Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him

[USPatriot8320]

By ANDREW C. REVKIN (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=ANDREW C. REVKIN&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=ANDREW C. REVKIN&inline=nyt-per)
</NYT_BYLINE><NYT_TEXT>The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.
Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said.
Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," Mr. Acosta said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts."
He said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen.
Mr. Acosta said other reasons for requiring press officers to review interview requests were to have an orderly flow of information out of a sprawling agency and to avoid surprises. "This is not about any individual or any issue like global warming," he said. "It's about coordination."
Dr. Hansen strongly disagreed with this characterization, saying such procedures had already prevented the public from fully grasping recent findings about climate change that point to risks ahead.

Full Story (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?ei=5065&en=01e494e7b7a009f5&ex=1139115600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print)

[Naturalized-Texan]

Having been a contractor with NASA for most of my career, I know very well that NASA (and its contractors) MUST have every public statement approved. Hansen is lying about this just as he is lying about the need for reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming. Since global warming is nothing more than the natural recovery from the 500-year Little Ice Age, there is nothing we humans can do to stop it short of turning off the sun.

[Faithful_Servant]

They need to fire his ass for insubordination. The research that he does belongs to his employer and is not his to do with whatever he wants to.

[Eagle1]

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

:hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:

[USPatriot8320]

Hey I post em doesn't mean I agree with em LOL

[sunsettommy]

The Junkman has something to say about "hollywood Hansen".


Over the weekend the media has been abuzz with claims NASA is trying to censor James Hansen - the "father of Global Warming" (see special "weekend edition" below) - In January, 1999, Hansen wrote The Global Warming Debate (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/) The only way to have real success in science ... is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what's good about it and what's bad about it equally. In science you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty. — Richard Feynman
In my view, we are not doing as well as we could in the global warming debate. For one thing, we have failed to use the opportunity to help teach the public about how science research works. On the contrary, we often appear to the public to be advocates of fixed adversarial positions. Of course, we can try to blame this on the media and politicians, with their proclivities to focus on antagonistic extremes. But that doesn't really help.

The fun in science is to explore a topic from all angles and figure out how something works. To do this well, a scientist learns to be open-minded, ignoring prejudices that might be imposed by religious, political or other tendencies (Galileo being a model of excellence). Indeed, science thrives on repeated challenge of any interpretation, and there is even special pleasure in trying to find something wrong with well-accepted theory. Such challenges eventually strengthen our understanding of the subject, but it is a never-ending process as answers raise more questions to be pursued in order to further refine our knowledge.

Skepticism thus plays an essential role in scientific research, and, far from trying to silence skeptics, science invites their contributions. So too, the global warming debate benefits from traditional scientific skepticism. ... By James Hansen — January 1999.
So, James Hansen is a supporter of pure science, values scepticism and has no position of advocacy, right? Perhaps not. Consciously or not, Hansen promotes diddled data and actually did so in the above article (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/) ostensibly promoting impartial science. Perhaps the most egregious example is the "Common Sense Climate Index (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/csci/)" (Hansen et al, 1998 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1998/HansenSatoG.html)) where the front page of the web portal promotes a completely fabricated warming trend (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/warming_by_design.htm) (page contains data captured prior to the removal of pre-1880 data from public access). Hansen has a history of embellishment and overstatement (http://www.sepp.org/reality/michreviews.html) and is viewed as squarely in the political advocacy camp. Is NASA "censoring" James Hansen? Somehow we doubt it, although perhaps it would be better for science generally if he were to return to science and refrain from straying into policy. We are a tad dubious that Hansen will abandon advocacy but must admit some curiosity over his raising such a large and smelly red herring now. What's going on Jim, departmental budget review coming up or something?

http://www.junkscience.com/

[DoctorDoom]

If he used his position with NASA to enhance his credibility while expounding theories with which NASA does not concur, he must expect NASA to take action. He sounds like another ecowacko.

[Bob_Arctor]

Looks like Hansen may have had a point:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3635742.html

"A week after NASA's top climate scientist complained that the space agency's public-affairs office was trying to silence his statements on global warming, the agency's administrator, Michael D. Griffin, issued a sharply worded statement on Friday calling for "scientific openness" throughout the agency.
<!-- adPro.mpl: (/disp/story.mpl/nation) (elapsed 0.343 milli) (Tue Feb 7 19:17:08 2006) --><!-- DART AdSpace 300x250 - News - Nation - Story --><!-- /DART AdSpace -->
"It is not the job of public-affairs officers," Griffin wrote in an e-mail message to the agency's 19,000 employees, "to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical staff.""

[Naturalized-Texan]

Bob: However, all public statements by NASA employees still must be approved by NASA management beforehand. Hansen can still pursue his "research" despite the fact that it is fallacious, but he can't talk about it publically without management approval.

[Bob_Arctor]

Bob: However, all public statements by NASA employees still must be approved by NASA management beforehand.
According to NASA, their scientists are free to talk about science, but say that policy statements should be left to politicians.
Hansen can still pursue his "research" despite the fact that it is fallacious,
You're still clinging to that hope? Tsk tsk...
but he can't talk about it publically without management approval.
Wrong. He can talk about any science he likes, according to NASA.

By the way, it seems that 24 year old George Deutsch, a Bush appointee to the NASA public affairs office and one of the culprits in this case, has resigned. Turned out he lied about being a college graduate. His only qualification was, apparently, assisting on the Bush campaign.

