Hansen’s at it again

cca-dc-protest-cap17

Dr. Jim Hansen gets ready to deliver his message at the Washington DC power plant protest on March 2nd 2009. On February 22nd, WUWT covered Hansen’s announcement that he was endorsing civil disobedience.

No longer content to be a scientist, and apparently now a full time protesting advocate, Dr. James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies joins forces with deep thinker Darryl Hannah.

From commondreams.org

Following this protest, on June 23rd leading climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen, actress Daryl Hannah, Michael Brune, the Executive Director of Rainforest Action Network, and former Representative Hechler will join Coal River Valley residents in a second round of protests in West Virginia.

Your tax dollars at work. I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying it: FIRE THIS GUY.

Oh there will be those who say “but he’s doing it as a private citizen”.

I preemptively call BS on that.

Why? Well it’s because the U.S. Taxpayer has been an “enabler” for this. Hansen wouldn’t be there if not for the publicly funded work via NASA.

As a private citizen, his opinion is worth nearly nothing. As head of NASA GISS fancifully acting as a private citizen, his opinion and presence are worth boatloads of publicity.

You can’t separate GISS from his persona any more than you can expect Barack Obama to show up someplace “as a private citizen” and endorse something while he holds office.

The premise is absurd.

AMS, ask for the Rossby medal back too. This isn’t science, its advocacy. Gavin, take note since Gavin once labled me as an advocate over on RC, but I haven’t showed up at any protests like Jimbo has.

At least he’s not going to WV unchallenged:

From the Charleston Gazette:

Massey Energy President Don Blankenship has challenged one of the world’s top climate scientists to a debate on global warming.

Blankenship’s announcement came this afternoon, after word came out that renowned NASA scientist James Hansen would be attending an anti-mountaintop removal protest next week in Southern West Virginia.

Advertisements

84 thoughts on “Hansen’s at it again

  1. Well shut my mouth – and I think I will before I get snipped for letting lose with a tirade against that Jimbo. Charlie Brown said it best…

    Good grief!

  2. I love the drab olive color outfit Hansen is wearing. He looks like a character from the Seinfold epsidode where Elaine dates a communist (Ned) and later is blacklisted. Maybe Mr. Hansen could find a new job at Hop Sing’s as a delivery boy.

  3. If you work for the US government, you are 24/7/365 representing the US Government wherever you go and whatever you do. There is no “private citizen” crap…

  4. We simply should not accept climate alarmism and bad data from US Government Agencies.

    We are conned with our own tax money.

    NO TAXES OR EMISSION RESTRICTIONS ON CO2, THE GAS OF LIFE

  5. I’ve said this before when Anthony advocates firing Hansen; to do so will just turn him into a martyr of the AGW movement, and result in a big media splash sympathetic to his cause. The guy’s already received a huge amount of fawning press coverage by falsely claiming the Bush administration “muzzeled” him and his views at the behest of big oil. Just imagine how long he’ll claim the pulpit and the press if he gets fired.

    I understand Anthony’s anger that this charlatan gets away with this stuff, but I think in the long term, as the climate demonstrates the the vacuousness
    of the science at the heart of AGW theory, Hansen will be far more discredited and forgotten then if he’s fired.

    One other consideration. Most people at NASA think Hansen is correct in his AGW views. The Obama administration has taken the AGW bait, hook, line and sinker. These people think Hansen’s public demonstrations are good things. It’s unrealistic to expect that he will be fired.

  6. Phil Nizialek (08:54:20) :

    The Obama administration has taken the AGW bait, hook, line and sinker.

    Realistically, Obama doesn’t care. This is about power and money to him. It doesn’t matter if the science is right, it is merely an excuse the control the energy consumption of the US.

    Mark

  7. I wonder how many of these protesters will be actual “residents” of the Coal River Valley . Mt experience while growing up near coal producing areas was that , while not always supporting coal operators , the residents supported coal mining . It was , and still is the main form of employment .

  8. Mark T (09:04:02)
    Realistically, Obama doesn’t care. This is about power and money to him. It doesn’t matter if the science is right, it is merely an excuse the control the energy consumption of the US

    Mark, I don’t disagree with you. vis a vis Hansen, though, the administration doesn’t want to be seen as firing a strong proponent of the theory that will get them the power they seek.

  9. You cannot fire Hansen, as has been stated he would become a matyr and he would play that up to the living end now that he has free time. During the Kerry-Bush election, he claimed Bush was trying to silence him. It was an outright lie. Bush told him to do his job and stop making private speeches on government time. If you fire him or tell him to do his job, he will just claim you are trying to silence him and will be very vocal about it.

