Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Normally, I might not deal with a four year old paper by James Hansen, the NASA doyenne of serial doomcasters. However, I note that this paper has been cited ten times this year alone, so I thought I might comment.
At some point when he was not giving a Press Conference, or getting arrested, or spending time complaining that he was being “muzzled”, Mr. Hansen wrote:
Abstract. I suggest that a `scientific reticence’ is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue.
I love the naked power grab. I mean, what an audacious plan!
First, you unilaterally declare that there is some huge looming disaster a long ways in the future. Using a variety of methods fair and foul, you obtain the full cooperation of other scientists, governments, educational institutions, and the media the world around. With all of you, the whole chorus, baying for skeptic’s blood in full voice, you spend a quarter century trying to convince the people of the oncoming Thermageddon.
Second, after said quarter century you notice that despite having the entire resources of the educational and media institutions of the planet and the blind agreement of other scientists and billions of dollars poured into trying … you have not been able to establish your case. Heck, you haven’t even been able to falsify the null hypothesis. In fact, after a long string of predictions of doom, none of which came to pass, and at the tail end of a 15-year hiatus in the warming, the US public doesn’t believe a word you say. Oops. Over two-thirds of them think climate scientists sometimes falsify their research. Oops.
In response, you say that the problem is that scientists have been too retice … too re … sorry, it’s hard to type and laugh at the same time … you say that scientists have been to reticent, that they haven’t been alarmist enough or aggressive enough in promoting their views.
That’s the problem? After 25 years of unbridled alarm from scientists and everyone else from Presidents to my kid’s teachers, the problem is that scientists are not alarmist enough, they’re too reticent to state their true opinion? Really? That’s the reason the public doesn’t believe you? Is that your final answer?
(Does he really, in his heart of hearts, believe that? Possible, I guess, but it presupposes a level of self-delusion that is scary …)
The real beauty of the plan, however, the sting in the tale, is the proposed solution—a “panel of scientific leaders” to inform the people of the error of our ways. I mean, the IPCC did so well, let’s make a sea level rise mini-IPCC. Staff it with people who will know what to say, who won’t have to be prompted.
Mr. Hansen claims he is a scientist first and an activist second. He and far too many other climate scientists are activists first, and scientists maybe fourth or fifth if at all. He proposes convening a Star Council of Jim and his hand-picked acolytes to lecture us sternly on a radical sea level rise slated to occur when they are dead? He wants us to listen to his pals make predictions they’ll never be held accountable for? And all this from the man who in 1988 predicted a 10 foot (3m) sea level rise putting parts of NYC underwater in forty years? Fuggedaboutit. He probably felt safe with such a long-term prediction. In any case, we’re more than halfway there, and since 1988 the sea level in NYC has gone up by 2.5 inches (6 cm). Would you buy a sea level prediction from Jim?
There certainly are many problems in the field of climate science. Reticence on the part of climate scientists to clean up their own backyard is high on the list.
Reticence on the part of climate scientists to make alarmist claims, about sea level or any other imagined future disaster, is not on the list at all.
The main problem, however, is thinking that it’s a communications problem. It’s not. The problem is that Jim and his Climategate pals lied and cheated and pulled strings and even destroyed evidence in order to advance their views. All of that was revealed clearly in the UEA emails. They stand convicted by their own words.
As a result, lots of folks don’t believe a word that the climate scientists say. And reasonably so. I have seen no reason to believe they are now acting differently. There has been no “mea culpa” from even one individual involved. Noble Cause Corruption appears to have rotted the ethical parts of their brains entirely. They don’t even think they did wrong … and the rest of the honorable, decent, good climate scientists? Well, by and large they played the faithful dog Spot, they rolled over and played dead.
That’s the problem, not communications or reticent scientists. I had hoped that Climategate would lance the boil and the healing could begin … foolish boy, wrong again …
So no, I believe I’ll pass on the brilliant plan for the formation of the Official Panel Of The Sea-Level Wise Men. No need to even read the novel, most of us have seen the IPCC movie, and would prefer not to be forced to sit through a bad sequel.
w.