Frankly I can't understand why you would approve of a government interfering in science to advance its own political ends. That's the sort of thing they tried in the USSR - look up Lysenko. We should be above it.

[sunsettommy]

According to NASA, their scientists are free to talk about science, but say that policy statements should be left to politicians.

You're still clinging to that hope? Tsk tsk...

Wrong. He can talk about any science he likes, according to NASA.

By the way, it seems that 24 year old George Deutsch, a Bush appointee to the NASA public affairs office and one of the culprits in this case, has resigned. Turned out he lied about being a college graduate. His only qualification was, apparently, assisting on the Bush campaign.

Frankly I can't understand why you would approve of a government interfering in science to advance its own political ends. That's the sort of thing they tried in the USSR - look up Lysenko. We should be above it.

You forgetting then senator Al Gore and his subcommitte charades on Global warming?

Where he stacks the commitee panels and the invitees are all on the same page from the start.

It was a show.

That was how James Hansen got his name in the papers,It was courtesy of SENATOR Al Gore and Timothy Worth.

They put him in the chair and he delivered a show.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Hansen is a liar on both NASA policy and his global warming claims.

[Rhino]

According to NASA, their scientists are free to talk about science, but say that policy statements should be left to politicians.Actually, it doesn't say that, but even if it did, policy statements are exactly what Hansen was making. They made no statement indicating they wanted to "to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material", but rather wanted him to curb his policy advocacy statements. So this is totally in line with what was posted prior. He violated the rules on advocating policy, not on discussing the science, and nothing in the NASA statement changes that.

[DoctorDoom]

Frankly I can't understand why you would approve of a government interfering in science to advance its own political ends.And no doubt you also have reservations about government employees defying policy rules by expounding bad science to advance political ends.

[Bob_Arctor]

You forgetting then senator Al Gore and his subcommitte charades on Global warming?
Where he stacks the commitee panels and the invitees are all on the same page from the start.
It was a show.
That was how James Hansen got his name in the papers,It was courtesy of SENATOR Al Gore and Timothy Worth.
They put him in the chair and he delivered a show.
Great, but this has absolutely nothing at all to do with the points of the thread. While you dislike Gore and his stance on GW, you should at least have the integrity to concede that his viewpoint is that of the majority. Therefore his hearings on GW were based on the consensus view, and were hardly charades.

Hansen on the other hand is prominent because of his research.

[Bob_Arctor]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Frankly I can't understand why you would approve of a government interfering in science to advance its own political ends. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
And no doubt you also have reservations about government employees defying policy rules by expounding bad science to advance political ends.

I would, which is why I was pleased to hear of Deutsch's resignation.

Hansen, on the other hand, represents the consensus view of the science mainstream, and his speaking onthis issue doesn't appear to violate policy. Hence the statement by the NASA director backing him up. While you may disagree with the consensus, you should at least recognize what the consensus is. <!-- / message -->

[Bob_Arctor]

Actually, it doesn't say that, but even if it did,
It does, and what I quoted says as much.

policy statements are exactly what Hansen was making.
I don't think saying, in essence, "we need to cut emissions to slow/stop GW" is a policy statement. I could be wrong though.

They made no statement indicating they wanted to "to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material", but rather wanted him to curb his policy advocacy statements.
Well, this issue is bigger than just Hansen. Many NASA scientists have said that political appointees in the PR office have been asking them to alter their work and statements on science - such as Deutsch trying to have the word "theory" added to every mention of the BB, and another scientist being forced to make references to some policy of GWB when writing about his own work.

They did tell Hansen that he could no longer speak to the media without some PR lackey present. The director's statement clarified this quite a bit.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Hansen, on the other hand, represents the consensus view of the science mainstream, and his speaking onthis issue doesn't appear to violate policy. Hence the statement by the NASA director backing him up. While you may disagree with the consensus, you should at least recognize what the consensus is.
The fact is that there is NO consensus on the cause of global warming. There are at least as many scientists who doubt that global warming is caused by human activity as there are who claim that it is.

We know from recent research by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html) that there was a 500 year global warming period from the 9th Century to the 14th Century (The Medieval Warm Period) that was followed by 500-year global cooling period from the 14th Century to the 19th Century (The Little Ice Age). Since the end of The Little Ice Age, we have experienced a warming trend that is far more likely to be caused by the natural recovery from The Little Ice Age than to be caused by human activity. Moreover, more than half of the 0.6 deg C warming in the past 100+ years occurred prior to 1940 - before the huge post-WW II population explosion and industrial expansion - belying the claim of human-caused global warming.

The Little Ice Age coincided with a period of little or no solar activity (the Maunder Minimum) and the warming in the past 100+ years is coinciding with a period of increased solar activity. So, it's a safe bet that the current increased solar activity is the cause of our current global warming.

Since it is clearly far more likely that global warming is a naturel phenomenon, there is nothing that we humans can do to stop it short of turning off the sun.

Unfortunately, the "scientists" who claim that global warming is human-caused are motivated by their leftist political leanings as an excuse to impose draconian controls over the economies of advanced nations, especially the American economy, under the control of the UN Commission on Global Governance. In other words, the goal of those leftist "scientists" is the imposition of world socialism under UN control and their pretense of human-caused global warming is their means to attain that goal.