  10. Catastrophic Fire & Ice isn’t the only thing Hansen et al are playing with.
    They are gambling on getting thier agenda in place quick enough and entrenched enough to insulate them from the Pitchforks that will follow. It will all go bad as deep cooling sets in at the same time masses of banner wavers abandon the false cause.
    That’s the point it gets ugly.
    It always does.

  11. Another thing (which I wanted in a separate post) is that these [alarmists] do not take into account the economic impact of getting off coal. Appalachia is poor, coal mining and tourism is all they have. Why does none of the hardcore environmentalists think about the human impact? They care more for a tree than a human, and that is not right. “Sorry you had to starve because you couldn’t find work. But hey, we reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere from 330 parts per million to 329 parts per million!”

  12. Your tax dollars at work. I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying it: FIRE THIS GUY.

    Fire. Them. All.

  13. It doesn’t matter if firing Hansen would make a martyr out of the man. He is employed by my tax dollars. As his employer I want him fired for the antics. I don’t want to pay him one more red cent so that he can abuse his power to pose a threat to national security.

    If he wants to be an activist let him hang up his hat as the head of the NASA’s Institute for Space Studies. Then he can truly claim to be attending as a “private citizen.”

    What do we have to do to get him fired for abuse of power?

    REPLY: Letters, lots of them, phone calls, and email.

  14. The truth is, if Darryl Hannah cared about people she would do everything she could to have more coal power plants built so that electricity bills would be lower. She also would do everything she could to have all the drilling in ANWaR done as is humanly possible so gas prices would be lower.

    But she has been rich for so many years she is out of touch with the difficulties average people face. She wouldn’t suffer from higher energy costs so it’s easy for her to be an ‘activist’. She is taken in by “the deceitfulness of riches”.

  15. So, if this was a “private citizen” trip/protest/publicity-appearance, how do we verify Hansen actually used his own money and did NOT charge his NASA GISS expense account for travel, food, per diem and expenses, or arrangements and lodging?

    REPLY: It is not about expense accounts or paid time (though if he is charging NASA for this rubbish that would indeed be a cause for termination) it is about the fact that public funding has enabled him to get to this point and participate as a “NASA expert on climate” – Anthony

  16. But what about Spencer and Christy doing interviews and advocating the skeptic side of things? I don’t find anything wrong with scientists being advocates for action based on their work.

    REPLY: Appearances and articles, and interviews are one thing. I ahve no problems with those as they are within the realms of the job description. Showing up at power plant protests, defending criminals doing vandalism at trial, and endorsing civil disobedience are entirely something else, and Hansen has done all of those things. That is where he crosses the line. – Anthony

  17. Wade said:

    During the Kerry-Bush election, he claimed Bush was trying to silence him. It was an outright lie.

    I don’t think he claimed that Bush personally tried to silence him. He claimed that people in the NASA Public Affairs office did. And, NASA’s Inspector General agreed with him. Here is what the report (http://oig.nasa.gov/investigations/OI_STI_Summary.pdf) found:

    Our investigation found that during the fall of 2004 through early 2006, the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public through those particular media over which the Office of Public Affairs had control (i.e., news releases and media access).

    Further, it is our conclusion that the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs’ actions were inconsistent with the mandate and intent of NASA’s controlling legislation—the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 19581 (Space Act) and NASA’s implementing regulations—insomuch as they prevented “the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination” of information concerning NASA’s activities and results. While we could not substantiate that Administration officials employed outside NASA approved or disapproved or edited specific news releases, we do, however, find by a preponderance of the evidence2 that the claims of inappropriate political interference made by the climate change scientists and career Public Affairs Officers were more persuasive than the arguments of the senior Public Affairs officials that their actions were due to the volume and poor quality of the draft news releases.

    Regarding media access, our investigation confirmed that, contrary to its established procedures, the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs declined to make one of NASA’s scientists, Dr. James E. Hansen, available for a radio interview with National Public Radio in December 2005.

    The report says there is no evidence that these actions originated at top levels of the Bush Administration or the NASA organization but were rather the result of overzealous political appointees in the NASA Public Affairs Office.

  18. Hi Anthony, I agree with Phil. Let Hansen keep his job. He can join rallies too as long as he wants. The tide of scientific evidence, even anecdotal evidences like delayed planting due to heavy snow in June, is going against AGW. Let him become more defensive and later self-destruct.

    Btway, there is huge money in AGW. Money involved in carbon trading in 2007 was around $63B, rose to $120 in 2008. And that involved the EU and Japan alone. If the US, Australia, China, Brazil, etc. are included, the amount will easily hit $1 trillion/year. And that’s for carbon trading alone among corporations. Excluded there are carbon taxes by both federal and state governments (Obama’s plan for instance is around $93 billion/year on average from 2012 to 2019). Then there are several billion $ subsidies for sola and wind farms, other “renewables”.