Mark S had problems with Willis referring to himself as “I” (!)..
Willis referred to his time as a psychotherapist and the technical term of art for what Mark S had said – “psychobabble”.
I (there it is again – how does one avoid it? Oooooh I just did! Rats! back where I started…..Ooops..I better get out of these parentheses before I am psychoanalysed). So, to continue, I am ecstatic to be able to advise that here in Australia (what a bloody great little country it is too) there is a much older and, dare I say it, more accurate term which I can now offer to you. It is “B_ _ _ S_ _ _”.
In this country at least, it is so well known that it is only necessary to write/pronounce the first letters of the words, as in: ” Doesn’t that fellow….err what’s his name? Hansen?…. talk a lot of BS?”. It is, of course, most convenient to use this diminutive form when one is engaged in social intercourse in reputable or delicate company.
And if you will allow me for a moment to become just a little didactic, careful analysis of those occasions which seem most naturally to call for the use of the term, demonstrates quite conclusively that, when it is used, it carries with it a visceral (but gentle) suggestion of disapproval in relation to the subject matter which is under description. So, like the best poetry, it is very succinct in conveying meaning. That is to say, it is not just the fact of the descibed matter being BS, which is conveyed to the reader/listener, but, albeit almost subliminally, it also conveys a degree of more or less amiable distaste towards that subject.
Of course I could go on, but one (Ha! avoided that one) must not place oneself in such a position as to be hoist with one’s own petard, so to speak, and fall headlong into the (far too common) trap of writing/speaking BS!
Regards,
Kohl P (the P DOES NOT stand for PhD!)
PS Re ‘doctor’: Of course these days there are many among us who are called “doctor” but who, alas, do not possess a PhD degree, not even a little one, from any kind of university, never mind one that has a ‘reputation’. One speaks (this is rather fun isn’t it?) of medical doctors, dentists and now even veterinary surgeons – at least that is what I am led to believe by those who frequent such establishments. All of this rather misses out on the proper meaning of the appellation which is, inevitably, taken from the Latin. A doctor is a ‘teacher’. In the good old days, well before my time, one became a ‘doctor’ by finding out something which no-one else knew so as to be in a position to tell everyone else about it – one became a teacher.
Ken Methven says:
October 23, 2011 at 4:00 pm
King Canute has a similar Noble Cause Corruption ….. we didn’t have control of tides then, nor sea level now. I don’t quite get how the prognostications of the past are not brought up in the media. If Jim were a fully fledged politician…they would.
FAIL x 2
1) Canute did his little demo to drive some sense into court syncophants who babbled he could order the tides around. One version of the story has him lashing the biggest loudmouth to the throne while the rising water drowned him.
2) It had nothing to do with the issue of “Noble Cause” corruption, just hubris and deluded underestimation of the power of Nature.
Perhaps it is time to begin using a new term to describe Dr Hansen and his ilk, I suggest: Climate Fundamentalist.
When used in a religious context, this means someone holding extreme views and who is unable or unwilling to tolerate alternative views. That someone is often dangerous and destructive and who has twisted the tenets of a basic faith into something ugly. Finally, that someone is prone to high profile acts specifically designed to scare or terrorise the unbelievers.
Yup, a climate fundamentalist is a typical ‘climate scientist’ all right.
Willis
Thank you for another perceptive and pertinent article that addresses the heart of the debate. Alarmism and scare mongering, in part because of a lack of knowledge of our history.
Readers might have seen the first part of my three part article on sea levels
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/12/historic-variations-in-sea-levels-part-1-from-the-holocene-to-romans/
I have all the material and research done for the remaining two articles taking us from the Romans through the medieval warm period to the modern day. Unfortunately the articles take an enormous amount of time to put together and the generous supply of money from Big Oil seems to have dried up recently…
It is quite obvious that sea levels have been higher than today in the recent historical past. They go up and go down with some regularity, and the fractional rate of increase over the last century is entirely within n0rmal parmeters and in many places is too small to measure.
