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.
Wait, remember there is a consensus, so he doesn’t need to debate the issue. HA! Next time I make some outlandish point and someone challenges me on it I plan on looking them in the eyes and saying, “Consensus.”
On a serious note, I would love to say Dr. Lindzen (sp?) lay the smack down on Hansen.
Stan Jones says: “Sorry, thirdrobot, but most of us here recognise who are the ‘creationists’ in this argument. And I’m afraid it’s your side.” This is a strange claim given that the only people in this thread who have defended the creationist / intelligent design argument are clearly on “your side” on AGW. And, one of the most respectable scientists who is a skeptic (one of the few skeptics in fact with a respectable publication record in the field), Roy Spencer, has made it very clear that he believes in intelligent design over evolution (see http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I ).
Furthermore, in regards to the analogy between the two, might we ask which side of the AGW debate organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Royal Society, … (which are all on the evolution side of the evolution/creation debate) are on?
Flowers4Stalin
LOL !!!! 😉
evilanemone:
Then perhaps Hansen would be interested in debating why (a) his models have been so far off and (b) why he changes his historical data and (c) why he would like to see those who question agw should be prosecuted and…. Well, you get the point. He doesn’t want to admit he’s a fascist.
http://store.nationalreview.com/?i=ZjQ1OWMxZDY0NmJkOTM2NWUyYzI2MzNlZWEwYmI3MDQ=
Seems to be some news concerning the sun:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080609124551.htm
And this in German about Russian scientists:
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/?WCMSGroup_4_3=6&WCMSGroup_6_3=1247&WCMSArticle_3_1247=388
One minor point. Intelligent Design is not Creationism. Two entirely different theories.
Creationists believe that the earth was created a few thousand years ago with the world, animals, and plants, pretty much as is.
Evolution: The world was created around 4 billion years ago. Life started out as simple, single celled creatures, which through random mutation, evolved into the animals and plants we know today.
Intelligent Design: Take the definition of Evolution, replace the word random, with the word guided.
Personally I have never been able to understand why certain people get so upset over this issue.
The differences between standard evolution and intelligent design are pretty minor, and utterly unproveable one way or the other.
REPLY: No more discussion of evolution, intelligent design or creationism please. – Anthony
The debate is over.
He is now busy focusing on his primary NASA job description of “prosecuting oil execs” and “targeting” members of Congress in the next election. The very core of climate science.
This is an amusing story. I don’t think too many people will be worrying about global warming or Hansen once the economy disintegrates due to lack of energy.
Joel Shore: You seem to want to talk about evolution vs creationism. No one else is interested in that discussion, nor is that even close to the topic at hand. It’s a red herring, and a typical tactic AGWers use when they feel outmanned and outgunned.
It is hilarious how, whenever the AGWers gods, Hansen and Gore come under attack, they rush in full of spit and venom. Pathetic, really.
Perhaps the primary difference between AGW and many other theories is that within ten years we will know whether it is correct or not. If it is substantially warmer, or colder, all will be revealed.
Here are some interesting points in English from the above German website:
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/?WCMSGroup_4_3=6&WCMSGroup_6_3=1247&WCMSArticle_3_1247=388
According to Russian scientist Chabibullo Abdussamatow, Director of Pulkowo:
1. Over the last 12 years, the Earth has experienced a lack of solar radiation, equaling on average 18 million nuclear power plants.
2. Solar energy reaching the earth has had a downward trend since the beginning of the 1990s.
3. Every sq. m. of the earth’s upper atmosphere gets on average 0.16 watts less solar radiation than during the last “short” solar cycle.
4. Before industrialisation there were regular climate changes, caused by the solar cycles.
5. Based on solar measurements since 1979, the scientists have come to the conclusion that solar intensity will continue to sink, in sync with the 200-year and 11-year cycles.
6. According to Abdussamatow’s projections, solar radiation will reach its minimum at about the year 2041.
7. The 200-year decline in solar intensity according to Abdussamatow will trigger a gloabl climate minimum, which because of the ocean’s thermal inertia will take effect in about 15 to 20 years.