    Of course the biggest lure of AGW is ecological central planning. HUge political power tripping. Politicians and bureaucrats dictating people what energy sources they can use or not, how much emission they can make without penalty, etc.

  19. Joel Shore (15:01:05) :

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html

    Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him

    By ANDREW C. REVKIN
    Published: January 29, 2006

    The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

    Here is the money quote:

    Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. “They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public,” he said.

    What a great example to his staff – “said he would *** ignore the restrictions ***”. Everyone should take a page from Jim Hansen’s book of professional ethics.

    Certainly one of the most unprofessional and irresponsible NASA administrators ever! The epitome of the term loose cannon…

    And his software (from GISTEMP and Model E) are horrible examples of poorly written and poorly documented junk code…

  20. Frank K. – Considering the fact that the NASA Inspector General found that the restrictions were “inconsistent with the mandate and intent of NASA’s controlling legislation” and were the result of overzealous political appointees in the public affairs office, I don’t see what is wrong with Hansen choosing to ignore them.

    I suggest that you read the Inspector General’s report.

  21. Joel Shore (18:09:23) :

    “…I don’t see what is wrong with Hansen choosing to ignore them.”

    I do. The inspector general’s report was not in force during the time Hansen chose to ignore the restrictions. Apparently, Joel, you must believe that government employees can do whatever they want, and that there is not authority to which they are bound. That is a great ethics lesson for all…I wonder how things would go if the US military operated like this…

    If Hansen didn’t like the restrictions he could have (1) quit his job and worked in the private sector (or for himself), or (2) filed a complaint and waited for the outcome.

    Do you work Joel? If you do, do you feel you can “choose to ignore your boss”?

  22. “I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying it: FIRE THIS GUY.”

    Meh…we’ve heard your whining. Nobody who isn’t delusional cares.

    REPLY: Meh…You seemed to care enough to comment ;-) A

  23. Quite frankly, given the increasing incidence of NASA SNAFUs, it is time to disestablish them and start over. Anyone else remember CAA becoming FAA, and NACA being transformed into NASA? Bureaucracies, like visiting relatives, have a limited useful lifetime before thay begin to stink, and need to be dispersed.

  24. “rbateman (09:59:40) :

    Catastrophic Fire & Ice isn’t the only thing Hansen et al are playing with.
    They are gambling on getting thier agenda in place quick enough and entrenched enough to insulate them from the Pitchforks that will follow. It will all go bad as deep cooling sets in at the same time masses of banner wavers abandon the false cause.
    That’s the point it gets ugly.
    It always does.”

    The problem with this is that various Govn’ts over the last few decades have passed laws which, effectively, remove any power (Pitchforks) poeple had to defend themselves from the state.

    Western societies haven’t experinced real poverty, in the post industrial age, the sort of poverty you see on the streets in Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) for instance. Real gut wrenching poverty. It’s on its way, slowly, but surely.

  25. Joel Shore (15:01:05)

    Thanks for the link. I’ve downloaded it and will read it when I finally get around to Censoring Science, which is also on my summer reading list. But, ahhh, Joel… the PDF is 93 pages. Couldn’t you at least link to the Cliffnotes version?

  26. Let’s hope the dawning realisation of a cooling climate will chuck the warmistas and political opportunists into the wheelie bin (trashcan) of ignominy once and for all.

  27. Let me get this straight. The protest action was against another hideous ‘mountain top removal’? Someone tell me why this could ever be a good thing?

    Not long ago, I worshipped at his church and thought he was Holy, but have been reading this site, and Anthony and the others have me wondering now about the whole warming thing.

    But mountain top removal? Come on, guys, even a clock is right twice a day.

  28. Surface mining of coal is safer than underground mining. Mountain top removalis strange. Kansas has no mountain tops and it does well without mountain tops. Feeds the planet with wheat. Some pagan spiritualists need their “groves” on mountain tops. Sure they will howl.

  29. Frank K. says:

    I do. The inspector general’s report was not in force during the time Hansen chose to ignore the restrictions.

    But, what the inspector general’s report said that the restrictions imposed were due to a few rogue political appointees and went against NASA policies. Hansen presumably knew this, which is why he chose to ignore them.

    rephelan says:

    But, ahhh, Joel… the PDF is 93 pages. Couldn’t you at least link to the Cliffnotes version?

