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 does “joust 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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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;
http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadershop/9780977685622.html
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.
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.
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
“…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.
http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/01/15/kill-camels-to-decrease-emissions/
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.
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.
“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?
NOT.
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?
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/correct_the_corrections_the_giss_urban_adjustment/
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.
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’.
“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.
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.