To meet the stated claims of a metre rise by the end of the century they would have to accelerate from nothing to some 11mm a year. There is no sign whatsover of this happening.
Incidentally the article has been stuck on 499 comments for months, so if anyone wants to push it over 500…
tonyb
For no charge here is this layman’s view of sea level rise. To raise sea level just one metre will require the melting of ~400,000 cubic kilometres of land borne ice. I won’t bore you with how much energy will be required but I will mention that the energy can only be delivered through the atmosphere. Warm seas melt floating ice very quickly but warm air takes quite a while to melt the ice on the land. Only Antarctica and Greenland have enough ice for this. Also the next metre of sea level rise will require oven more ice to melt.
As I type I can look out of my window at the fishing boats in the harbour. Hmm… tides low just now but at next high tide I will check for any rise in sea level. I don’t expect to see any. This harbour was built over 150 years ago and hasn’t overflowed yet. It’s lock controlled. Gives one plenty of time to observe extra high tides.
When I threw my 37ft Sunseeker into reverse this Sunday, the sea washed over the bathing platform, and my props almost struck the bottom of the river.
If that isn’t sea level rise out of control, I dont know what is!
This has been an enormously entertaining thread so far! Thanks everyone who has so far contributed. Willis, great commentary, and about on par with my own opinions. I noticed in your list of reasons to not respect hansen, you missed his flying to a foreign country to give testimony in a court of law that the vandals on trial were acting for a good cause.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/10/note-to-nasa-fire-dr-james-hansen-now/
By the way, to the pedants who didn’t notice, not only do I not use a title of respect for the man, I refuse to even capitalize his name.
ali baba says:
October 23, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Thanks, Ali. They spend time attacking me. They censor me from their sites. What’s your explanation, if they don’t care about me? But I’m happy to drop the “me” and say:
Better? Because you’re right. It’s not about me.
Appreciated,
w.
jason says:
October 23, 2011 at 11:20 pm
I called him that because he ADVOCATED THROWING ME IN JAIL FOR MY SCIENTIFIC BELIEFS.
Please, give me a better word for a man who does that. The only one that comes to mind is Stalinist.
But truly, Jason, if he’d advocated throwing you in jail for your scientific beliefs … what would you call him? “Ethically impaired”? “Anti-humanitarian”? He has publicly called for my incarceration. I have publicly called him a prick for doing that, that is so far over the line of scientific or any propriety. He is an employee of the state advocating that the state imprison me … and YOU’RE UPSET WITH ME because I’m not concerned about his feelings? If you think that my words were “undignified” (and likely you’re right, when my blood gets angrified I sometimes get intemperate and wax wroth), you should imagine what my thoughts are about the man.
I await your preferable word that you feel adequately describes a man who would call for your incarceration. Until then, I’ll stand by mine. Throw me in jail for my scientific beliefs? That’s thought police territory. Give me your name for it, I’ll retract mine if it is better. Bring it on, how would you describe him 100% honestly? “Slightly misguided”? What?
w.
Eric Worrall says:
October 24, 2011 at 12:07 am
Another Bad Boat Boy … we don’t care if you have a 37 foot Sunseeker. We don’t care a bit. We are totally uninterested, and not one iota jealous of the bathing platform. Those are mere worldly manifestations, we don’t wish we had such crass materialistic things, we’re beyond that.
However, we’re overjoyed to be asked out on our friends’ boats, and scrub the deck afterwards …
w.
PS—Typed without using the word H + 1. Makes me sound like the queen of england using the royal “we” …
Mark S says:
October 23, 2011 at 3:21 pm
You type the letter “I” a lot. Sign of a narcissist. Just saying.