    Well, I don’t think you have to read the whole thing word-for-word. (I have to admit that I haven’t.) There’s an executive summary and then, if you want more details on certain aspects, you can then read the appropriate section in the full report.

  30. So, what do these people think are going to happen when they shut all the coal fired power plants down?

  31. NASA is now a disgrace by letting this man act in this manner. Sorry, but that’s how I feel about it.

  32. ” Showing up at power plant protests, defending criminals doing vandalism at trial, and endorsing civil disobedience are entirely something else, and Hansen has done all of those things. That is where he crosses the line”

    According to the British press Hansen gave expert testimony on the impact of climate change. He made no statement whatsoever at the trial as to how the case should be judged, nor any comment whatsoever on the actions of the Kingsnorth Six. Also, there was no law breaking as the defendants were found not guilty of any crime.

    REPLY: “Not guilty of any crime” also applied to O.J. Simpson. If Hansen had not been elevated to status by the funding supplied by the American taxpayer, he would not have been invited. – Anthony

  33. It really gets my goat that Hansen draws a salary on the taxpayer’s dime. We deserve better, much better.

  34. Ron de Haan you’ve been inspiring me to do…

    “No tax on CO2 – the GAS OF LIFE”

    …BUMPER STICKERS for everyone… with these words and with many many more… education and advocacy in unusual ways in unusual times…

    Just click on my bumper sticker designs page and upload the designs of your choice to Zazzle (from ICECAP) and pronto! your sticker’s on its way to you. Or email me and I’ll design the ones you want.

  35. Frank K. (18:35:28) :

    Do you work Joel? If you do, do you feel you can “choose to ignore your boss”?

    Simply, Yes. When your boss asks you to contradict your legal mandate or ethical practice. Recall Nixon demanding that Elliot Richardson fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox? Richardson refused. Granted Richardson resigned because his boss demanded he contravene the law. Ignoring unethical or unlawful direction from a boss is in fact protected by an entire body of law. In the United States that body of law is enforced by the Office of Special Council. They have broad ranging powers. You might be interested to check them out:

    http://www.osc.gov/intro.htm

    This does not mean that Hansen’s message is correct. Only his right to voice it.

  36. Don’t you people get it? The seas are going to boil!!!!!!!!!

    The only hope for Life Itself is if James and Darryl can commit acts of civil disobedience and get paid to do it. That and ice cubes. If everybody threw a tray of ice cubes into the ocean everyday, then maybe the seas wouldn’t boil away into Outer Space leaving this planet a seared and lifeless rock, as is indicated without a doubt by Jim’s models when they blow up.

    Science, people!!! Get with Science!!! Otherwise there will be nothing to water your lawns with.

  37. Richard1 (11:02:35) :

    Frank K. (18:35:28) :

    Do you work Joel? If you do, do you feel you can “choose to ignore your boss”?

    Simply, Yes. When your boss asks you to contradict your legal mandate or ethical practice.

    Richard1 – there was NOTHING unethical that the government asked Hansen to do. Can you show me in the report were Hansen was asked to “contradict his legal mandate”? Again, Richardl, you must think you can do whatever you feel you want to do, and justify it any way you please…which ia apprently what passes for “ethics” in our modern society.

  38. Probably someone will slam me for taking Richard Hoagland seriously… but Hoagland is not the only one with doubts, and there are no doubt others who would agree with me… Hoagland has strong evidence-backed words about the whole setup of NASA and it makes me wonder what (if anything) lies behind the head of NASA’s important Goddard institute keeping on with his insane behaviour and getting away with his insane projections. Is Hansen being “allowed” to do his act by someone further in the shadows? Just saying “follow the money” and “taxation” doesn’t satisfy me, though sure it’s a big part of it.

  39. “I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying it: FIRE THIS GUY”

    I’m astonished that such words, from someone of your great power and influence, have so far been ignored by the powers-that-be.

  40. I have had published several letters to the editor in our local rag, asking the global warming alarmists to answer about a half-dozen perfectly logical questions in order to justify their position. Every question has been ignored. Keep in mind that I live in a town with an established University, the professors of which are all global warming alarmists.

    When a bunch of supposedly intelligent and knowledgable global warming alarmists are unable to answer some perfectly reasonable questions, it makes me wonder if they are really as intelligent and knowledgable as they would like to believe.

  41. ” Showing up at power plant protests, defending criminals doing vandalism at trial, and endorsing civil disobedience are entirely something else, and Hansen has done all of those things. That is where he crosses the line”

    According to the British press Hansen gave expert testimony on the impact of climate change. He made no statement whatsoever at the trial as to how the case should be judged, nor any comment whatsoever on the actions of the Kingsnorth Six. Also, there was no law breaking as the defendants were found not guilty of any crime.