8. According Abdussamatow’s projections, the temperatures will bottom out sometime around 2055 to 2060.
9. Abdussamatow disagrees with scientists who claim the anthropogenic greenhouse effect significantly influences the global temperature of the earth.
10. According to Abdussamatow projections, the cooling will lead to a significant increase in ice worldwide.
11. According to Abdussamatow the earth’s climate changes every 200 years. “It is not man’s fault, rather it is due to the 200-year cyclic changes in solar intensity.”
So there you have it, from Abdussamatow the Terrible, Russian denier, enfant terrible. Got to be a stooge of Gazprom or Lukoil.
It’s late here, so if you’d like, I could translate the entire report, but not before tomorrow. Maybe there’s an English version already available someplace else.
evilanemone believes (11:21:34) :
“Perhaps it’s simply that Dr. Hansen is not solely motivated by money…”
For someone who’s not motivated by money, Hansen certainly gets a lot shoveled his way. Read here about the $720,000 that Hansen received from George Soros.
And here you can read about another $250,000 given to Hansen — plus another $1,000,000 Hansen shared with one other individual. That’s a lot of money being given to a government employee by outside interests.
Next, for those in need of peer reviewed papers falsifying the CO2/AGW hypothesis, here is a good [and unrefuted] one to start with: click
Finally, I will pledge to add another $10,000 to John McDonald’s debate challenge. I suggest that the prize money go to a national charity, so that Hansen will be in the position of denying charity if he hides out from the debate.
If Hansen continues to put his tail between his legs and run away from any debate, then I challenge as his alternate Gavin Schmidt, [AKA: Hansen’s Poodle] to debate in Hansen’s place under the same terms and conditions; plus I get to choose the skeptical debater. The format to be in a top-tier, national university venue, under standard debate rules.
The ante is now upped to $20,000. The ball is in Hansen’s court. Will he support charity? Or will he hide out?
Once upon a time, God used to talk to quite a few people, quite often, so the scriptures told us. Then he stopped. Immanence, I think, is the term.
Now, apparently, he only talks to people who have some mental imbalance, readily maintained with careful administration of pharmaceutical preparations, and support from highly trained professionals.
However, I cannot recall any reference to God saying anything like: “Not interested”, except in a certain novel by Kurt Vonnegut – “The Sirens of Titan”.
I believed in “God the Utterly Indifferent” inasmuch as if I could believe in any god, that was the type of god that fits the world as I see it.
Why then, do I still have difficulty with Dr Hansen?
Here’s the original source.
For some reason the Russian website di not publish it in English.
http://de.rian.ru/science/20080625/112064781.html
The Russian report was back on June 25, 2008. I don’t recall any blogs mentioning it. Used to be every time Abdussamatow opened his mouth, the blogs would be a humming.
The German title:
Russlands Wissenschaftler wollen These der anthropogenen Klimaerwärmung widerlegen
In English:
Russian scientists wish to refute the subject of anthropogenic climate warming.
Has anyone heard of this Russian June 25 report?
Not a great start to the PR campaign really, is it?
No big surprise that he doesn’t want to debate. Does he ever? What a joke.
Don’t feel guilty about living life. Help the earth. Be GreenHG.
Perhaps it’s simply that Dr. Hansen …doesn’t care to debate with “a vocal global warming skeptic” anymore than he cares to debate the sphericity of the planet with the Flat Earth Society?
Nice try, evilanemone. That may be what he wants those who are gullible enough to believe. Apparently you bought it. LOL.
The truth is, Hansen’s nothing but a huge fraud, just like Al is. He knows the science doesn’t support his AGW claims. Plus, he’s just plain chicken.
It is an strange world when “computer model simulations” are mistaken for “science” and when one is supposed to “believe in” the computer model simulations or one becomes a flat-earth denier type.
I’ve been aware for some time that the Russians are concerned about a climate minimum coming. It doesn’t fit in with the “give up your carbon-based fuel and receive environmental salvation” meme, though, so no press for them.
“If it is substantially warmer, or colder, all will be revealed.”
