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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
To Jeff Alberts
This has nothing to do with Mr. Katz or his organization or even politeness. It has everything to do with the concept if you have the truth use it, if you don’t then run.
Tricky Jim Hansen has a chance to put Dr. Michaels in is place by debating him on the merits of CO2 induced GW. Tricky Jimmy got the facts, right! Tricky Jimmy got the models and simulations, right! Tricky Jimmy got consensus, right! Tricky Jimmy believes in what he is preaching, right!
Why won’t Tricky Jimmy put Dr. Michaels in is place? Tricky Jimmy can’t because his “FACTS” are a house of cards. Tricky Jimmy only goes in front of a group of people if he is going to lecture them. One way dialog! That is his M.O.
“Not Interested” is short for “Not interested in embarassing myself debating Dr. Michaels”.
Serenity now….
Jeff Alberts: “Of course we can discuss this till we’re blue in the face, and no one will change their positions…”
Well you are right, which is the main problem. We have stopped to be reasonable.
But I think we all agree (although many of us, including me, do not want to admit it) that to be nice, especially to a student, Hansen should have thanked for the invitation. But I suspect he is probably suspicious of such invitations and very sensitive of all the criticism, this is probably a natural reaction than a thoughtful response.
Re: Joel Shore (05:52:49)
Knew it, knew it, KNEW IT!!
I knew it would happen: Joel Shore picks a small handful out of the 50+ papers I posted — then uses ad hominems to try and refute even that handful [with unsupported labels like “psuedoscience”, etc.]. And the one link that Mr. Shore cites is from an old environmentalist blog that still posts Michael Mann’s thoroughly discredited “hockey stick” chart! C’mon, Mr. Shore, you can do better than that …or can you?
The point Einstein made was that unless a hypothesis can withstand rigorous scrutiny, it is falsified. By failing to refute all of the posted links that falsify the AGW/CO2/runaway global warming hypothesis, you may not realize it, but you are inadvertently admitting that Hansen’s global warming/AGW/planetary catastrophe hypothesis has been falsified by his peers.
But thanx anyway for that ancient blog link. I didn’t think anyone was still posting that completely discredited “hockey stick” chart any more. Even Hansen and the UN/IPCC steers well clear of it now. So should you.
Hi Smokey,
I do not want to get into this (since I may not be able to get out) but the ACS news magazine that was cited (if that is what you mean) is not a blog. American Chemical Society is one of the most credible societies, their journals are the top journals, so are their other publications.
Wow, I am really excited to be commenting on the world’s largest blog. Anthony, your hard work, persistence, integrity, common sense and easy going nature are helping people come together. Thanks.
Thanks for the invitation. Regrettably, my schedule doesn’t allow time for this type of meeting, however here is a list of a few people that would be delighted to throw some light on the science of climate change:
John McLondon:
Sure you do, John. That’s why you commented. And I welcome your opinion.
See? The AGW/CO2/planetary disaster meme has infected many formerly credible organizations. Outside of the CO2/AGW hypothesis, those organizations may still be credible. But in the specific case of the American Chemical Society, they are not credible when they continue to publish the discredited “hockey stick” chart. This chart is bogus, in addition to being completely inaccurate regarding temperatures over the past decade.
The Wegman Report to Congress indicated that any random numbers plugged into Michael Mann’s computer model would result in a similar “hockey stick” with an upward-sloping curve.
When that became apparent, the truly frightening representation of sharply rising temperatures, which the UN/IPCC had previously used to raise the AGW alarm, was quietly deleted. Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” invention has been discredited.
As we have seen, organizations with an agenda still publish it in order to further their agenda. But it is not science; it could not withstand peer review, and it has been withdrawn.
I recommend that you read the Wegman Report. It is very professional and low-key. But it could open your eyes to what goes on behind the scenes when large amounts of taxpayer money are at stake.
Discredited yes, withdrawn no. It is defended vigorously by the social network identified by Wegman.
Smokey
It may have been a problem with your links that swallowed your message to dotEarth. Many many skeptic opinions are posted without trouble in the comments. Andy Revkin is no Gavin and allows the free exchange of both ideas–and insults. 🙂 At RC the groupies have a monopoly on both.
re the Schwarz paper and rebuttal, I read both and found the claim that the rebuttal decimated Schwartz was overblown. The statistical arguments can be addressed by others, but using climate models to show that Schwarz estimate of the time constant is biased on the low side is really really funny.
au contraire, using climate models shows that climate models are biased on the high side!
Anyway, between Schwarz and the recent (Holy Grail) paper by Spencer I’m getting a picture that says that the time constant may not be so constant afterall…at the very least it’s being masked by processes that are neither uniform nor consistent.
In any case, Hansen (and the models) depend on heat deep in the ocean yet have given us no real mechanism for how it gets way down there where we conveniently can’t measure it. And if it’s there why has the ocean slowed its rate of rise? Warm water expands, not contracts. That to me would be a smoking gun of a sort.
But Hansen demands an army of 12,000 smoking guns it seems.