    REPLY: “Not guilty of any crime” also applied to O.J. Simpson. If Hansen had not been elevated to status by the funding supplied by the American taxpayer, he would not have been invited. – Anthony
    Ah I see where you’re going: Hansen hasn’t committed any crime either but you think he’s guilty. In the UK we tend to separate the function of accuser, judge, jury and executioner (well, we don’t execute any more).

    I find it odd that in “The Land of the Free” you advocate that government employees shouldn’t have freedom of speech.

  42. I wonder if other government employees (current and/or past?), not just Hansen, are also deserving of having their free speech rights abrogated? After all, if Hansen is singled out, that’s unfair.

  43. Firing Hansen will make into a ‘climate change martyr.’

    Counter protesters with signs such as ‘Demand Debate’ and ‘Show Me the Warming’ may work, but don’t expect any media coverage of it.

    Another idea: Michael Moore him. Follow him around and ask him questions about GISS Temp, about his predictions and the science behind warming. Be sure to get it on film every time he refuses to answer.

  44. “Hansen hasn’t committed any crime either”

    You mean, in *your* opinion, he hasn’t committed any crime. You have no idea what crimes he may have committed without your knowledge. I’m afraid that your thinking on this matter is in error because you insist on having the legal conviction of a person before you think they could have committed a crime. A serious (scientific?) person leaves their mind open to the existence of unknowns when they know there are unknowns. ;)

    Andrew ♫

  45. Andrew: in the context of this website, Hansen has not been accused of committing any crime. However, it appears that he has been judged and a sentence imposed for speaking his mind.

    (BTW fair play to Anthony for posting my remarks.)

  46. REPLY: “Not guilty of any crime” also applied to O.J. Simpson. If Hansen had not been elevated to status by the funding supplied by the American taxpayer, he would not have been invited. – Anthony

    It’s utterly ridiculous to compare the Kingsnorth and OJ cases. There was no dispute about the facts of the case in the Kingsnorth case, only about whether the protest was justified and measured. If you want to lock people up for bluntly pointing out the stupidities of your rulers then move to China or Iran.

    And all this “elevated to status” stuff is absurd. Should he have bowed down to his Lord and Master George W. and begged permission first?

  47. tulbobroke,

    You stated explicity that “Hansen hasn’t committed any crime either”. You should modify your statement if the words you wrote state something that is different from what meant to say.

    He HAS been accused of committing a crime because people are pointing at evidence that he has committed a crime. Look! If a person is engaged in public misrepresentations, they are committing a crime. You can attempt to get around that with legalisms, but then again that is why people have issues with lawyers. ;)

    Andrew

  48. Humm, if you’re so certain that he is guilty of misrepresentation, then it looks like you believe “the science is settled”, albeit against what Hansen is saying. So much for preaching about keeping an open mind ;)

  49. tulbobroke,

    I don’t believe the science is settled at all. He does. Could you try and stay reasonable and not resort making claims about me that you have no supporting evidence for? I know I am asking the impossible… ;)

    Andrew

  50. Andrew (07:51:57) :

    “Hansen hasn’t committed any crime either”

    You mean, in *your* opinion, he hasn’t committed any crime. You have no idea what crimes he may have committed without your knowledge. I’m afraid that your thinking on this matter is in error because you insist on having the legal conviction of a person before you think they could have committed a crime.

    In the United States the presumption of innocence demands government prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, you may think anything you like, but in this democracy (and others) a man is innocent until you prove otherwise.

  51. IB,

    “In the United States the presumption of innocence demands government prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, you may think anything you like, but in this democracy (and others) a man is innocent until you prove otherwise.”

    Legally, yes. But there is a difference between being legally innocent and actually innocent. You aren’t arguing they are the same thing, are you?

    This is the “legalism” I referred to in my earlier post.

    Andrew

  52. Andrew,

    Legally, yes. But there is a difference between being legally innocent and actually innocent. You aren’t arguing they are the same thing, are you?

    Perhaps you mean to say that a person may be “found” innocent under the law, even though there is some evidence to the contrary. The difference you speak of arises only after the law is applied. If we are a nation under law (the structure this democracy subscribes to) the law must be openly applied (e.g. by trial) before a claim to the contrary – hence the centuries old tenet of habeas corpus.

    In a democracy, if you are legally innocent, you are also “actually” innocent. Sorry Anthony to wander so far afield.

  53. I mean to say that a person can be found innocent, legally, while still being actually guilty, regardless if there is evidence or no evidence of it and no matter what claims have been made.

