed him.

Gerard (14:11:43) :
Are the opponents of AGW just making noise or do they have proof?
Look out the window.

photon without a Higgs (23:05:53) :
Gerard (14:11:43) :
Are the opponents of AGW just making noise or do they have proof?
Look out the window.
I have just looked out my window and it is 34 degrees celcius and last week it was 43C. I know this just weather, afterall it is summer downunder
cheers Gerard

Mike D. (23:11:26) :
Cheap Shot #3
Like the Martian lander, Hansen is augering in. “Metric? We used feet!”
Now, you may call that a cheap shot, but let me say that the situation you are talking about with the lander is one reason I am terrified of NASA doing climate engineering. Calculation in liters, application in gallons. Bam!! Popsicles.

[snip – funny but too far into outer field for this topic]
Rats. Oh well, now I know where the line is. 🙂

Carbon Dioxide (14:49:34) :
Remember the inexplicable two minutes of silence shortly after Apollo 11’s lunar landing?
They had just spent time battling against the Moons escape velocity of 6,000 miles per hour and maneuvered the craft to a safe landing point.
Are you surprised they were speechless for a short time?
Even if they weren’t, NASA would have been mindful that kiddies might be watching and deemed “HOLY F#@%” as an inappropriate mission statement.

evanmjones (22:38:12) :

Dr. Hansen has responded by saying “we have not manipulated anything” while not addressing the actual issue in any way whatever. That is not the typical action of a man who has an adequate defense of his method.

Well, actually it is when he’s knows that he won’t be challenged and that the audience and host will enthusiastically agree with anything he says.

@Gerard (20:56:52) :
I too am involved in a long running battle against a monster wind farm right inside our city boundary. There is plenty of info on this website, which might be useful to you,
http://www.palmerston-north.info

There is nothing more sickening than watching James Hansen and David Letterman preaching the gloom and doom of Co2.
Two adulterous men, seemingly approved by the masses they surround themselves with.
Sickening.

Michael Smith and GISS Bolivian Data
Michael Smith claimed in the Coleman programme that GISS no longer used any Bolivian data in their global temperature ananlysis. The GISS list of the 1500+ stations used to complete its global temperature record still includes the Bolivian La Paz/Alto site in its station list.
Data for this station ends in 1990. Does this mean that GISS includes stations amongst its 1500+ acitve stations which actually no longer supply any data? Or, is GISS still using La Paz/Alto data but has not tabled the information on the website?
Can anyone help explain this situation.
If GISS is citing stations in its 1500+ list of used stations which are no longer supplying data this would mean that true number of stations used to complete its global temperature record is even less than Smith has argued.

Whatever happened to “Arctic (non warming since 1958“? This according to data from the Danish meteorological institute?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/13/arctic-non-warming-since-1958/
If you ask me Hansen pretty closely fits with Eisenhowers 2nd warning..
“…that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/21/ikes-second-warning-hint-it-is-not-the-military-industrial-complex/

Hansen statement: “scientifically based conclusions”
Classic Side-Step: It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
To Hansen – On what is the meaning of “based” based?
_______________
As I read through about 2/3’s of the above comments I came to wonder: “Who is Hansen’s boss?” This poor guy/gal has got to be sweating bullets everytime Hansen opens his mouth. Hansen is NOT defending NASA. He is using every tool in his little box of tricks to defend HANSEN, and he’s taking NASA down with him.
PS: For what its worth – Hansen is no longer a credible Scientist. He does not argue the hard facts, he appeals to the masses — he’s a political appointee if there ever was one.
PPS: Say a prayer for Hansen’s boss, I just know s/he is going to have a heart attack.

Not entirely off topic: How to Brainwash a Nation:

Dr. Hansen and Michael Mann are stage-four cancers that have metasticized throughout the national science, health, energy, intelligence, executive, and legislative branches and organizations of the free world. Nothing less.
Parents, examine your child’s science textbook. Examine the library collection at your school – the environment section.

Mike D. (23:11:26) :
Cheap Shot #3 Like the Martian lander, Hansen is augering in. “Metric? We used feet!”
Do you know how hard it is to hit Mars from the earth?  Give them some credit. 🙂
Mike Ramsey

Having read a long set of diatribes against Dr. Hansen and NASA, it appears that we deniers are impatient to have major government entities held accountable for a hoax that they have perpetrated with the help of politicians, consenting scientists, and the main steam media on humanity. Why? We have already won. If people like Dr. Hansen who are the leaders of AGW movement have to appear on National Television on Letterman’s show to prove that they and their sponsors have been honest and truthful about their temperature correlations, it speaks volumes already about their confidence in defending what they have done, especially because a small television station decided to present to local audiences their take on AGW. The whole issue of AGW is a house of cards ready to tumble especially when they start to eat their own. What is really helping to pull the rug out from under this intermarried family of alarmists is the truth revealed in this BLOG and other like it by openly sharing detailed analyses, giving other points of view on climate research and the sharing of world climate data. I find these contributions very stimulating and enlightening.
I for one am impatient too. We have been waiting too long and for too many years for breath of clean air would come in and sweep the foul smell of the emanating from the IPCC stable. I suppose it is easier to cover up the truth with lies than to hide the lies with more lies told protect themselves from being disclosed for telling the first lie. Nevertheless, personal destruction of people will give the unknowing public a reason to doubt our sincerity and honesty because we are attacking them rather that their ideas and activities.
Finally, I have a serious question. I have read that weather is not climate. Then why is temperature the only measure of climate? Another way of asking this, is temperature the cause of a climate change or vise versa?