[Bob_Arctor]

The fact is that there is NO consensus on the cause of global warming.
Of course there is, regardless of your strange state of denial. Those who object to the idea are quite a minority, and many of those seem to be funded by the energy industry - i.e., they are propagandists doing the bidding of big business, and some people fall for the act.
There are at least as many scientists who doubt that global warming is caused by human activity as there are who claim that it is.
Only a small minority feel this way. I've given you references on this in the past. This sort of denial reminds me of creationists who insist that their viewpoint is actually scientifically popular!
We know from recent research by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html) that there was a 500 year global warming period from the 9th Century to the 14th Century (The Medieval Warm Period) that was followed by 500-year global cooling period from the 14th Century to the 19th Century (The Little Ice Age). Since the end of The Little Ice Age, we have experienced a warming trend that is far more likely to be caused by the natural recovery from The Little Ice Age than to be caused by human activity.
What we're experiencing now has gone beyond any sort of recovery from the Little Ice Age. Don't you realize that scientists are aware of these things and factor them in?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Moreover, more than half of the 0.6 deg C warming in the past 100+ years occurred prior to 1940 - before the huge post-WW II population explosion and industrial expansion - belying the claim of human-caused global warming.
This is not supported by any reference I've seen. Some was pre-1940, but even then there was plenty of industrial activity before then.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

The Little Ice Age coincided with a period of little or no solar activity (the Maunder Minimum) and the warming in the past 100+ years is coinciding with a period of increased solar activity. So, it's a safe bet that the current increased solar activity is the cause of our current global warming.
It's a wrong bet. Increasing solar activity should have something to do with it, but is far from being the total explanation. The best (or worst?) case for solar contribution has it at, at most, a third of temp change.

Unfortunately, the "scientists" who claim that global warming is human-caused are motivated by their leftist political leanings as an excuse to impose draconian controls over the economies of advanced nations, especially the American economy, under the control of the UN Commission on Global Governance. In other words, the goal of those leftist "scientists" is the imposition of world socialism under UN control and their pretense of human-caused global warming is their means to attain that goal.
Ahh, yes, the conspiracy - all scientists are in on it. Ridiculous. You can't take tens of thousands of scientists and decide they are all politically distasteful conspiractors merely because you dislike their findings, for whatever reason. This is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, which you know is fallacious.

Meanwhile, you blithly ignore the far better supported idea that many of those who deny GW are in fact nothing more than industry funded propagandists. Further, if GW is so fraudulent, why are some of the oil companies appearing to take it seriously these days? Why does virtually every nation except ours - and only ours because of the economic ties of the current regime - and their scientific advisors take it seriously? All are in on the conspiracy? India is? China is? Canada, all of Europe, everyone? Come on.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Thanks for providing graphic evidence of my point that global temperatures have increased by 0.6 deg C since the end of The Little Ice Age even if it is from a totally non-scientific source (wickpedia). BTW, both of those graphs also show that more than half the warming since the end of The Little Ice Age occurred prior to 1940. Thanks again for proving my point.

You may also want to read the National Academies of Science Climate Change Report (http://fermat.nap.edu/html/climatechange/), especially Chapter 5 which clearly states that there are too many uncertainties to conclude the cause or causes of global warming. That report was unanimously approved by the 11-member panel of scientists that included James Hansen. So much for your claim of consensus. That report also stated that temperatures increased by "about 0.4-0.8°C" in the 20th Century (more uncertainty). If scientists don't even know how much global temperatures increased in the 20th Century, how can they possibly predict how much or if temperatures will increase in the 21st Century? They can't.

President Bush based his decision to rescind the Kyoto Protocols on the uncertainties stated in the NAS report I linked to above.

BTW, by definition, the word consensus means unanimity, so by definition, there is no consensus on global warming.

[markus3622]

We've been here before. Bob, NT knows that the NAS report agreed with the findings of the IPCC. NT is hoping for some reprieve from the sentence in chapter 5

Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established.

This is hardly damning.

However in the summary, the report concludes

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.

The committee generally agrees with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the IPCC Working Group I (WGI) scientific report...

The committee finds that the full IPCC Working Group I (WGI) report is an admirable summary of research activities in climate science, and the full report is adequately summarized in the Technical Summary.

In short, the NAS report backed up the consensus position. NT has in the past complained that this summary is some bolt-on section unapproved by the committee, but is the section of the report that deals directly with the questions posed by the President.

I quite like a quote that I saw at the time.

One scientist who reviewed a draft of the report for the academy told The New York Times newspaper that the White House should not be surprised at the speed or the conclusions of the report.

"They asked a string of questions that might have been appropriate in 1990," the unnamed scientist said. "Where have you been the last decade?" he asked the administration.

Stating that "consensus means unanimity" is completely incorrect in the sense used by scientists. With thousands of scientists working in any one field all over the world, it would be impossible to get unanimity on anything. There would be no consensus in science that humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, even if 99% of biologists agree.

Finally, we're brought back to the recent allegations over who's doing the spinning. Again this week, we've seen the sorry spectacle of a 24 year old political appointee, who lied about his college degree, trying to muzzle a respected scientist. We've seen Phil Cooney, an oil exec running scientific policy in the White House. How anyone can view these folks as the honest ones is beyond me.

[Rhino]

While you dislike Gore and his stance on GW, you should at least have the integrity to concede that his viewpoint is that of the majority.ROFL!!!!! Don't post stuff like that while I'm drinking coffee! You owe me a keyboard!