    If I stole a chocolate chip cookie from the cookie jar, and there is no video of it or there are no witnesses and no one had counted to cookies prior, to notice that it was missing, that doesn’t mean I didn’t take it. In actuality, I did take it. It is an event in history that really happened. I am guilty of the crime. Yum! ;)

    Anyway, I don’t care much for legal conclusions, if they don’t conform to the reality that is obvious.

    Andrew

  54. tulbobroke (10:51:37) :

    “Why the obsession with GIStemp? ”

    Because GISTEMP is piece of poorly documented FORTRAN garbage, which implements a lame algorithm for “adjusting/homogenizing” temperatures. If you want to look for yourself, here you go…

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/

    Make sure to download the source listings. Good luck figuring out what it actually does…

  55. “In a democracy, if you are legally innocent, you are also “actually” innocent.”

    What authoritative document of democracy states that?

    Andrew

  56. Taking de-bait…

    If I stole a chocolate chip cookie from the cookie jar, and there is no video of it or there are no witnesses and no one had counted to cookies prior, to notice that it was missing, that doesn’t mean I didn’t take it. In actuality, I did take it. It is an event in history that really happened. I am guilty of the crime. Yum! ;)

    Yours is the position of the strict fundamentalist. An action is judged and criminalized regardless of offending weight. Under the democratic rule of law actions are weighted to gauge their damage to society. Thus we have minor offenses and misdemeanors at the low end of the crime scale. You see your cookie theft as a “crime.” If it is from mum’s cookie jar, whom have you damaged in actuality? If it’s your neighbor’s jar, what weight is the damage?

    Now, were it $10k dollars you swiped, a real crime would have been committed. It is then society’s burden to produce evidence of your crime and to prosecute you in an open court of law. Should the prosecution fail for any reason, you would be found not-guilty. However, as you point out, you in fact committed the crime. You are thus legally innocent, which in a democracy is tantamount to “actual” innocence (you are unrestricted by law.*) It is the price of a free and open society that subscribes to presumption of innocence. Just as is the wrongful conviction of an innocent man a similar discomfiting price.

    These are the compromises demanded by an “open” society. In a totalitarian state you’d be in jail for the cookie; in a theocracy you’d be fumbling on with one hand. Of course there is always room for personal guilt. In which case you can condemn yourself a sinner, wallow in shame, and expect to burn in Hades.

    *There is no authority stating this. It is the common implication of legal innocence.

  57. Well excuseeee,me Andrew. Bit touchy aren’t you.

    I said,” tulbobroke (13:44:49) :

    Humm, if you’re so certain that he is guilty of misrepresentation, then it looks like you believe “the science is settled”, albeit against what Hansen is saying. So much for preaching about keeping an open mind ;)”

    Note that I said “it looks like…”

    To which you replied:”I don’t believe the science is settled at all. He does. Could you try and stay reasonable and not resort making claims about me that you have no supporting evidence for? I know I am asking the impossible… ;)

    Andrew”

    Wow. That’s a bit (passive) aggressive isn’t it?

    BTW if you accuse someone of misrepresentation then you must know that they are wrong. The only logical conclusion is that you are certain of the science. If you are not you can’t prove that he is guilty of misrepresentation.

    So if for you the science is NOT settled, how can you prove misrepresentation?

  58. Frank K. (18:42:55) : “Because GISTEMP is piece of poorly documented FORTRAN garbage, which implements a lame algorithm for “adjusting/homogenizing” temperatures.”

    And yet it seems to match the other main indices… so what’s so bad about it being “poorly doumented”, as it’s “lame algorithm” seems to do the job?

    Look I know it’s good fun moaning about the siting of US surface stations, but the US only represents about 2% of the globe’s surface. What’s the big deal?

    BTW Here’s a link to Hansen’s statement in the Kingsnorth case: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080910_Kingsnorth.pdf

  59. IB,

    It’s clear that you want to blur the legal and the actual together. I don’t. I guess we’re just different that way.

    Andrew

  60. tulbobroke,

    “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”

    *I* didn’t say this. Furthermore, are these statements true? Please, if you would, tell me how they are true.

    Andrew

  61. Frank K. (18:42:55) : “Because GISTEMP is piece of poorly documented FORTRAN garbage, which implements a lame algorithm for “adjusting/homogenizing” temperatures.”

    And yet it seems to match the other main indices… so what’s so bad about it being “poorly doumented”[sic], as it’s “lame algorithm” seems to do the job?

    Spoken like a true member of the AGW industry. Youmust work for one of the big climate corporations or universities, who are living large on huge amounts taxpayer money while others in our economy suffer.

