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.
tulbobroke (05:04:00)
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.
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
“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].
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
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.
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?
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.
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”…
“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.