It does, and what I quoted says as much.What you quoted says nothing about politicians, so my point stands.

I don't think saying, in essence, "we need to cut emissions to slow/stop GW" is a policy statement. I could be wrong though.I can concede that is a difference of opinion.

They did tell Hansen that he could no longer speak to the media without some PR lackey present. The director's statement clarified this quite a bit.I saw zero mention of any such policy in his statement. What I saw was that Hansen was free and unrestricted in talking about the scientific data itself, without PR folks present, but that policy/advocacy statements required vetting. Of course, since we disagree on what is a policy/advocacy statement, I guess I can see the misinterpretation. But it seems quite clear this is not a complete gag/censorship order, and they went to some lengths to point that out.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I see that Markus had to chime in with his unsubstantiated nonsense. :hahaha:

[Naturalized-Texan]

All one needs to do to see that the global warming scare is a leftist/UN conspiracy aided and abetted by leftist "scientists" who prostrate themselves on the altar of leftism in order to impose world socialism under UN control is to look at the Kyoto Protocols. The Kyoto Protocols would place the economies of every nation in the world that approved it under the complete control of the UN (in other words, UN imposed world socialism).

We should all get down on our knees every day to give thanks that President Bush listened to the facts presented in the NAS Climate Change Report and made the wise decision to rescind the Kyoto Protocols.:claps: :thumb: If he hadn't rescinded it, we would be looking at a massive recession, or maybe even a depression, as the Kyoto Protocols kills our economy.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Bob: I strongly recommend that you read State of Fear by Michael Crichton. Yes, the story is fiction, but the science is real and thoroughly backed up by scientific evidence, including temperature histories, from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Columbia University; the Global Historical Climatology Network; the United States Historical Climatology Network of NOAA; and the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

In this book, Michael Chrichton demolishes the claims that global warming is caused by human activities. In fact, he even creates serious doubt that there is such a thing as global warming since large parts of the world is cooling at the same time that other parts are warming. For example, New York City has been warming, but just 50 or so miles up the Hudson River, Albany has been cooling. He also points out that about half of the warming that has been measured since the end of the Little Ice Age is skewed by urban heating in major cities around the world while temperatures in rural areas of the world have changed very little.

[Bob_Arctor]

Bob: I strongly recommend that you read State of Fear by Michael Crichton.
I appreciate it but I'll pass, for several reasons. I'm not impressed by Crichton's science in general, and don't think much of him purely as a writer. In addition, I've seen a number of reviews of the book that essentially dismiss it as misleading nonsense.

Also, I just completed a long reply to your last big post, but managed to delete it somehow just before I submitted it. I'll try again tonight.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I appreciate it but I'll pass, for several reasons. I'm not impressed by Crichton's science in general, and don't think much of him purely as a writer. In addition, I've seen a number of reviews of the book that essentially dismiss it as misleading nonsense.
The science is not Chrichton's. The science is the data compiled more more than 2 centuries by the scientific organizations that I listed including the one for which James Hansen works. I suppose that you are so biased towards the left-wing pseudo-science that you parrot that your mind is closed to the real temperature data that Crichton quotes.

Also, I just completed a long reply to your last big post, but managed to delete it somehow just before I submitted it. I'll try again tonight.
Don't bother parroting any more of the left-wing pseudo-science with which you have been brainwashed. It's all just hogwash that has no factual basis.

[Bob_Arctor]

Thanks for providing graphic evidence of my point that global temperatures have increased by 0.6 deg C since the end of The Little Ice Age
Of course they have increased since the end of the LIA, and have increased much more since the 1940s.
even if it is from a totally non-scientific source (wickpedia).
Actually wikipedia is remarkably accurate about science - there was some recent news about that. At any rate, the charts are all from papers, so your insinuation is without merit.
BTW, both of those graphs also show that more than half the warming since the end of The Little Ice Age occurred prior to 1940. Thanks again for proving my point.
Let's see it again:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/275px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)

So it looks like the recovery came up to the baseline, and has increased quite a bit since the 1940s. Of course we can have plenty of recovery from the depths of the LIA, but what we've seen since the 1940s is in no way a mere continuation of that recovery. It does coincide with massive industrialization, though.
You may also want to read the National Academies of Science Climate Change Report (http://fermat.nap.edu/html/climatechange/), especially Chapter 5 which clearly states that there are too many uncertainties to conclude the cause or causes of global warming.
That's not what it says, as Markus kindly pointed out. Actually it disappoints me that you'd bring up this fallacious argument, as we have gone over it before.
That report was unanimously approved by the 11-member panel of scientists that included James Hansen. So much for your claim of consensus.
As the report clearly supports the reality of GW, there's a fine consensus.
That report also stated that temperatures increased by "about 0.4-0.8°C" in the 20th Century (more uncertainty).
There is usually uncertainty in science. You're using different records, measuring different sites, and so on.
If scientists don't even know how much global temperatures increased in the 20th Century,
How much, or that it did? It has risen substantially, regardless of whether it is 0.4 or 0.8 degree. It seems to be going in one direction, doesn't it?
how can they possibly predict how much or if temperatures will increase in the 21st Century? They can't.
It's odd that you claim that because we don't know precisely how much temps have gone up in the past - though we do know they've gone up generally - temps probably aren't going up at all in the future.
President Bush based his decision to rescind the Kyoto Protocols on the uncertainties stated in the NAS report I linked to above.
I suspect his ties to the energy industry might have had something to do with it. Otherwise it'd be pretty odd for him to take a stance that is at odds with the scientific consensus.
BTW, by definition, the word consensus means unanimity, so by definition, there is no consensus on global warming.
Look to a dictionary, NT. "Consensus" does not mean "unanimous". It means something generally agreed on, which GW certainly is.

