Hansen responds to John Coleman's KUSI Special report

According to the KUSI special report page, Dr. Hansen has issued the following statement.

NASA has issued the following statement in response to the KUSI Special Report. This statement is from Dr. James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City:

“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis. The analysis utilizes three independent data sources provided by other agencies. Quality control checks are regularly performed on that data. The analysis methodology as well as updates to the analysis are publicly available on our website. The agency is confident of the quality of this data and stands by previous scientifically based conclusions regarding global temperatures.” (GISS temperature analysis website: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)

For more on Dr. Hansen, here is a Youtube clip of his recent appearance on the David Letterman show. Apparently Dr. Hansen doesjoust with jesters” after all.

Dr. Hansen writes on his website:

…if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control, the contrarians who work to deny and confuse will not be the principal culprits. The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present. They will continue to entertain even if the Titanic begins to take on water. Their role and consequence is only as a diversion from what is important.

Yet here he is, jousting with the biggest jester of them all.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Richard Wakefield

This may be the appropriate place to post this.
I was just watching, while working on my PC, Star Trek NG episode “The Drumhead” (1991) where Picard is put under pressure of a trial into spying by a zealous admiral who threatens him that she has brought down bigger people than him. At the end of the show Picard says to Worf:
“She, or someone like her, will always be with us – waiting for the right climate in which to flourish, spreading fear in the name of righteousness. Vigilance, Mister Worf – that is the price we have to continually pay. ”
Very fitting to us. Keep up the great work at WUWT!


Either they have or they haven’t. What are the facts. Are the opponents of AGW just making noise or do they have proof?

three independent data sources
Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998),
United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data,
and SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research)

Tim Clark


Wondering Aloud

The “quality” of this data leaves so much to be desired it makes me wonder about the folks and methods doing his claimed “Quality control checks are regularly performed on that data”. If he isn’t aware or nervous about this in light of the siting issues UHI issues and rediculous fudge factors it is mighty hard to take him seriously.
He is right about then carbon trading, one of those broken clock twice a day things.


A bozo echo chamber… how novel!


Ah, Hansen. The ideal Climate Jester will display the ability to fudge the baseline data, cherry-pick the hottest stations and oversalt the cookie-dough mass. Place in pot of model-water, then bring to a raging boil while homogenizing.
If Julia Child saw you making cookies like that, she’d beat you to a pulp with her myriad kitchen utensils.
George Patton would say “Ha, ha, I read your emails. What a waste of fine data.

Tina Fey would say “And I can see Alaska from my house…in Miami Beach. Oh look, fresh frozen orange juice on the trees, just like Mom & Dad said about Mr. Spocks coming Ice Age. Bye-eee.”


Dr. Robert W. Corell on the most popular Scandinavian talk show tonight:
http://www1.nrk.no/nett-tv/klipp/598717 (starts after 45 minutes)
Is he really Obama’s climate science advisor? This is pure brainwashing!

Chloro Phil

“I don’t know anything about it but we’re doomed”. Is Letterman trying to drive down the price of beach front property so he can buy some next to Al Gore?

What he really meant was: “NASA has not not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis.” I imagine NASA’s QC checks are as good as New Scientists’ re:glacial melting. It only took it ten years for admit it was wrong.

John Luft

“The agency is confident of the quality of this data”….not the point. Is the agency itself reliable? That is the point.

Carbon Dioxide

NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis. The analysis utilizes three independent data sources provided by other agencies.”
Plausable deniability- the logical analisis of this assertion would be that data is manipulated BEFORE it gets to NASA.

Malaga View

Think that book is filed under FICTION……

Jack Simmons

Gerard (14:11:43) :

Either they have or they haven’t. What are the facts. Are the opponents of AGW just making noise or do they have proof?

I understand you must have been off the planet for last few months.
Perhaps you should take some time and get familiar with the term “Climategate” and all the fallout from same.
Just go back and watch the KUSI special for starters.
You will see those against AGW have the proof. More will be made available when the inevitable investigations, armed with FOIA requests or court subpoenas, retrieve the records GISS, NASA, and NOAA have been reluctant to share with those of us who have been footing the bill for this nonsense.
Grab some popcorn and enjoy the show.