That’s what they were saying ten years ago. And according to NCDC, temperatures in the United States have dropped with a trend of -0.63 degrees over that time period, or a rate of -6 degrees per century if extrapolated over 100 years. So in the past ten years we have seen cooling at a rate of about 3 times faster than they were predicting the climate would warm. And yet they still claim it is warming. I suppose the cooling is evidence of the warming … or something.
Hmm what part of the CO2 drives the climate theory could Hansen defend?
CO2 leads temperature— no, CO2 lag temperature-observed data
Upper troposphere warming faster than the surface— no, not happening-observed data
Oceans are warming— no, oceans cooling as CO2 increased- observed data
Water vaper positive feedback — no, darn that Spencer–observed data
Joel Shore:
“…The appropriate forum to debate science is the peer-reviewed literature.”
The problem is the peer-reviewed literature has been heavily steered through the grant stream toward *validating* AGW since the early 1990’s, but not establishing a solid foundation for all the various subfields supporting the overarching theory.
Only recently is field data being acquired via in situ equipment like the Argo floats, or V. Ramanathan’s brown cloud robotic airplanes, etc., but there are continued efforts to use computer models in lieu of collecting field data or worse – to even to supersede existing, actual field data (like using calculated wind speed temperatures to supersede balloon sonde data).
The level of scientific understanding of internal cloud dynamics is largely unchartered territory, and yet instead of putting more money & effort into developing & gathering basic data to address this large discrepancy in climate knowledge, the money has been poured into making computer models.
So guess which has generated a mountain of peer-reviewed data? Cloud dynamics or computer models? And what are the skeptics complaining about outside of the peer review system? The lack of data on cloud dynamics!!!
The same goes for deeper heliophysics, aerosol and continued hurricane research – neither have been as well-funded as the AGW computer time of the 1990’s and they are just as important – and more fundamental to a full understanding of climate sensitivity – as sitting around in front of computer models proving something we already know: That warmer air can be more humid and humid air can get warmer than drier air.
tjlyerly (06:49:59) :
Have you all seen this?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/11jul_solarcycleupdate.htm
Hathaway’s being kinda slippery there, considering he’s predicting a big solar dimming in SC #25 judging from the current sunspot group movement slowdown. That, and he’s not acknowledging either Solanki’s or Svalgaard’s projections for SC #24.
I agree with Bruce Cobb. Joel how can you bring religion into this? This is about CLIMATIC FACT, THEORY AND OBSERVATION, not fossil record or faith. It is absolutely ridiculous to bring up creationism vs evolution as these are personal beliefs which go beyond science! That is a completely different case.
And anyway this debate is about theories, measurement and concrete evidence of climatic trends/patterns, causes and implications.
Hansen screams on television to the gullible masses: “CO2 causes global warming!!”
When in fact the Vostok Ice Core Data screams in a cold dark filing cabinet (or climate realism blog/site): “CO2 lags global warming!!”.
Hansen knows full well about this and so refuses to debate because he knows that the damn facts will destroy his entire argument!
As Old Construction Worker has shown us : all parts of the CO2 driving climate theory can be disproven by cold, solid, hard data evidence!
Hansen knows this therefore instead of commiting “scientific suicide” he cowers away because he knows that he is wrong. Simple, thats what common sense dictates. There is no hidden agenda or hidden thought process.
It just boils down to “Look Hansen, your predictions and theories are downright rubbish and if you go out there in public you will be obliterated! Run. Now!”
Old Construction Worker:
I think yours is one of the most succinct posts I’ve ever seen! Thank you!
“Hmm what part of the CO2 drives the climate theory could Hansen defend?
CO2 leads temperature— no, CO2 lag temperature-observed data
Upper troposphere warming faster than the surface— no, not happening-observed data
Oceans are warming— no, oceans cooling as CO2 increased- observed data
Water vaper positive feedback — no, darn that Spencer–observed data”
If I may… it seems that the myriad of AGW “supporting” science does not pertain the the general hypothesis, but to the effects of the warming (as in showing how the rocky mountain turtle population is affected by “Climate Change” – yes made up) other than showing a a causal link that CO2 is the culprit. 2 cents. Back to lurking.
And thank you Pierre for the translation. MSM… only crickets…