[Bob_Arctor]

The science is not Chrichton's. The science is the data compiled more more than 2 centuries by the scientific organizations that I listed including the one for which James Hansen works.
Then why is it totally at odds with the findings of these same scientists?

The expert reviews I've seen of the book accuse Crichton of cherrypicking data he likes, ignoring contrary findings, and making misleading arguments.
Don't bother parroting any more of the left-wing pseudo-science with which you have been brainwashed. It's all just hogwash that has no factual basis.
Ahh, the irony... :rolleyes:

I keep my mind open to findings, and recognize the weight of the evidence. You don't have to, and of course are free to live in your state of denial. You don't have to like the findings, for whatever reason. But you really should recognize what the consensus is - that GW is happening. In short, because you don't like something doesn't mean that it's false. Your insistence that GW deniers aren't the clear minority reminds of of those creationists who insist that huge numbers of scientists doubt evolution, while ignoring the fact that it's only 0.14% who do.

[DoctorDoom]

Folks, it's futile to argue with Bachelor Bobby. He has a BS of some sort, so he is therefore the World's Greatest Authority on all things scientific.

Between BB and old DD, we know absolutely everything. He knows everything except that he's a crashing bore, and I know that.

[markus3622]

The frustration arises not so much because many on this site disagree with the science of global warming, but that a few have to distort the facts to support their beliefs.

I can understand initial skepticism to climate change/global warming (call it what you will). There have been scares in the media in the past (too much coffee is good for you, too much coffee is bad for you). However, in the case of global warming, the facts are that there is a broad consensus (not unanimity) among the experts that the climate has changed and will continue to change partly because of the increase greenhouse gas emissions and hence atmospheric concentrations. Yes, there's uncertainty involved, (there always is in science), but the evidence keeps on mounting.

In the recent foray we have a report commissioned by President Bush that asked some straightforward questions. The report clearly backed up the consensus position. We can all go and read it. There's no disputing the conclusions. However, that doesn't stop NT from stating that the report concluded the opposite.


All one needs to do to see that the global warming scare is a leftist/UN conspiracy aided and abetted by leftist "scientists" who prostrate themselves on the altar of leftism in order to impose world socialism under UN control is to look at the Kyoto Protocols. The Kyoto Protocols would place the economies of every nation in the world that approved it under the complete control of the UN (in other words, UN imposed world socialism).

This is all conspiracy theory, nothing more. I'm surprised the masons and Princess Diana isn't somehow involved.

If he hadn't rescinded it, we would be looking at a massive recession, or maybe even a depression, as the Kyoto Protocols kills our economy

This is another discussion entirely. If you've some evidence for it, I'd like to hear it. Remember though, it has nothing to do with the scientific consensus that exists.

Again, I have to agree with Bob. NT, you're absolutely free to bury your head in the sand over this. You're free to believe your conspriacy theories. You're free to read fiction as science. It's going to affect the younger generation more than you anyway.

What's so encouraging is that America is waking up to climate change. Many cities and states are pressing for action. Even in Texas, in the true american style, people are seeing business opportunities in combatting climate change.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/4693600.stm

The argument for better stewardship of the environment will be won, and when opponents resort to conspiracy theories, it's obvious they're backed into a corner.

[Rhino]

....and when opponents resort to conspiracy theories, it's obvious they're backed into a corner.Yeah, that's what really amuses us about you guys. You're funny when you're backed into those corners.

[markus3622]

Rhino, I know you're a reasonable guy (in fact, perhaps the most reasonable on this site).

I think the point that Bob and I wish to get across is that the scientific community have found a consensus on climate change. One has to look at the position of the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Society in the UK, and so on, and so on. In fact, every major body that has been asked to do a study has come to the same conclusion on climate change. Just look at the scientific literature (not what appears in the Wall Street Journal, but what appears in Science, Journal of Climatology, Geophysical Research Letters, etc.)

It's possible that they could all be wrong. Experts have been wrong in the past. I'm sure experts will be wrong in the future. However, it behooves the skeptic to at least give some respect to the scientific community and not treat them like some fringe group.

Conservatism shouldn't be an anti-science ideology, but by painting the National Academy of Sciences and the rest of the scientific community as leftist conspirators and cranks, that's exactly what they make conservatism appear.

[Rhino]

I don't usually get into the scientific details of this argument because it can be argued endlessly, as evidenced by the many posts on this forum. I think the consensus is yes, global warming does exist. But I also think there is consensus that no one is sure that human activity is a significant cause of or contributor to it. There is evidence on both sides of that argument. However, absent a compelling and empirical scientific case, I see no reason for us to cripple our economy over something that is unproven. I care very much about the environment, but it isn't the only thing I care about, and I refuse to sacrifice other important things based on unproven theory. Should that theory ever be proved, then I will support action to remedy the situation, but not until then. That's my position in a nutshell.

[markus3622]

Rhino, that's a fairly reasonable position, but I think you're making two errors

... I see no reason for us to cripple our economy ...

