I was stunned by Dr. James Hansen’s response in this article in the Virgina Informer
Excerpt:
“For this fall,” the organizer wrote in his e-mail to Mr. Hansen, “we are hoping to host a debate on global climate change and its implications. Patrick Michaels has agreed to come, and my organization would like you to come and debate Dr. Michaels in Williamsburg. The date is very flexible, and we can tailor the day of the debate completely to your schedule. We will be able to pay for your travel expenses and offer you an honorarium for your time. Please let me know if you would be interested.”
Mr. Hansen’s response was, simply, “not interested.”
His reply — devoid of any salutation, punctuation, capitalization or signature — came an hour after Mr. Katz sent his original e-mail.
I suppose for Dr. Hansen, debating and defending your work is “futile“?
In my opinion, demonstrating arrogance in correspondence and ignoring reasonable debate doesn’t do much to bolster confidence in the man’s work.
In my personal experience “big science” is less about science and more about influencing the public (politics), money, fame, etcetera.
Actually, though I could be wrong, I don’t think Hansen is concerned about the “peanut gallery”. His snowball is large and rolling downhill at high speed. He probably feels skepticism has no chance to stop it. Only public relations mistakes could stop it now. And, his faction is totally in control of public relations (e.g. news media, etcetera).
“not interested.” Translation: bwuck-bwuck-bwuck-bwuckaah!
Anthony,
I’m stunned that you are stunned. After his “I don’t joust with jesters” statement last year it comes as no surprise to me that he refuses debate.
I liken him to a political candidate who has a substantial lead in the polls during an election. He would not want to debate either as debating his opponent is a no win proposition for him. If he does debate, he risks not only looking bad in front his opponent, he also provides his opponents views far more exposure than they would be getting, and, lastly, agreeing to debate implies an equality of position between the two.
Dr. Hansen (since he used an outrageous 99+% certainty claim – a claim I don’t think a reasonable scientist – or a professional one – would make about any theoretical work) apparently feels that the act of debating would provide credibility to his opponents views.
Dr Hansen is no longer a scientist, he has proved this by his refusal to consider criticisms of his work. A true scientist welcomes criticism, in fact expects it. He should be continually defending his conclusions, methods, etc. That is real science.
REPLY: Mostly it was lack of any decorum.
If Dr. Michaels is so insignifgant, then Dr. Hansen should be able to stomp him like a bug. That’s the upside. Not all fights are title fights.
Hansen’s reply was boorish, but only a fool would enter opposition territory to battle in a lopsided p.r. contest. Hansen knows how to do p.r. and this ain’t it. What is needed is not “debate” but a definitive public examination of the accuracy and precision of the facts related to AWG. But the public doesn’t want lectures, they want fireworks, so it won’t happen.
Being vested in the tatters of an education in English language and literature, I offer an historical figure from the Elizabethan Era (the first and glorious one) as a counterpart to James Hansen. The man was John Dee; he was the P.T. Barnum of his time, a dabbler in Hermetic magic, astrology and other razmataz. He was also an accomplished courtier, and eventually became Court Astrologer to Her Majesty.
Of course in a democracy, we don’t have courtiers…. Say that until you truly believe it.
But can’t you picture Hansen in a conical cap with suns and moons embossed on it? Or hurricanes and tornados.
mr. Katz,
i do not engage in “intellectual relations” with deniers
jim hansen
director
al gore institute for pontification of Global Hysterics
Such public debates on complex science does not show anything, other than who is more eloquent and who can make it appealing and how good they are with stage theatrics. I have seen many debates on creation vs. evolution, and the creationists win in almost all those debates – but I doubt whether that shows anything in one way or other. Scientific debates are carried out in a different venue – in journals and other publications; not in front of general public with each group cheering one side or the other. Just my opinion.
Have you all seen this?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/11jul_solarcycleupdate.htm
David Hathaway seems pretty cavalier about the change in behavior of the sun, putting the current length of the solar minimum in a historical perspective going back centuries. This is accurate in that the sun seems to be reverting to a solar cycle that preceded the current late 20th century warm period. It really boggles my mind that such esteemed minds at NASA can’t make the connection between solar cycle and global temperatures, despite all of the historical data to support this, not to mention the mounting evidence of a physical explanation for this relationship between the solar magnetic field and cloud formation which affects global temperatures. It really does put into question whether higher ups at NASA are choosing to cling to dogma over pursuit of science and the truth.
Alex says, “They all won’t debate, because they all know that they are wrong” and other posters here repeat similar sentiments. If this sort of logic were correct, then I guess we would also have to conclude that evolutionary theory is also wrong. (Try typing “evolutionists refuse to debate” into google.)
The appropriate forum to debate science is the peer-reviewed literature. Usually it is the losing side in the debate in this venue that then asks for debates in the public sphere instead. This is because debates of science in the public sphere tend to favor not the better science but the better presenter.