Ron de Haan

Tim Clark (14:21:08) :
You said it right: Nuts!
Which makes him anything but trustworthy.
The absolute lack of response in regard to the content of the acquisitions made by Coleman, E.M Smith and Joseph D’Aleo tells me the they are on the right track.
The same goes for the Anthony’s surfacestation project
All result in a mountain of rock solid evidence that can’t be ignored.


( Is he really Obama’s climate science advisor? )
It appears so and to top it off hes a AGW guy and he worked alot with the IPCC assessments that landed him one of those cereal box Nobel Peace Prizes they seem to hand out to anybody that walks by anymore .

Fred from Canuckistan . . .

“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data”
So what does NASA do with the data and if they do nothing, why do we need NASA involved in climate data?

Carbon Dioxide

Nasa have been known to manipulate images and go to radio silence or use code words in verbal comunications with astronauts.
Remember the inexplicable two minutes of silence shortly after Apollo 11’s lunar landing?
(But thats totally off topic and for another forum. I only refer it as an example that Nasa is not above obfuscation)


…if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control,…
And there you have it. In physics, nothing is created or destroyed. This single statement answers every question I have regarding what motivation is behind his appearance of being on a holy crusade to save the planet. Or he is simply dissembling.
Either way, this isn’t about science.


posted this at CA, but here are a few links to some protected files from the GISS server. the login was in the FOIA’d emails, and worked yesterday (the site has been taken down).
mostly graphs, data and work logs – for example:
“Target CO2″ Paper
Proof received, awful quality, I checked fig caps & ref’s 08′10′06
Evelyn faxed, FedExed & e-mailed Jim’s new version 08′10′07
Figure 6+S13 for press release PDF Target/S13&DearPM 08′10′09 08′10′14
Schmunk uploaded on arXiv Main, Appendix 08′10′15 08′10′15
Larry/Evelyn paid $800 for publication by fax 08′10′21 08′10′21
2nd Proof, Jim sent e-mail and faxed re figure locations 08′10′27 08′10′27
Jim sent pre-press release and Q&A to reporters in list 08′10′27 08′10′27
3rd Proof, OK to Saima 08′10′29 08′10′29
Published on-line, with chopped up words. Jim sent e-mail. 08′10′31 08′10′31

D. King

“The analysis utilizes three independent data sources provided by other agencies. Quality control checks are regularly performed on that data.”
Maybe we should dig a little deeper and check the sensor
configurations for sea ice extent. We may be getting raw data
that has been improperly collected.


Only slghtly OT, just reported by WSJ:
According to the conservative think tank the National Center for Public Policy Research, Mann received $541,184 in economic stimulus funds last June to conduct climate change research.
How many jobs did this “create”?

Steve in SC

Bunch of nitwits and I am being extremely kind.
Hansen is lying like a rug.


Jack Simmons: I have followed Climategate very closely and I have watched the Kusi program and I still do not see any politicians backing down or running for cover on this issue (although Tony Abbott was made leader of the opposition in Australia on this issue, but he is still hedging his bets and as far as I can gather he is still an AGW believer). As a scientist myself I I only deal in facts however it is still only fringe groups and not main stream groups that have taken up the cause. I still think we have a long way to go before the wheels fall off the AGW gravy train.

Leon Brozyna

What to do with Hansen. He’s an embarrassment to himself and NASA.
There’s also a crisis at NBC late night television over the Tonight Show.
Wait … I have the perfect solution.
Zucker at NBC hires Hansen away from NASA as their new late night comedic talent. It keeps up NBC’s very proper Green image, solves the Leno/Conan dust up, and Hansen is free to speak his mind without any appearance of a conflict that exists now as a gov’t employee.
And then when the whole thing implodes, NBC Universal fires Zucker for driving NBC even further to the ratings cellar and fires Hansen as a no-talent joke, who then rides off to join Gore in his crusade [Hansen & Gore later split the AGW movement into a bitter civil war over purity of beliefs]. Leno takes over at 4th place Tonight Show, behind Letterman at CBS, ABC’s Nightline, and the high-flying Conan show – FOX Tonight.