I don't see any reason why tackling climate change will cripple the economy. I posted a link above where businessmen in Texas are seeing a real opportunity to make some money from alternative energy sources. The economy didn't collapse when laws were passed to make factory emissions cleaner and I don't see how it will collapse if people change their behavior to combat climate change. In fact, I think that believing the economy will be crippled is a fairly pessimistic viewpoint.

There is evidence on both sides of that argument.

The evidence is stronger on one side of the debate. Admittedly, it's couched in terms of "most likely due to...", "probably...", (but science is tentative by its very nature) but nearly every scientific body has come to the same conclusion.

A paper that has been posted before is Oreskes's. It gives a fairly good description of where the evidence lies

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

[Rhino]

I don't see any reason why tackling climate change will cripple the economy.I was referring to Kyoto. Much of that would be crippling, but as I said, there are opinions on both sides.

I posted a link above where businessmen in Texas are seeing a real opportunity to make some money from alternative energy sources.They are simply voluntarily marketing to the sentiment of their customer base. That is hardly a burden on them. Again, a far cry from government mandates as a result of Kyoto.

The economy didn't collapse when laws were passed to make factory emissions cleaner and I don't see how it will collapse if people change their behavior to combat climate change. In fact, I think that believing the economy will be crippled is a fairly pessimistic viewpoint.Once again, a far cry from Kyoto restrictions. We simply have different opinions on this, but hey, opinions often differ.

The evidence is stronger on one side of the debate. Admittedly, it's couched in terms of "most likely due to...", "probably...", (but science is tentative by its very nature) but nearly every scientific body has come to the same conclusion.Another opinion we differ on. As I said, this can be argued endlessly, so I don't get into details any more on this debate. We could expend enormous effort arguing it, as you are with others here, and still be right back where we are now, as you will be with the others here. I think we can just agree to disagree, and go back to being reasonable.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Getting back on topic:

The problem that started the furor in this thread was the fact that James Hansen was using his platform as a NASA employee to be a political advocate. That is clearly a violation of NASA rules and is probably a violation of his employment contract. I say "probably" because I don't know the contents of his employment contract. I do know that the employment contract I signed when started with IBM prohibited me from using my position with IBM to be a political advocate. Violating that contract could have gotten me fired.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Rhino: Markus has repeatedly admitted that there are uncertainties in the science about whether global warming is human-caused, yet he still maintains that the science is settled. He clearly wants to have it both ways, but that is impossible.

[markus3622]

NT, you're being deceptive. My position is not that the "the science is settled", however, my position is that

1) There is a scientific consensus that humans are at least partly responsible for the observed warming

2) I agree with this consensus.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Folks, it's futile to argue with Bachelor Bobby. He has a BS of some sort, so he is therefore the World's Greatest Authority on all things scientific.

Between BB and old DD, we know absolutely everything. He knows everything except that he's a crashing bore, and I know that.
Actually, it's impossible to argue with ANY liberal because they have been so brainwashed by the liberal-controlled education system and the liberal-controlled media that they refuse to even consider facts that contradict their ingrained opinions.

[Naturalized-Texan]

NT, you're being deceptive. My position is not that the "the science is settled", however, my position is that

1) There is a scientific consensus that humans are at least partly responsible for the observed warming

2) I agree with this consensus.
You have stated several times that the science is settled. You know it and I know it, so don't try to weasel out of it.

[markus3622]

Actually, it's impossible to argue with ANY liberal because they have been so brainwashed by the liberal-controlled education system and the liberal-controlled media that they refuse to even consider facts that contradict their ingrained opinions.

Oh the irony. I notice in the main forum, you've posted an article from the National Review that happens to be written by a conservative fellow at some conservative think tank.

It would be nice if you and I could agree on unbiased sources. I would suggest NAS, IPCC, AGU, AMS and scientific journals such as Science and Nature. I'm sure we can both agree that National Review isn't a good source of scientific information, nor is Michael Crichton. Do you have any suggestions?

[markus3622]

You have stated several times that the science is settled. You know it and I know it, so don't try to weasel out of it.

Let's see it then. I've admitted the experts could be wrong. Stating that there is a consensus is not the same as the "science is settled". It means most experts agree. Science by its very nature is never settled.

[Rhino]

It's an art rather than a science. LOL!!!!

[Naturalized-Texan]

Oh the irony. I notice in the main forum, you've posted an article from the National Review that happens to be written by a conservative fellow at some conservative think tank.
Since everything he wrote is based on NAS, IPCC, or data from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science, his article is at least as factual than anything you have posted.

It would be nice if you and I could agree on unbiased sources. I would suggest NAS, IPCC, AGU, AMS and scientific journals such as Science and Nature. I'm sure we can both agree that National Review isn't a good source of scientific information, nor is Michael Crichton. Do you have any suggestions?
Actually, NAS and IPCC agree with me that there are too many uncertainties to determine the cause or causes of global warming. That's why they use so many weasel words in making their conclusions. In other words, their reports are filled with speculation and supposition.

When National Review publishes something about science, it is at least as good a source as your sources are. If you would just read State of Fear by Michael Crichton, you would learn that his science is as meticulous as any of your sources, probably more so because of HIS sources which are listed at the back of his book. His Bibliography alone is 21 pages long and includes many scientific books as well as refereed papers from scientific journals such as Nature, International Journal of Climatology, Bulletin of the American Meteorology Society, and several others. He even references several IPCC papers.