OldJim: “…but the unsmoothed version does show cooling from 1998 to 2007.”
As the first link explains: “Data for 2008 were being used in the smoothing process as if they represented an accurate estimate of the year as a whole.” Since the data only covered the first two months of 2008, and that data was abnormally low, the earlier graph gave a misleading impression of a precipitous drop in the trend. The same of course can happen the other way, that is, a couple of data points of abnormally high temperatures can skew the trend upwards, as also explained in the first link.
Therefore, it is valid to identify a “continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade” for 1998-2007, since that is an accurate description of the trend, and it’s the long-term trend that counts.
Dee Norris: ““Too many only know the information promoted by the party sponsoring the cause.”
Agreed. That’s one reason why I read sceptic literature, to the extent of my ability. As for Gore’s movie, I can’t comment because I haven’t seen it, although I have seen “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. I agree with your comments about movies as propaganda.
Alex: “How do you know this isn’t some fake data…Well the truth is I don’t but then surely the same could be said for contrary AGW data?”
I wasn’t implying the data was faked, rather that blog graphs in particular involve an interpretation of the data. The IPCC process involves peer review of the original studies, and the reports are open to comment by independent reviewers, many of them sceptics. Blog presentations — from whichever party — are another matter, and should be viewed with correspondingly greater caution.
“***Fact: Carbon dioxide rise lags temperature rise by 800 to1000 years.***
This fact destroys the FUNDAMENTAL base of the AGW theory.
No need to shout. You’re assuming that the chicken always precedes the egg. The explanation you mention refers warming periods that follow ice ages. These periods are probably precipitated by changes in the earth’s orbit, and the resulting warming flushes out CO2 from the oceans.
These warming periods lasted around 5,000 years, and it’s likely that CO2 and other greenhouse gases were part of a feedback system, amplifying the warming that was already underway.
Currently, we are not emerging from an ice age, and global CO2 levels – mostly from human sources — have risen sharply in the space of a hundred or so years, along with rising global warming.
Keep in mind that AGW theory is a specific claim. In the words of one eminent climate scientist: “Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.”
We should certainly use past data to inform our understanding the earth’s climate, but relying on one-to-one correspondences can be misleading, as it is in this case.
Tom in Florida: “I think you have that backwards. Galileo was the skeptic in regards to the beliefs of the time…”
Both Galileo and Hansen are offering new explanations for the way the world works; for Galileo, the heliocentric view of the solar system versus the traditional earth-centred view; for Hansen, the AGW thesis versus the traditional natural variation view.
Their scepticism for earlier views is informed by their commitment to the new explanation. And they are not merely sceptical; both men are passionately committed to their new, positive explanation, and regard the traditional view as false.
Contrast this with AGW sceptics, who may be performing valuable work, but who are essentially naysayers, since they are opposing a new, positive explanation of the way the world works in favour of the traditional view of natural variation. AGWC sceptics are in the position of those who opposed Galileo, not those who supported him.
Smokey,
I have read parts of the Wegman report. But the latest one is the National Academy report of 2006, which pretty much agreed with Mann but then criticized the way it was used. If you can, see a summary of it in Nature 441, 1032-1033 (29 June 2006) | doi:10.1038/4411032a; Published online 28 June 2006, Academy affirms hockey-stick graph: couple of lines to quote: “the committee has a “high level of confidence” that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries. But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less certain.” and again ” ” NAS also confirmed some problems with the statistics (OF MANN). But the mistakes had a relatively minor impact on the overall finding..”
The National Academy’s statement to the U.S. Congress is here: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Surface_Temperature_Reconstructions.asp (which says among others “In fact, man-made climate change is quite real. “) and the whole report is here: http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
I think overall this report endorses the hockey stick graph, but leaves a large part, from AD 900 to 1600, open to further debate, which probably could help AGW critics.
Brendan H:
Yep, and Galileo was right, but Hansen is wrong.
So, who are you gonna believe? Hansen? Or your lying eyes?
I can’t seem to find your “continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade for 1998-2007.” But there certainly has been cooling.
[Sorry, the first link above didn’t post for some reason: click here]
Alex: “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!”
Not really. Nicholas Caillon and others who wrote the article about time lag (Science 14 March 2003: Vol. 299. no. 5613, pp. 1728 – 1731; title: Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III” ) said the following: “… This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the 800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases (~5000 years). Second, the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation…”
Brendan H
“Currently, we are not emerging from an ice age, and global CO2 levels – mostly from human sources — have risen sharply in the space of a hundred or so years, along with rising global warming.”
Well, actually, that’s the conventional wisdom brought to you by the IPCC, the Siple curve, and somebody named Callendar. It’s kind of a hockey stick redux.
During the 19th century the average PPM was 335, not the 280-290 most people think (I did too).
In 1890 it was about 328. And Mauna Loa actually shows that level as late as 1973.
So CO2 levels haven’t risen so ‘sharply’ after all. And whether you wish to believe it or not we are currently cooling. For how long we don’t know but Keenlyside, one of you, and others think we’re in for at least a decade of cooling if not more.