Quote: “NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis.”
Check the exact wording of this denial very carefully.
NASA has manipulated, hidden, and distorted experimental data on the, origin, composition, and energy source for the Sun since the time when the Apollo Mission returned the first samples from the Moon.
At a meeting to celebrate the 50th anniversary of NASA a few years ago, I warned Dr. Ralph Ciscerone (President of the National Academy of Sciences) and several members of the Space Science Board not to involve NASA in the fraud of global climate warming.
The question is who provided public tax funds to the scoundrels who lied to the public?
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel


Hansen is mistaken in his understanding of ‘jester’. Historically it was the guy who told it how it was. This example from wikipedia;
“In literature, the jester is symbolic of common sense and of honesty, notably in King Lear, the court jester is a character used for insight and advice on the part of the monarch, taking advantage of his license to mock and speak freely to dispense frank observations and highlight the folly of his monarch. This presents a clashing irony as a “greater” man could dispense the same advice and find himself being detained in the dungeons or even executed. Only as the lowliest member of the court can the jester be the monarch’s most useful adviser.”
That sounds like the guys who run the blogs?
It’s role that’s very important in modern business and governement – someone with the wit and the balls to point out flaws in the consensus; Check out;
cheers David

Take the Hansen’s decline in credibility. Then HOMOGENIZE it. Only after this, does it show a upward trend.


“Quality control checks are regularly performed on that data”. “Those” data, please, Dr Hansen.


“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis.

What does that mean? Does it mean that the manipulation GISS does is not under the auspices of NASA? Does it mean they don’t do any data manipulation? Both of these sound implausible even without getting into inappropriate acts. Or does he count NASA as not involved with GISS actions?
I don’t understand what he is trying to say/imply.

Keith Davies

The Climategate Email disclosures make it difficult to place too much reliance on the utterances of those who so earnestly , in the style of the original authors of those Emails, protest that they are above suspicion.


letterman is nuts!, i dont even know what hansen said, i couldn’t take my eyes off the crazy man.


Here I thought court jesters were valued because they would say the truth, unvarnished and without politics, although humorously thus people would not take jesters seriously.
If we “contrarians” are to be called court jesters, so be it. We know we will be having the last laugh.


The manipulation is not with the raw data (I hope) but with the data treatment and calculations. They present numbers skewed by their own methods and agenda. If that is not manipulation, what is?

Hansen seems to have taken partial heed of the “Recommendations to the Climate Change Communications Working Group” – a document that can be found in the Climategate files “RulesOfTheGame.pdf”, produced by “futerra sustainability communications” in the U.K. (primarily for a U.K. audience)
From the introduction:
“Why were the principles created?
“The game is communicating climate change; the rules will help us win it.
“These principles were created as part of the UK Climate Change Communications Strategy, an evidence-based strategy aiming to change public attitudes towards climate change in the UK. This is a ‘short version’
of a far longer document of evidence that can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk.”
Here are a few “principles” Hanson seems have ignored:
“Don’t rely on concern about children’s future or human survival instincts”
“Don’t create fear without agency”
“Fear can create apathy if individuals have no ‘agency’ to act upon the threat. Use fear with great caution.”
Given the title of his book, I’d say he threw caution to the winds! But he definitely seems to be religiously adhering to the following
“Forget the climate change detractors
“Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but unimportant. The argument is not about *if* we should deal with climate change, but *how* we should deal with climate change” [emphasis in original -hro]
Looking at the “big picture” (from emails, documents, IPCC reports) I’d say they have refined this particular principle to a very fine art! We see it reflected in all the “official” reactions to just about ANY criticism – whether it be the SRES, the “science”, the data or the models.
It’s almost as if there’s an impervious shield they wield: The preface is always “it doesn’t change the science” (OWTTE). The only extent to which a given response varies is the insidiousness and falsity of aspersions they cast on their crtics. Haven’t done a “scientific” analysis of this, but my theory is that there’s a very high correlation:
(validity+impact)*criticisms = (insidiousness+falsity)*aspersions

Ron de Haan

“…if we, in effect, destroy Creation”
I wonder how Hanson would react to a proposal from an Australian politician to kill the Camel population in order to reduce CO2 emissions.
It must make him crazier than he already is…
This once more proofs that green doctrines are a threat to all life on the planet, our civilization and our freedom.

a jones

But surely the importance is this.
Hansen is a great man in AGW if lesser than the Great Goracle Himself but equally unwilling to engage in any debate yet he has chosen to make a statement refuting any inaccuracy let alone wrongdoing.
In his statement he appeals to authority, that the data is confirmed elsewhere and so forth.
But why does he need to do this? He has never done so before, merely dismissed any critique as being malicious and politically motivated.
How can a tiny television station, however well informed, concise and careful in it’s report rock a mighty organisation like NASA and its Mandarins?
Hansen has no reason to suddenly come and defend his position, if it is, as he and others maintain , the established truth. And as such cannot be questioned, or so he has always said.
A simple contemptuous dismissal would do better than this piece of meretricious justification.
But then of course it is not the political crime that matters, it is trying to cover it up that attracts the media these days.
A remarkable result and a very bad call by Hansen and NASA I think but time will tell.
Kindest Regards.