[Bob_Arctor]

Since everything he wrote is based on NAS, IPCC, or data from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science, his article is at least as factual than anything you have posted.
Not if you twist the facts and misrepresent science, as he apparently has done.
Actually, NAS and IPCC agree with me that there are too many uncertainties to determine the cause or causes of global warming.
That's not at all what it says. You know this.
When National Review publishes something about science, it is at least as good a source as your sources are.
NR is just as good as the leading journals? I suppose if the journals decide to talk about politics, then it will be at least as good as NR is on the subject. If you want to be consistent, that is.
If you would just read State of Fear by Michael Crichton, you would learn that his science is as meticulous as any of your sources, probably more so because of HIS sources which are listed at the back of his book.
Let me ask you - have you read any critical reviews of the book? I have, and they aren't kind.

[Bob_Arctor]

Yeah, that's what really amuses us about you guys. You're funny when you're backed into those corners.
What corners? Stating the consensus view is hardly to be backed into some terrible position. :grin:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Not if you twist the facts and misrepresent science, as he apparently has done.
There's no way that he could or would twist temperature data that he got from the sources he listed. He could never get away with it. The temperature data that he included in the book are accurate and demolish the global warming claims of left-wing pseudo scientists.

That's not at all what it says. You know this.
Of course it does. Both the NAS and IPCC reports use weasel words that show that there is a lot of uncertainties in their claims. Their claims are all speculation and supposition based on invalid climate models that can't even replicate the climate changes in the past. In my career I worked with computer models and the prime way to test a model is to see if it can replicate the actual entity that is being modeled. If it can't, the model is invalid. The pseudo-scientists are basing their claims entirely on climate models that can't replicate past climate changes so their claims are invalid.

NR is just as good as the leading journals? I suppose if the journals decide to talk about politics, then it will be at least as good as NR is on the subject. If you want to be consistent, that is.
When NR wants a science article, it gets a science expert to write it, so, yes, it's as good as the journals. Of course, when most of the journals publish articles about global warming, they are indulging in politics since their global warming scare has everything to do with politics and almost nothing to do with science.

Let me ask you - have you read any critical reviews of the book? I have, and they aren't kind.
Almost every review I read came from liberal publications that would never give a positive review of a book that so thoroughly demolishes their global warming fantasies. Of course, since I HAVE read the book, I know that those reviews were nothing but hogwash. I'm sure that if you could open your mind enough to let the truth come in and read the book, you would also see that those reviews were hogwash. The only positive review I read was in NR.

[sunsettommy]

It is amusing that while this thread goes on.

Alaska as a state just recently came out of the coldest spell in 40 years.It is cooling back down again.

Europe has been as a region been under colder than normal weather in many years.It is still colder than normal.

Russia and surrounding area enjoyed record breaking cold that worst in 100 years.It is still colder than normal.

How could that be possible if the Artic region has been warming up so much and for at least 25 years..... according to Global Warming advocates.Then too the world is soooo much warmer as well.

I remember the IPCC making predictions back in 1991 for the year 2000 that was comically far off the mark.Oh that must have been a consensus position too.He he he he he.

[markus3622]

When NR wants a science article, it gets a science expert to write it, so, yes, it's as good as the journals.

So they get Iain Murray, who studied Classics at Oxford! Hmm, why is it that I trust James Hansen over a guy who studied classics?

The only positive review (of State of Fear) I read was in NR.

A quick search of the website shows that the review was by the very same Iain Murray. Hansen has given his thoughts on Crichton's novel. I understand that Crichton's book has a long bibliography, although it's a pimple on the ocean compared to the IPCC report. I suppose it's the age old problem of distinguishing science from stuff that looks like science because it's got a lot of graphs.

http://columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf

William Schlesinger, Dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University called Crichton's work "the best peer-reviewed science since Jurassic Park."

NT, you're welcome to your science fiction and classicists, but I think I'll read the work of climate scientists.

[DoctorDoom]

I think I'll read the work of climate scientists.No doubt you'll "read the work of climate scientists" with whom you agree.

[Rhino]

Actually, Murray is an expert in statistical analysis and he cites the work of other statistical analysis experts in his articles. If you read his articles carefully, you'll see that he doesn't attempt to address the climate science itself, but rather the statistical analysis methodologies used in that climate research to draw conclusions, something he and the other experts he cites are imminently qualified to do. Having some background in statistical analysis, what I've read of his works seem dead on, at least from a statistical standpoint. There are indeed glaring mistakes and assumptions made in a lot of the climate research out there. To be fair, that's not highly unusual in statistical analysis, particularly with scientists, who are often far more adept in their own area of science than they are in statistics.

My stepfather was an agricultural research scientist who could tell you damn near everything about plants. He's extremely intelligent and was considered one of the foremost in his field at one time, but he absolutely sucked at statistics. He even asked for my opinion a couple of times, and I'm no expert. That's why they had a full time statistical analyst on staff. However, the analyst was no scientist. Sometimes things would get lost in translation, and so mistakes were not uncommon. My stepfather said this was the nature of the beast, and was why peer review was an absolute necessity to assure credibility of any research, just as the peer reviews of Murray and others statistical analysis experts are a necessity to insure validity in this case. My stepfather made a comment to me once along the lines of, "Any scientist who dismisses peer review and doesn't use it to validate and re-validate his own findings is no scientist at all."