Willis Eschenbach use s ”I” 7 times in his 56 line argument, and James Hansen uses it twice in his 6 line proposal. You may be correct about narcissism.
From his ‘Abstract’=
‘…..that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for…‘
That’s a debating technique a well known British socialist (Tony Benn) used a lot in his debates; slip in something small but quite absurd at the very start of the debate, then, at the conclusion of your ‘debate’, you somehow find yourself trapped into agreeing with it. Maybe you either didn’t spot the ‘wrong-ness’ at the start or thought you could correct it during the ensuing debate.
Hansen’s ‘wrongness’ is the sea level out of our control. He should have been pulled up then with the question…”When was sea level ever under our control?” because then and if he can’t answer it, anything he says after that has no legs to stand on..
Holden’s forty year time-lapse took me back to when I was a a very small boy. I loved the old city trams (double-deck streetcars) that were about to be replaced by buses. I took a piece of card my mother used for ironing ties and scrawled on it “THE TRAMS SHALL NOT BE TOOK OFF UNTIL NOT THIS DECEMBER BUT THE NEXT DECEMBER” – which for any small child is about as far away as never. We used to regularly unearth that bit of card for many years after. — The problem was, that’s about when they were “took off”!
Willis. Since you seem to want to focus on James Hansen a bit in this post, with continual references to things like ‘over the last 25 years’ etc. The question is ‘Your point being?’.
You do realise don’t you that the basic science of AGW was established while James Hansen was still an undergraduate. And Al Gore was in high school.
What is your view about the contribution of some of the following pioneers? Plass, Suess, Wetherald, Revelle, Manabe, Keeling. Most important thing about all these guys, let alone earlier workers like Hulbert, Callender, Chamberlain, etc.
You do know what all these people did don’t you? And you have conveyed that to the readership here at WUWT haven’t you? Just to be sure your readership are well informed.
Glenn Tamblyn says:
October 24, 2011 at 1:09 am
Thanks, Glen. My point is that based on specious claims and failed forecasts Hansen and others have proposed to deprive the poor of the world of inexpensive energy vital for their development. The “25 years” refers to how long they have been trying unsuccessfully to make their scientific case. What is your point?
As far as I can see, the “basic science of AGW” has never been established. See my discussion of the problems with the underlying math of modern AGW claims here as one fundamental problem among many. Many further references available upon request.
Sorry, I’m not into reminiscing about how back in the day there actually used to be science in climate science. Candy bars used to be a dime then too … so what do either have to do with today? I suspect my readers know both of those things in any case. The problem is what’s happening now.
w.
Eric Anderson said:
Willis, may I humbly suggest that in the future to avoid this issue you use the royal “We”! 🙂
==================================
Good idea. We all know Willis well enough. He could go a bit further with WE—after all, they are his initials 🙂
Do excuse me Willis you typed ” Makes me sound like the queen of england using the royal “we”.
As a Brit I should point out the its “Queen of England” (actually its of Great Britain but the Scots seem to want out so there you go!) and its the the Royal “We” .
Just thought I would help our old colonists out out 😉
Willis. there is no doubt that Hansen’s 1988 prediction about NYC sea levels is truly bizarre. What could he possibly have been thinking?
However, the amount of sea level rise needed to flood the Westside Highway isn’t necessarily 10 feet.
1. The vertical reference for topographic maps apparently is not local mean sea level. What it is, isn’t so easy to describe. It’s a level derived from often distant tidal gauges that apparently can differ from actual mean sea level by a meter or more. See http://kartoweb.itc.nl/geometrics/Reference%20surfaces/refsurf.html
2. Even if the vertical reference is close to MSL, we need to correct for the difference between MSL and higher high water during spring tides. Then throw in storm surge.
So maybe we only need four or six feet and a really bad juxtaposition of events to flood the highway.
But I don’t think Hansen took any of that into account. I think he is simply deeply into climate related science fantasy and can no longer distiguish between Science Fantasy and Science.