    Knowing what your algorithm is doing doesn’t matter as long as the plots “look” right (which is the way output from Model E is justified). Except that they don’t. Please examine your graph below and tell me what the delta is between GISTEMP and the satellite data. How do the recent trends compare with each other? Why is GISTEMP, over the past 6 months, going up and others are going down? There IS only ONE universal global temperature (which, by the way, is thermodynamically meaningless), right?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/uah/plot/rss

  62. Frank K. (08:20:41) :

    The blue line in the temperature graph at this link is GISS. Even if you don’t know math you can see how different GISS is from RSS and UK Met. The cooling shown in RSS and Met is without the added cooling of ’08 and ’09. The earth is in a clear cooling trend.

  63. Frank K. said “Spoken like a true member of the AGW industry. Youmust (sic) work for one of the big climate corporations or universities, who are living large on huge amounts taxpayer money while others in our economy suffer.

    Knowing what your algorithm is doing doesn’t matter as long as the plots “look” right (which is the way output from Model E is justified). Except that they don’t. Please examine your graph below and tell me what the delta is between GISTEMP and the satellite data. How do the recent trends compare with each other? Why is GISTEMP, over the past 6 months, going up and others are going down? There IS only ONE universal global temperature (which, by the way, is thermodynamically meaningless), right?”

    Ouch Frank you sure know how to jump to conclusions about people you’ve never even met.

    Here’s the last couple of years of the 4 main indices:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2007/plot/gistemp/from:2007/plot/uah/from:2007/plot/rss/from:2007

    Interestingly it’s only in the last two or three months that GIS and HADCRUT have a different trend from the satellites. Is that unexpected? Would you really expect 4 different ways of measuring global temperature to give precisely the same result ALL the time especially as the satellite ones are measuring the troposphere rather than the surface.

    The delta between the data sets is simply due to the different base years.

    You said that the algorithm was poorly documented and lame: poorly documented doesn’t mean that they don’t know what it’s doing. You call it lame, but on what do you base your value judgment: if it’s poorly documented how can you tell?

  64. tulbobroke (05:04:00)

    “Interestingly it’s only in the last two or three months that GIS and HADCRUT have a different trend from the satellites.”

    Only in the last 2 or 3 months? Sorry, but that’s not true. GISS has been out of step from its peers for a long time: click.

    That highlights one of the major complaints about GISS: they “adjust” their data. After they’ve massaged the data sufficiently, the GISS results always seem to show warming — while its peers [including the satellite data] show definite cooling.

  65. Smokey: Ignoring the trend line on your plot: look at the actual data and you’ll see that the ups and downs of GISS mirror the other 3 indices very well.

    I say ignore the trend line because the use of the trend line starting near the 1998 El Nino could be considered a cherry pick.

    Here’s the trend plotted from 1979 which is when the satellite data started.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/rss/trend

    The delta between the plots is due to the different base line periods from which the anomaly is measured.

    And here’s the plot of trend for GISS and HADCRUT from 1880:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1880/trend

  66. “Ignoring the trend line on your plot…”

    The whole point of showing the trend lines was to show that the GISS record indicates a rising trend, while all the others show a declining temperature trend over the past 11 years. It’s clear you want to ignore the direction of the trend line; it reveals an inconvenient truth. But ignoring the truth won’t make it go away.

    And the woodfortrees site is a cherry-picker’s delight, isn’t it? You can show anything, anything at all. But the fact is that current temps are below 1980 temperatures. People who believe in AGW have a hard time with that fact [which is, of course, easily explained by the never-falsified theory of natural climate variability].

  67. Nice one Smokey: your graph, although not up to date, shows that GISS does not systematically show the highest anomaly. Thanks.

    That does raise an interesting point though: you do understand that AGW is considered to be a trend superimposed on natural variation, don’t you? In which case, why would you expect the change in temp to be ALWAYS going up. Surely you can see that there may be times when the natural variation down is greater than the AGW component.

    Not surprisingly, there’s even a published paper on it… http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037810.shtml

  68. tulbobroke,

    Can you provide the paper you linked to? That’s only an abstract.

    And it appears that the authors are simply plagiarizing the authors here: click

    The long established theory of natural climate variability, in which global temperatures oscillate on a decadal scale above and below a naturally rising trend line going back to the LIA, and to the last great Ice Age before that, has never been falsified.

    But the CO2=AGW hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified. So your statement that “…AGW is considered to be a trend superimposed on natural variation…” is not accurate. Remove the “A” from “AGW”, and your statement will be correct.

    From what I’ve seen, no one here takes the position that there is no natural global warming, so trying to frame the argument that way doesn’t work. But if you have any solid, real world evidence that AGW exists [please, no GCMs or *ahem* peer reviewed speculation], then by all means, please show it to us.