[markus3622]

No doubt you'll "read the work of climate scientists" with whom you agree.

I must admit, it's getting very difficult to find climate scientists who disagree with the consensus. I can think of a few (Pielke and Lindzen are the notable ones), but many of the "scientists" quoted in the "controversy" aren't.


Actually, Murray is an expert in statistical analysis and he cites the work of other statistical analysis experts in his articles. If you read his articles carefully, you'll see that he doesn't attempt to address the climate science itself, but rather the statistical analysis methodologies used in that climate research to draw conclusions, something he and the other experts he cites are imminently qualified to do.

Unfortunately, I don't think he is qualified. I know a bit about stats, but I'm not going to call myself a expert in stats. On his homepage, you can read his biograpy. After his bachelor's degree in Classics he got an MA (but at Oxford, you just have to pay a small fee, around £100, and then your degree is upgraded). He then worked for the UK government looking at private finance schemes then did an MBA. He then got a job at the "Statistical Assessment Service", part of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. If you go to sourcewatch.org, you'll see that it's a lobbying firm receiving most of its money from conservative organisations.

I'm sure he's picked up some stats along the way, but he isn't qualified as a Statistical Analyst.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affair s

...just as the peer reviews of Murray and others statistical analysis experts are a necessity to insure validity in this case

There's the rub. Murray and many other skeptics funded by conservative think tanks don't put their work up for peer-review. It's not up to me to go through and investigate their claims. As Oreskes showed in her work, there's a real dearth of peer-reviewed work that challenges what the scientific bodies are saying. They could all be wrong, but if they are, Murray et al are welcome to submit their work to peer-review and challenge the consensus. Because they don't, we have to limit the value of their work.

[markus3622]

I thought it would be interesting to look at one of Murray's papers.

http://www.cei.org/pdf/4691.pdf

It's entitled "What Every European Should Know About Global Warming"
In it, he complains about scare stories

The news that Oxford University has found that temperatures may increase by up

to

11°C severely misrepresents the scientific findings. According to the actual
scientific paper,17 the frequency distribution of the results suggests that the lower
end of temperature rises, in the 2°C to 4°C range, is the most likely.












In this regard, he is correct that if that's what the media reported, (note, he doesn't state which part of the media he got that from), then the media are wrong. I know that most scientists are careful to state that the ranges of forecasts.

He then goes on


Recent research from general equilibrium models suggests strongly negative
impacts on European economies from adopting Kyoto targets (or going beyond
the targets, as in the case of the United Kingdom). One model shows the
economic effects by 2010 of adopting Kyoto targets as follows (remember that the

Protocol achieves virtually nothing in reducing global temperature):22

Germany -5.2% GDP -1,800,000 jobs
Spain -5.0% GDP -1,000,000 jobs
United Kingdom -4.5% GDP -1,000,000 jobs

Netherlands -3.8% GDP -240,000 jobs

22 = Thorning, M.,
Kyoto Protocol and Beyond: Economic Impacts on EU Countries, International Council
for Capital Formation, October 2002.











The only reference he gives for the "research" is one model that comes from a conservative think tank. The research is as usual, non peer-reviewed. He doesn't give a range of values. In fact, he does exactly what he criticises the media of doing. This is pure cherry-picking the data that supports his thesis.

[Rhino]

Unfortunately, I don't think he is qualified.Your opinion, which of course you're entitled to.

I know a bit about stats, but I'm not going to call myself a expert in stats. On his homepage, you can read his biograpy. After his bachelor's degree in Classics he got an MA (but at Oxford, you just have to pay a small fee, around £100, and then your degree is upgraded). He then worked for the UK government looking at private finance schemes then did an MBA. He then got a job at the "Statistical Assessment Service", part of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. If you go to sourcewatch.org, you'll see that it's a lobbying firm receiving most of its money from conservative organisations.

I'm sure he's picked up some stats along the way, but he isn't qualified as a Statistical Analyst.That could be said of just about any think tank, even many of the so-called non-partisan ones. He's been doing statistical analysis for many years, which qualifies him more than you or I in my book. And if you read some of his articles, you'll see that he continually references peer reviews by other well qualified statistical analysts, which I mentioned.

There's the rub. Murray and many other skeptics funded by conservative think tanks don't put their work up for peer-review.But he does, and peer review occurs whether you put your work up for review or not. Where the integrity issue lies is in whether or not you objectively re-evaluate, and adjust as necessary, your own research based on that peer review. Many researchers do not. Also, many researchers will release their research as gospel into the media before publishing in journals and allowing the peer review process to occur. That's advocacy rather than research, in my book.

It's not up to me to go through and investigate their claims. As Oreskes showed in her work, there's a real dearth of peer-reviewed work that challenges what the scientific bodies are saying.I disagree, but I suppose that would depend on your definition of "dearth". I've also seen quite a bit of "man causes global warming" research that was released without peer review, or simply ignored any peer review that didn't agree with the original conclusions, so that happens on both sides.

They could all be wrong, but if they are, Murray et al are welcome to submit their work to peer-review and challenge the consensus. Because they don't, we have to limit the value of their work.Ah, but they do, and it has stood up to scrutiny at least as well as that of your so called 'consensus'.

[Rhino]

As I said before, we could argue this endlessly and still be right back where we are now, in disagreement. I think I'll move on to other more substantive debates.