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
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.
/Hmmm…think there should have been a option for recommending hansen/NASA should be investigated
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
Mr. Hockey stick has now gone completely off the rails.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.”
James, you might start here
w.
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.
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).
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?
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.
[…] CLICK HERE to proceed to the poll. ———- Dan Scott calls himself a “Member of the Global Capitalist Cabal preaching Capitalism and personal responsibility as the economic solution to world poverty.” He is also a member of the 14th Amendment Society — victimhood is a liberal code word for denying the civil rights of others. He is also a proud member of the Global Warming Denier Cabal, insisting that facts not agendas determine the truth. […]
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.
Hansen should be tried for accepting bribes from Soros and others in exchange for politicizing the scientific work of his agency.
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.