It is also intrinsically much easier to defend a negative position of “We don’t know much because therea re too many uncertainties” than a positive one of “We know enough to be able to say certain things with confidence”. This is because the public expects science to have “smoking gun” evidence and no uncertainties or apparent contradictions. In reality, science in complicated fields is often built on the preponderance of evidence, none which taken alone is without uncertainty or deficiency.
There are very good reasons why policymakers have decided to use organizations like the IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences to inform them on the state of the science in a given area rather than trying to glean it from debates or other such forums.
Hansen is like a politician way ahead in the polls. He has no need to debate because the draconian solutions he and others have proposed are making their way through the legislative process as planned. Once in place and as the climate cools (as predicted by the solar scientists), the GHG alarmists will take credit for the cooling — “See! You did what we told you to do and the climate cooled.” The only problem with that is: will they take responsibility for the effects of the cooling such as reduced growing seasons leading to food shortages, increased demand on fuels to keep warm, and so on?
Real headline, then:
James Hansen; “not interested” in global climate change and its implications.
Was he not interested in the debate, or not interested in the subject?
Sometimes it is good to allow people to save face and bow out gracefully…
And we’re still waiting . . .
Hansen’s a fake… like the Wizard of Oz.
Is there actually anything that bolsters confidence in Hansen’s work?
The New York Times.
A decade ago Hansen was hot for any microphone time. This latest response is decidedly cool. Correlation or causation?
What we need from him is a definitive answer as to how much money it would take to get him to defend his positions. From there we can get lots of “evil” companies to pony up and thereby put him in their pay. Win-win.
A debate with Jim Henson (Muppet Master) would be far more interesting, He passed away in 1990, after making a huge contribution to society (Rowlf is my favorite). Hanson’s theories passed away as well, he just refuses to admit it. His ‘contributions’ are much harder to find.
Not really surprising: The true fanatic doesn’t need to debate, they know the truth, anything or anyone who does not agree is blasphemy. The science is settled, the debate is over. If you do not agree, you are doomed.
Philip_B
A very insightful way to explain how this has all blown up for him.
OT: Check out the Cryosphere Today website. The oft quoted story of decline in multi-year ice has been moved to the bottom of the page. With the ice in the NH not disappearing as expected this summer, this whole canard of multiyear ice isn’t proving to be useful information. I predict the story will be gone once NH ice starts accumulating again.
Pieter Folkens, my reading of Hansen’s 1988 testimony is that the 99% certainty he spoke about referred to the first five months of 1988 being on average 0.4 degrees above the 1950 to 1980 average. He worked out that without any long term warming trend at all the chances of five months with an average anomaly of 0.4 is less than 1%. I am no expert on statistics, but it seems that he was saying that he had disproved at the 99% level the null hypothesis that the trend was equal to zero.
Obviously he was making a lot out of, what was at the time, just a smoothed warming trend of a little over a decade.
To Joel Shore and Jody First, it’s funny that you bring up evolutionary arguments in connection to Hansen and AGW. Evolutionary theory is being questioned because the geologic record, as we expand investigation around the globe, is not showing the type of gradual speciation that the theory stipulates. Rather, the incidence of catastrophism, with sharp breaks between species, seems to be more the norm. Hard science investigation of the past is contradicting a theory that was embraced thanks more to popular demagoguery than any preponderance of evidence. Ironically, the same thing is happening to Hansen and AGW.
Punctuated equilibrium, as opposed to gradualism as a perspective on evolution, has been around for decades. Nothing to see here~Charles the Moderator.
Al Gore claims the debate is over, but when did it happen? When was there an open and public debate between climate scientists over AGW? It seems to me that this never happened. But before we spend billions, if not trillions, of dollars trying to reduce CO2 emissions, shouldn’t there be such a debate?
Two of the leading proponents of AGW theory, Al Gore and now Jim Hansen, have both refused to debate the subject. Isn’t that a bit disturbing? This should be a very newsworthy item. We should make a big deal out of this, because it is a big deal.
I e-mailed the local paper with a link to this story and my suggestion that a public debate between climate experts should take place. This is a very reasonable thing to do before before we make a huge commitment to reducing CO2 emissions.
One can understand Dr. Hansen’s viewpoint.
A large portion of the man’s life has been devoted to expressing his beliefs in regards to the climate’s dangerous potential.
He’s got WAY too much invested in this to let it go. In a sense, it might be what drives him to the core.
And having reasonable requests to talk about the validity of AGW/CC denied, tells a lot.
Either He is so convinced that He refuses to acknowledge anything other than His faith. As a scientist, it is unheard of to refuse debate, to discuss, and to share ideas.
Only one whom is afraid or overly attached does not welcome communication.
It is too bad, but it speaks to human nature. We can’t be perfect, but we can at least admit it.
Hansen is quite the jerk. I’m sure some of the crazies at DotEarth are cheering him on though.
Wish he’d just go away.
Science is about uncertainty, distinguishing shades of gray. Politicians and journalists don’t tolerate these uncertainties, they want issues distilled down to black and white, yes and no. To them debates are settled and consensus is defined, uncertainty doesn’t exist. This is what you get when science and politics merge.