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm
Oh, and before you pooh pooh Jawarowski, think it through.
All I know about it is that any metric that shows CO2 output (as does the IPCC) to have been flat during WWII must have something very seriously the matter with it.
I wasn’t shouting, merely highlighting… I was refering to the people I have asked personally who use that as an argument (laymen), I was not replying to your comments and I’m sure you wouldn’t say such things anyways.
Actually , we are emerging from an ice age and we have been doing so for quite some time. Sallie Baliunas, who herself deals with climatology has pointed out this lag, so then, John, there is clearly scientific disagreement among parties with regards to its relevance.
I see how John has given an interesting explanation which i will look into but, the point is that the lag occurred. The lag is clearly visible when the earth was exiting the ice ages into a “warmer” period.
At the beginning of the Silurian Era the average global temperature was 12deg C. Whilst the CO2 concentration was 4500ppm, this doesn’t hold up with the theory.
John there are other factors which affect deglaciation, CO2 cannot be accounted as the main factor.
However short the lag may be there is a lag.
Our current increase started around the 19th century, man’s addition to the CO2 content only really began takin effect circa 1950, 800 years ago we saw the Medieval Warm Period. So it is likely that the current increase is the natural lag occuring after the increase in temperature circa 1180s and would occur even if humanity didn’t release CO2 (although , yes at a smaller rate)
CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas in comparison with H2O (95%) and Methane (+-2%), and 2% of CO2 is from human origin (ie: 2% of 380ppm)
CO2 displays a lag throughout the data, not merely during deglaciation.
It is important to note that yes CO2 has small warming capacity, but that the data does not show a “temperature caused by CO2” effect. Currently since 1998 we have seen no increase in temperature (now since October 2007 a decrease). Whilst CO2 has gone up 4%. Yes i agree 10 years is much too short a timespan but according to the theory the increase which we see since the beginning of the 20th century should be taking effect by now…which it has not.
Your earlier argument about 1998 and 2007 being the warmest years etc etc…that is not a valid argument because it depends on the baseline and what we classify as warm. Historically there have been much warmer periods and using a timeframe of 120 years of dodgy land-based data is not reassuring. NASA themselves were left red-faced when USA data had to be re-calculated , which now shows that in the USA 1934 was the hottest year.
Brendan H:
If the lag of CO2 is irrelevant or more complicated than what appears to be the case and if CO2 does drive the system then how do you explain the coincidence between methane gas and CO2???
How can methane and CO2 display a similar pattern? Surely CO2 cannot be the driving force behind methane concentration?
There is an interesting concept that springs to mind… The Shampagne Bottle Effect…
http://www.abd.org.uk/co2_cause_or_effect.htm
(link includes a conclusion from Caillon et al article in which a lag is acknowledged)
John McLondon:
Caillon et al (2003) : This is the statement that precedes the one you quoted:
Quote:
“This confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a daglaciation. Rather, deglaciation is probably initiated by some insolation forcing ( I, 31, 32), which influences first the temperature change in Antarctica (and possibly in part of the Southern Hemisphere) and then the CO2”
This article does give a few opposing views and does raise questions and uncertainties on both sides but nevertheless the above cannot be ignored.
Smokey: “So, who are you gonna believe? Hansen? Or your lying eyes?”
Keep it civil. You will notice three things about the graph:
1. The period is for ten years only. This is not sufficient time to establish a climate trend.
2. The graph begins in 1998, an el Nino year that experienced an anomalous spike in temperatures. By choosing that year as the starting point, the following years will appear as a cooling. Choose 2000 as your starting point, and the picture changes.
3. The graph fails to provide a trend line for temperatures. A five-year rolling average calculated across, say, 30 years, will provide a more accurate picture of a climate trend. And it’s the trend that counts.
Remember that the topic under discussion is climate, which is a long-term phenomenon.
Syl: “So CO2 levels haven’t risen so ’sharply’ after all.”
CO2 levels have more or less steadily risen by about 30 per cent over the past 150-odd years, most of the increase from human activities. This figure is accepted by not only AGW scientists, but also by many sceptics, including Richard Lindzen, arguably the most highly qualified climate scientist in the sceptic camp.
“For how long we don’t know but Keenlyside, one of you, and others think we’re in for at least a decade of cooling if not more.”
Some points:
1. The study forecast a hiatus in warming, not a “cooling”.
2. Not all AGW scientists agree with Keenlyside’s conclusions.
3. The Keenlyside study is a first attempt at forecasting short-term, ie decadal trends. This type of forecasting is still very much in the experimental stage.
4. Some clumsy reporting has misrepresented the claim of a decade of no warming. The study claims that average temperatures over the decade 2005-2015 will be no greater than over the decade 2000-2010. The ‘next decade’ comment refers to 2005-2015, but has been misunderstood to apply from now.
Therefore, it is not correct to say that Keenlyside et al think we’re in for a decade or more of cooling.