The Nature article (May 9) marks a defining critical moment as a slew of top scientists openly attack climate activist, Professor James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Science (GISS). Since the 1980′s Hansen has been at the forefront of claims that human emissions of carbon dioxide are “catastrophically” warming our planet. For his ceaseless alarmism Hansen has been named and shamed by, among others, the U.S. Government’s premier extreme weather expert, Martin Hoerling (of sister U.S. Government agency, NOAA) who calls Hansen’s science “patently false” and “policy more than it is science.As Nature states, “Alarming cracks are starting to penetrate deep into the scientific edifice.” Although the article baulked at naming and shaming Hansen, the beleaguered spokesman of climate alarmism nonetheless immediately rushed to defend himself in an OpEd in The New York Times (May 10). But Hansen was then summarily shot down the following day when a damning set of doctored graphs was released implicating him as fraudster-in-chief of the U.S. and global temperature records – all perpetrated while Hansen was pocketing millions for his sub-prime science.
h/t Bemused
“Alarming cracks are starting to penetrate deep into the scientific edifice.”
Not all that deep...compared to, say, the Mariana Trench. I found the explanation of Hansen's flat-earth thermodynamics particularly interesting. If only we had a resident engineer who specialized in thermodynamics. I think the NP has one on staff but he is a pretty solid catastrophic AGW believer.
"But is that a very big deal? You bet it is. That’s if you believe experts in thermodynamics (that branch of science specifically dealing with heat and energy transfer). Thermodynamics experts say it’s impossible to acquire anything meaningful by attempting to average the Sun’s irradiance. They say Hansen’s flat Earth physics can never work and there is no need to factor in any GHE to correctly calculate Earth’s energy input and output.One such independent scientist detailing the errors is Joseph E. Postma, an astrophysicist with the Canadian and Indian space agencies. [3.]
[...]
So where precisely did Hansen get it so wrong? Former NASA Apollo mission engineer Dr. Pierre R. Latour puts his finger on it: “Hansen subtracted a radiation temperature vector (it is an energy beam with direction) from a thermal temperature scalar (molecular kinetic energy intensity without direction), which are two different phenomena.” [4.] What this means in effect is that Hansen mixed the scientific equivalent of bananas with apples to make banapples. As such Hansen fatally subtracted a vector (banana) from a scalar (apple) – that you cannot do."
So just where is US "Law Enforcement" to deal with this fraud who has done FAR MORE damage than Bernie Madoff? Suckin' on them donuts and swilling coffee, eh?
Hansen was doing normal academic scientific research, which as usual was based on false theory, and naturally selected results to suit his theory. The fact the poor chap was caught out was and is most unfortunate. The reason the scientific establishment is backing him is that their own research is equally shoddy - skeletons in very cupboard. Noone wants close examination of their own experimental data (especially when it was cooked to prove a wrong theory).
"...all perpetrated while Hansen was pocketing millions for his sub-prime science..."
Boy, sure glad none of this fraudulent crap is taking place on this side of the Border...
I have made the point, before, that Hansen & NASA are a continuing Security Risk....When Gore was VP he got an exception to technology sharing...
Hansen is a UN/EU political whore. Treason may be in the air….
Anyone still pushing AGW is mentally retarded...
In traditional science, especially one with such profound effects on public policy, Hansen's research should have included all thermodynamic models - not just the convenient ones. Other scientists pro and con would have insisted on it. Of course, there also would have been data sharing and robust scientific debate.
The entire AGW science is built like a banana republic frame-up- no criminal defense, no evidence sharing, reasonable doubt not allowed, no alternative suspects investigated(no matter how plausible)and a tainted jury.
According to Lord Monckton, who is being interviewed by Ezra Levant on Sun News as we speak, says the AGW crowd have moved from calling it Climate Change to now calling it Sustainable Development.
In Tim Ball's "Slaying the Sky Dragon" Alan Siddons does a good job of demonstrating that the flat earth assumption is untenable.