    Empirical proof that CO2=AGW [or even solid, measurable evidence that AGW exists in the real world] would be a first. There’s a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone providing hard evidence that AGW amounts to anything significant, or is even measurable.

  69. The paper’s available behind the pay wall.

    I can’t say that I’m impressed by the paper that you linked to which seems to discuss media reports rather than scientific publications.

    Funnily enough I seem to remember that a Nobel was awarded with respect to AGW.

    Smokey, you say “But the CO2=AGW hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified.” Now that would be worthy of a Nobel prize. Is it pending? Have you got a link to the research behind it.

    Interesting that you exclude GCM and peer reviewed papers: what’s left?

  70. “The paper’s available behind the pay wall.”

    Of course I already knew it was, I just wanted to make an example of someone who obviously did a quick search and cut ‘n’ paste, and then claims it as “authority.”

    As I stated above, the authors of that paper seem to have taken the Joe Biden approach to science: plagiarizing the Pickens submission that I cited [and which was originally published by Newsweek]. Plagiarism is not authority.

    There are dozens of sources, including peer reviewed [linked below] that falsify the failed CO2=AGW hypothesis. But my favorite source is planet Earth herself, which is now laughing at the hubris of the AGW believers: as the planet’s temperature declines, CO2 continues to rise.

    But there are other sources [some are peer reviewed, for what little that matters; some are not. But lots of the indexes in the sources cited are] :

    click1

    click2

    click3

    click4

    click5

    click6

    click7

    click8

    click9

    click10

    On the thoroughly discredited peer review process:

    clickA

    clickB

    clickC

    clickD

    There’s a couple of days’ reading, but you really need it to get up to speed on the subject. When you’ve finished with these, I have lots more for you. Run along now.

  71. Shirley you jest… given the choice between peer reviewed published papers or self published papers, do you seriously expect anyone to choose the latter?

    But I’m interested to know: in your opinion, are all peer reviewed papers junk… or just the ones that contradict you?

    Oh yes, I forgot there’s a word-wide conspiracy to prevent anti-AGW stuff getting published. Funny how some of the most out-spoken sceptical scientists like Spencer, Christy and Pielke have their work paid for by the US Government.

    Your “click 10” made me smile: some of the pre-1940 data is warmer after adjustment: that would tend to reduce the modern anomaly. Tsk, tsk those AGWers are just so inconsiderate.

    And this was good for a laugh too: “Wise-up Journal” where one can read about
    “EU Takeover”, “Elitist Mindset”, “Global GOV scheme”, “Societal Breakdown”…

  72. “Shirley you jest…”

    First off, don’t call me Shirley!

    Anyway, you’re trying to re-frame the argument. That doesn’t work very well here; unlike True Believers, skeptics start out being skeptical.

    The fact is that these “adjustments” are almost always made to show greater warming than the raw data shows. Massaging the data to achieve a desired result is done all. The. Time. Therefore, the final product is highly questionable. And skeptics, unlike True Believers, question. It’s the basis of the Scientific Method, believe it or not. If you like, I have more blink gifs showing the same type of upward temperature adjustment. All of them show higher temps following adjustment. All of them. What are the odds, eh?

    Someone is diddling with the numbers. The surface station record is unreliable. You can accept their massaged result at face value; I’m not that naive. There are $billions at stake. And scientists are human, you know. A tweak her and a tweak there could result in a seven figure grant. The climate peer review system has been gamed. It can no longer be trusted. If you don’t believe that, there’s nothing I can do… except give you some helpful advice for the overly trusting: don’t answer any of those emails from Nigeria. They’re not really holding millions for you.

    Which brings me to my final comment on this old thread [you can have the last word, or follow me to a more modern thread].

    Of course all peer reviewed papers are not junk. But trust has been broken because of bad peer review, especially in the climate sciences. You couldn’t possibly have read everything I posted, so your mind is already made up and can’t be changed rationally. When emotion rules, logic is defenestrated.

    Climate peer review is a sham, as explained in the Wegman Report to Congress, which you also didn’t read. You should. You would see that a smallish clique of people who control the climate peer review process get to exclusively decide what is published, and what isn’t. There is better peer review on excellent sites like this than there is in Science [to which I subscribed for over twenty years] and Nature. Those journals are routinely scammed by dishonest scientists, as you could have read in the links about Schoen and others. That could never happen in sites like this one. Their fraud would be instantly exposed. You probably don’t believe that, but it’s true.

    Anyway, I’m on to a modern thread. I’ll leave this with you to add to your “don’t read” file: click.

Comments are closed.