Richard deSousa

Steve in SC (15:00:41) :
Bunch of nitwits and I am being extremely kind.
Hansen is lying like a rug.
Actually, Hansen needs a rug…


“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis.”
and Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman.


Hansen’s statement doesn’t do anything for me. It’s just an appeal to authority. Engage on the issues raised, Dr. Hansen, as to why what you guys did is appropriate and did not bias the record.

Patrick M.

“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis.”
Why didn’t he just say:
“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data.”


Ah, but Hansen is CC’ed in the emails from CRU Crew. He knows exactly what was going on and is aquiesced by his silence. The global warming he feels is the hot seat he currently occupies.
This is the guy who on one hand decries Cap & Trade but on the other hand tries to shut Washington DC’s Power Plant down by encouraging others to engage in civil unrest.
Can I believe that someone who says things to incite civil disobedience is not going to sit silent while others discuss how to cook the books to further his own doings?

Mike Ramsey

Is Dr. Hansen denying the accuracy of the charges made in John Coleman’s part 4? Or is he asserting that those actions don’t constitute manipulation of climate data?
Maybe it depends on the meaning of the word “is”….
Mike Ramsey

So Hansen is saying that this information is incorrect?

NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) publishes a global temperature index. The temperature record is contaminated by the effects of urban development and land use changes. NASA applies an “urbanization adjustment” to adjust the temperature histories to eliminate these effects. The resulting GISS temperature index is supposed to represent what the temperatures would have been in the absence of urbanization and land use changes. Most scientists assume that these adjustments are done correctly. The index is used to show that CO2 emissions are causing climate change.
An audit by researcher Steve McIntyre reveals that NASA has made urban adjustments of temperature data in its GISS temperature record in the wrong direction. The temperatures in urban areas are generally warmer than in rural areas. McIntyre classified the 7364 weather stations in the GISS world-wide network into various categories depending on the direction of the urban adjustment. NASA has applied a “negative urban adjustment” to 45% of the urban station measurements (where adjustments are made), meaning that the adjustments makes the warming trends steeper. The table below shows the number of negative and positive adjustments made to the station temperature trends.



NASA, the organization that lost a shuttle crew because they didn’t accurately know the temperature range of an O-ring material. Now trusted to accurately know the temperature range of the planet.

Ben D

Jim Hansen?? I thought the muppet guy was dead?
yet here he is again playing us a muppet show…ignore the man below the table…he is not manipulating the data

I suppose that Hansen beefed up his QC program after counting September’s Siberia temperatures as October’s in 2008?
I seem to recall that the error wasn’t caught due to personnel shortages in the QC area – no one had time to do a reasonableness check on the data.


This is the fundamental problem with AGW Climate Scientists.
Letterman has bought into the earth is doomed scenario…even NASA has backed away from the Al Gore oceans rising 20 meters nonsense.
Hansen has an opportunity to correct the falsehoods…but he just sits there and lets it slide.
Then he wants to claim he is merely interested “In the truth”.
There all are happy to point out when someone ‘understates’ what they believe is the science..but they are completely silent when someone ‘overstates’.
One is either interested in ‘The Facts’ or ‘The Agenda’.

Steve Fitzpatrick

“Their role and consequence is only as a diversion from what is important.”
Diversion indeed. An arrogant pompous old fool,weded to his hysterical “insights” of 35 years ago. Give it up James. Climate science is being held back by the likes of him… there will be no real progress until he is no longer in the picture.

Doug in Seattle

I suspect that Hansen really believes that what he does with the data is something other than manipulation. He probably also believes that what he calls quality control improves what even he understands to be a rather messy raw data set.
But, and its a very big but, he is so biased in his beliefs, and his activism so strident, that I find it impossible to impart any faith in his final product.