Ken, the name changes are vital for making the public forget the debacle bit by bit.
From above:
For a while, Algore tried changong it from climate change to climate catastrophe. That didn't seem to take.
BTW - was out hiking today - May 24 - with snow coming down and accumulating not that far from Calgary.
From your reference --
// Top Scientists Vent on NASA’s Sub Prime Greenhouse Gas Hoaxer
Climatologist James Hansen is under sustained attack accused of global warming fraud at a time when the powerful science journal, Nature admits “research is riddled with systematic errors.”
The Nature article (May 9) marks a defining critical moment as a slew of top scientists openly attack climate activist, Professor James Hansen,
[...]
As Nature states, “Alarming cracks are starting to penetrate deep into the scientific edifice.” Although the article baulked at naming and shaming Hansen, the beleaguered spokesman of climate alarmism nonetheless immediately rushed to defend himself in an OpEd in The New York Times (May 10). //
How does this "slew of top scientists openly attack" Hansen while they at the same time"baulked at naming and shaming" him?
In fact, there was a Nature essay by one person who wrote about bias in "expecially biomedicine" , "preclinical cancer research", "pharmaceutical clinical trials" And the problem is "not with science, but with the poison of the profit motive".
Nor did Hansen rush to defend himself, but to condemn comments by President Obama about Canada's development of the Tar Sands
// I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves “regardless of what we do.” //
This is bogus, and an insult to anyone who bothers to read the articles in question. Presumably that doesn't include you.
Fearmongers begone!
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Paul (under breath: bloody git wankers)
http://spnoes.com/
Bennett @ 10:34 pm:
Haven't you been paying attention? It's not a banana republic, it's a banapple republic.
Much more sustainable.
Keystone Garter: old Indian word meaning 'little wee-wee hiding in mummy's teepee'.
dizzy, yes, while the article pointed to here is anout Hansen the original Nature article was about cracks showing in too much of all current research. I read a couple of medical blogs which. like the Nature article, note failings in their own areas, but which also note that acquaintances from other spheres (e.g. physics) have become worried as well. One estimated that over half of published research is quietly retracted within months.
OTOH, Hansen has made himself a very public figure dating at least to his collaboration with Ehrlich about predicting running out of almost everything by 1990, using the sort of straight-line nothing-will-change projection used by Malthus.
I hadn't heard that Hansen had so predicted. His earliest climate projections are contained in an 1981 paper. It did very well.
However, I see that just last month "eugenicist Paul Ehrlich, climate dictator James Lovelock and NASA’s own terror-endorsing James Hansen" or, collectively "the fiends", "call for a global implementation of population policies."
Heh.
There are four articles alluded to in Kate's paste above. The Nature essay, the NYT Op-Ed by Hansen, the Goddard blog comic, & [selectively quoted by yet another blog] the post by meteorologist Martin Hoerling on the NYT's dotearth, which is about Hansen's Op-Ed.
The last is interesting. There are differing approaches between climate science & meteorology & Hoerling apparently has his own take on extreme weather events --
From a recent conference report --
// In the science sessions in the afternoon, there was some good talks related to attributing extreme events including Marty Hoerling discussing the Moscow heat wave and a very different perspective from the cpdn group in Oxford. It would have been good to have had some actual discussion between the different people, but AGU is not conducive to much back and forth because of the very tight scheduling. The oxford group estimated (based on volunteer computing) that the likelihood of the Russian heat wave was something like 3 times more likely with 2000′s background climate vs the 1980′s. Some good points were made about the non-Gaussian nature of observed distributions the semantic challenges in explain attribution when there are both proximate and ultimate causes. Kerry Emanuel gave an update of his views on hurricane climate connections. //
Kerry Emanuel has some comments on both Hoerling & Hansen, and
this article carries the NYT article & critique forward.
Hoerling's most vehemnt comment, to Hansen's “The global warming signal is now louder than the noise of random weather…”i.e. that
"This is patently false" seems to me to misunderstand climate science methodology.
We could discuss it if you like.