Robert Burns had it right in the 18th century. (A Man’s A Man for those interested)
3
Ye see yon birkie ca’d ‘a lord,’
Wha struts, an’ stares, an’ a’ that?
Tho’ hundreds worship at his word,
He’s but a cuif for a’ that.
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
His ribband, star, an’ a’ that,
The man o’ independent mind,
He looks an’ laughs at a’ that.
4.
A prince can mak a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, an’ a’ that!
But an honest man’s aboon his might —
Guid faith, he mauna fa’ that!
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
Their dignities, an’ a’ that,
The pith o’ sense an’ pride o’ worth
Are higher rank than a’ that.
Translation
You see yonder fellow called ‘a lord,’
Who struts, and stares, and all that?
Though hundreds worship at his word,
He is but a dolt for all that.
For all that, and all that,
His ribboned, star, and all that,
The man of independent mind,
He looks and laughs at all that.
A prince can make a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, and all that!
But an honest man is above his might –
Good faith, he must not fault that
For all that, and all that,
Their dignities, and all that,
The pith of sense and pride of worth
Are higher rank than all that.
Thermal expansion is another way of getting sea level rise.
I am curious where you got your ~400,000 number from, as I posted some calculations recently on a thread on WUWT that looked like the following:
I am curious if people actually read my posts. I discard or don’t write down about 90% of posts that I think up.
How can there be snow in August, Not-So-Smart- guy, when the Climate Team TOLD us that little children would NEVER get to see snow? Oh I forgot, that was when the mantra was Global Warming…before they changed it to Climate Disruption. Pretty tricky eh? 😉
Regarding all the blather on Mr./Dr.? Hansen’s educational credentials, I read somewhere that a PhD. is someone who studies more and more about less and less until eventually he/she knows everything there is about nothing. There , now all of you with doctorates can feel equally insulted.
jason says:
October 23, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Well haven’t we all got a little hot under the collar here. Even Willis has resorted to calling someone a “prick”.
All very undignified.
Ok and tut tut to you, too, jason. And therefore I’ll write an “official letter of very severe condemnation and plea for assistance” to the…er……U.N..
Btw, you haven’t seen hot….
I have known quite a few holders of PhDs in my time and the one who received most respect from me was one who used his title only when mixing with his peer group at specialist conferences. This person ran a very successful British business operating internationally. He had two versions of his business card, one with his qualification and the other with his business title.
I believe that he felt that his academic qualification mattered when discussing his specialist subject with peers, but beyond that was largely irrelevant. I agree.
So when Dr Hansen is offering opinions on the subject of his PhD – as I understsand it, the impact of dust as an insulator on the Venusian atmosphere – then his PhD has relevance. When he is engaged in quasi-political activity, then I would see no reason to consider him as other than plain and simple Mr.
At the time Hansen was researching Venusian atmosphere I was asked to leave my university after I had become totally disillusioned with academe. I had gone expecting to be part of the search for new knowledge and understanding of the universe. I can trace the start of my disillusion to being told by one of the staff that if I could not get the results expected from a particular electronics experiment, then I should copy them from someone who did. Further investigation on my part showed that the results I had obtained were valid, (and indeed, interesting) but were not what was required. It seemed that this university required conformism rather than an enquiring mind and the course of my life changed, as did my respect for academic qualifications.
What we are seeing now from so many of the “leaders” of climate research is nothing but academic conformism, driven by concern for their departments, their funding and their standing within their peer groups. Their fear of loss in any of these areas has driven them to become arrogant, self-publicising and aggressive. These are natural responses to the insecurity of their position, so we should be magnanimous and patient with them.
As an aside, isn’t it interesting that in medicine in the UK, doctors are called Doctor until they reach a sufficiently senior, consultant, level when they insist on being call Mr.
You know, I have been in both academia and industry and as a general rule, those PhDs that insist on being called “Dr” don’t deserve it while those who don’t actually do.
Bwanajohn, PhD ABD