John Finn
Are you from the UK?
Do live in the Midands
Did you make regular appearances at a Midland’s university under the pretence of pretending to work there?
Did you play football?
If so, you owe me a beer.

It is concerning when a public servant manages spin on a talk show.

When the MET office/Hadley was fingered by the Russians recently with selecting weather stations which overstated the temp profile in Russia their defence was ‘We don’t pick the stations its the WMO’
http://www.wmo.int/pages/index_en.html
By looking at their website you find they do the same for the other 2 databases including GISS
So who in the WMO make the selection, on what basis do they pick them and how can you say all 3 databases are independent if they use the same set of weather stations.

John Finn (09:16:53) :  
Finally, I have a serious question. I have read that weather is not climate. Then why is temperature the only measure of climate? Another way of asking this, is temperature the cause of a climate change or vise versa?
From Wikipedia: “Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological elements in a given region over long periods of time. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these same elements over periods up to two weeks.”
Cause of changes in climate is an interesting question.  The earth is a dynamic system being driven far from equalibrium by all the energy that we receive from the sun.  Chaos theory tells us that such systems often exhibit self organizing behaviors.  There are sufficient feedback loops to keep the climate fairly stable.  But anything from orbital mechanics (Milankovitch cycles) to subtle variations in the sun’s TSI/magnetic output can nudge the climate into new tracks. But it seems to return to its base state which in the last few million years has been largely ice age.
 

MartinJudge (12:38:17) :
John Finn
Sorry, I owe you a beer!
I would buy it you in Bolivia, La Paz/Alto – but I don’t know if it would be cold or warm.
Martin
I’ve see some of your letters in the Cov Telegraph. Some time ago I asked Colin.J (at CU) if he had your email address – he didn’t.
You are correct – you owe me a beer. In fact you owe me several since we in the programming teams carried you and your technician colleagues for several years. I’ve had to take early retirement due to the enormous stress.
I’ll give you my email address if you’re interested and we can start up a local sceptic movement. Though you should be warned I’m more of a ‘lukewarmer’ than a die-hard sceptic.
Apologies to other blog readers for this post.

The rigors of scientific discipline demand ,inter alia,that theories or hypotheses imply the sort of evidence that would prove them wrong.Predictions based on the theory are tested against the facts.If something happens that should not have,and vice versa,the theory is discredited.The chief AGW proponents lament that they cannot explain the lack of warming.Ergo the AGW theory has been disproved.End of story;game over;The AGW alarmists lose.Interestingly enough,the widespread freezing conditions have been touted as evidence of global warming.The reactions of MSM are conspicuous by their absence.BTW the term “skeptic” is defined as one who does not accept any proposition without rational analysis

M. Simon
Thank you for the links, especially interesting was the link to http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/darwin-expelled-and-religious-science/
I have not had the time to analyze the rest of your links, I will however look them over.
The concept of how DNA has evolved to man is not clear. The differences between man and our closest evolutionary relative has varied from !% difference to 3% difference depending on the paper you are reading. Also these percentages are based on DNA hybridization where small bits of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA that were selected because of their similarities. This is not a direct comparison of Human DNA and Chimp DNA.
This material is however, off topic for this discussion thread. Perhaps we could meet over on the above mentioned thread. I would challenge you to be as skeptical of these type of claims frequently a little truth is mixed in with a lot of supposition and imagination. Thanks again.

its good and all to post about the displeasure that everyone is upset about activist scientists but it is time to start emailing our senators and congressmen about what is going on and demand an investigation. of course this will fall on deaf ears espeically if you are in markey and waxman’s district but it is still worth a try. Plus i know this is not on topic but another crack in the agw theory was produced in the times in that the whole basis of disspearing himalayan glaciers was based on one indian scientist who has no background in glacial studies. the ipcc accepted it anyway. here is the link http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

Quote: robert (09:14:52) :
“its good and all to post about the displeasure that everyone is upset about activist scientists but it is time to start emailing our senators and congressmen about what is going on and demand an investigation.”
I agree and suggest a simple message: “STOP USING SCIENCE FOR PROPAGANDA OR STOP USING PUBLIC FUNDS FOR SCIENCE !”
That’s how it is,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo