Let the smear Begin

[Alta4ever]

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/jame...-never-muzzled/

So what is the AGW cult going to smear this man with. Has he been bought off by Big oil what are you cultists going use to try to discredit this man?

[Ontario Loyalist]

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/jame...-never-muzzled/

So what is the AGW cult going to smear this man with. Has he been bought off by Big oil what are you cultists going use to try to discredit this man?

So plan on posting a link to a legitimate news source...?

As for what is going to be done to "discredit" him, I'm guessing reliance on objective scientific fact, reasoned and scholarly arguments... a dearth of which seems to constantly afflict the "Global Warming skeptics" crowd...

[kimmy]

So plan on posting a link to a legitimate news source...?

Considering that the article links to the letter directly at an official US Senate website, I think it'll stand up.

-k

[Alta4ever]

Considering that the article links to the letter directly at an official US Senate website, I think it'll stand up.

-k

Thank you Kimmy you got to it before I did.

[Alta4ever]

So plan on posting a link to a legitimate news source...?

As for what is going to be done to "discredit" him, I'm guessing reliance on objective scientific fact, reasoned and scholarly arguments... a dearth of which seems to constantly afflict the "Global Warming skeptics" crowd...

So instead of bringing facts you try to attack the souce how typical, now that kimmy beat me to pointing out the link to the senate website, what now?

[eyeball]

what now?

How about a full blown judicial inquiry into the manipulation of data for the purposes of defrauding the taxpayer and recovering the billions of dollars owed to the public?

At the very least I would think every scientist should have to register themselves with the government and have their findings reviewed and audited by public officials before they're published. Letting scientists investigate another's findings is like letting police investigate themselves.

If what skeptics have been saying about the global conspiracy to destroy the economy is actually true, how about letting the witch hunt begin?

Who really needs science anyways?

[jdobbin]

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA

So what is the AGW cult going to smear this man with. Has he been bought off by Big oil what are you cultists going use to try to discredit this man?

Um, he was never Hansen's supervisor. And he retired 15 years ago.

That isn't a smear. That is a fact.

[Alta4ever]

How about a full blown judicial inquiry into the manipulation of data for the purposes of defrauding the taxpayer and recovering the billions of dollars owed to the public?

At the very least I would think every scientist should have to register themselves with the government and have their findings reviewed and audited by public officials before they're published. Letting scientists investigate another's findings is like letting police investigate themselves.

If what skeptics have been saying about the global conspiracy to destroy the economy is actually true, how about letting the witch hunt begin?

Who really needs science anyways?

What does a public offical know about science. What needs ot be done is to remove the politics from science, the documentary expelled byt ben stein highlights this.

All theories should be reviewed by other scientist beforre findings are published. Our children also need to learn critical thinking again instead of this debate is over crap that teachers like to fill their heads with.

[jdobbin]

So instead of bringing facts you try to attack the souce

The source claims he was Hansen's supervisor. He wasn't. And his letter doesn't indicate that he has been out of NASA since 1994.

[eyeball]

What does a public offical know about science. What needs ot be done is to remove the politics from science, the documentary expelled byt ben stein highlights this.

All theories should be reviewed by other scientist beforre findings are published. Our children also need to learn critical thinking again instead of this debate is over crap that teachers like to fill their heads with.

Yeah sure...whatever you say.

Are you a politician or scientist or something? God help us all if you're a teacher.

[noahbody]

Um, he was never Hansen's supervisor. And he retired 15 years ago.

That isn't a smear. That is a fact.

Washington DC: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.

“As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...ed-ecd53cd3d320

[Ontario Loyalist]

So instead of bringing facts you try to attack the souce how typical, now that kimmy beat me to pointing out the link to the senate website, what now?

No, if I wanted to attack the source I would have have called you an idiot and questioned your expertise in the study of climate change...

What I did instead was google the title, and all that came up we numerous right-wing blogs, message board posts... so I "asked" for a legitimate news source...

[kengs333]

This is hilarious... so let's look at the list of "650 experts" and let's actually find one that as any presence on the Net aside from the fact that their names appears on the list...

here are four from the bottom of the list:

Raphael Wust Zichichi - nope

Dr. Antonio Zichichi - 80 yo nuclear physicist

Stan Zlochen - retired Air Force meteorologist

Dr. Jeff Zweerink - Christian astrophysicist

[Oleg Bach]

Repeatedly I have said that those that deny climate destruction and adhere to the old status quo that consists of greed and power at any cost are those that know if they assist in the recovery of the planets health - that their bank accounts may drop a few digits..Talk about dellusional....so you deny global warming and continue to enrich yourself through this war on nature...and once you are fantastically rich ---- WHERE THE HELL DO YOU SPEND THE MONEY AND ON WHAT? This reminds me of the Satanic figure in Miltons' Paradise Lost. Satan global warms the earth all to hell and declares himself the winner. So there stands the king of the heap - that ash heap ---denying God and nature...and the Lord Of The Crap Pile......Climate destruction denyers...are crazy - evil and stupidity are brother and sister...How come so many stupid evil people are in power? I say fire them all!

[jdobbin]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...ed-ecd53cd3d320

He was not Hansen's superior. The director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC who reports to the NASA administrator. Theon says he was Hansen's supervisor "in effect." He'll have to detail exactly how that happened since it doesn't jibe with employment flow charts.

In 1991, he seemed to have no problem with Hansen or climate models.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntr..._1991016130.pdf

Undoubtedly, humankind is affecting the environment. Inadvertent climate system changes

brought about by mass loadings of carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), methane, etc., have thrust global change into the limelight. Radiative budget effects (i.e., greenhouse gases and global warming) and ozone depletion in the stratosphere certainly have heightened public awareness; however, climate change goes far beyond these fashionable concerns. The scientific community has to confront the myriad pieces that make up the climate puzzle. Scientists must discern the difference between natural and human-induced change, and decision makers must place the pieces in a manner that balances scientific recommendation against the demands of a higher population and an improved standard of living, which are heavily taxing the Earth's resources. be quantified and incorporated into climate models.

So is the above an embarrassment to NASA? Those are Theon's word, not Hansen's.

Theon retired in 1994. He says Hansen was never muzzled while he worked at NASA. Hansen has never claimed to have been muzzled prior to 1994.

Theon has said he keeps up with what is happening in climate science now by reading journals. I guess that means no research.

[noahbody]

The director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC who reports to the NASA administrator.

That's today. What was the structure in the early 90s?

Theon says he was Hansen's supervisor "in effect." He'll have to detail exactly how that happened since it doesn't jibe with employment flow charts.

He might have a better idea than you, since he was there.

So is the above an embarrassment to NASA? Those are Theon's word, not Hansen's.

Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote. [Note: NASA scientist James Hansen who runs NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has created worldwide media frenzy with his dire climate warnings, his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear, and his claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite doing 1,400 on-the-job media interviews

He says Hansen was never muzzled while he worked at NASA. Hansen has never claimed to have been muzzled prior to 1994.

So they agree.

Theon has said he keeps up with what is happening in climate science now by reading journals. I guess that means no research.

Anyone familiar with modeling knows a model is only as good as the data. It's been proven time and time again that climate is far to complex to model.

Hansen's modeling was used in the creation of the ice age hysteria in the 70s. Now this. Fool me one shame on you...

[jdobbin]

That's today. What was the structure in the early 90s?

The same. The structure hasn't hasn't changed according to NASA's website and some of the NASA forums.

He might have a better idea than you, since he was there.

Several NASA bloggers who have not weighed in on one side or the other on climate change have taken issue with the claim of the Theon saying he was in effect Hansen's boss. I can't see anything to indicate that Hansen reported anything directly to Theon nor was supervised by him.

If Theon has evidence of something different, he should state specifics because his statement that he "in effect" supervised Hansen. I don't see anything in that Senate report.

So they agree.

Theon agrees with Hansen that global warming is happening? Yes, I would say in 1991, Theon was in agreement.

Hansen would also agree that he was not muzzled in 1988. That happened in 2005 and years after.

Anyone familiar with modeling knows a model is only as good as the data. It's been proven time and time again that climate is far to complex to model.

Hansen's modeling was used in the creation of the ice age hysteria in the 70s. Now this. Fool me one shame on you...

There was certainly no hysteria from the scientists. Several mused on cooling while others thought different. Most said more data was needed. The media reported it as a possible ice age but there was no large movement by scientists in that direction.

Theon retired in 1994. Up till that time, he supported in Hansen in papers issued by NASA. He supported the data and he supported the model. He hasn't shown any evidence or research as to why he has changed his mind. All anyone knows is that he is on the speaker's circuit for the Republican party now and has only come forward in 2009 to make this statement.

Edited February 1, 2009 by jdobbin

[kengs333]

Considering that the article links to the letter directly at an official US Senate website, I think it'll stand up.

-k

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environment...at-649-648.aspx

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/so...list_and_th.php

Edited February 1, 2009 by kengs333

[WIP]

Has it occured to global warming skeptics that whether this guy was Hansen's supervisor or not, doesn't mean crap! Even if it is true, it is the argument of one man, and the evidence is either valid or it isn't.

The argument from authority seems to be the first thing that religiously motivated people go to to prove a point. I used to see this on evolution debates, where they would pull out some clown with a PHD and use it as supporting evidence. Climate models, weather trends, etc. are very complicated and difficult to make sense of, and if you're not sure which experts are giving you the straight story on a scientific issue, the best thing to do is to go to the consensus of expert opinion. If they are right, they should be able to influence their colleagues, and not depend on trying to persuade the public that we can just keep right on pumping carbon and methane into the atmosphere without any consequences.

Edited February 1, 2009 by WIP

[Alta4ever]

Has it occured to global warming skeptics that whether this guy was Hansen's supervisor or not, doesn't mean crap! Even if it is true, it is the argument of one man, and the evidence is either valid or it isn't.

The argument from authority seems to be the first thing that religiously motivated people go to to prove a point. I used to see this on evolution debates, where they would pull out some clown with a PHD and use it as supporting evidence. Climate models, weather trends, etc. are very complicated and difficult to make sense of, and if you're not sure which experts are giving you the straight story on a scientific issue, the best thing to do is to go to the consensus of expert opinion. If they are right, they should be able to influence their colleagues, and not depend on trying to persuade the public that we can just keep right on pumping carbon and methane into the atmosphere without any consequences.

Sccience has never been about consesus, why do you people not get this? If it was about consensus there are great many theories that never would have been accepted. Most theories have been changed by a crack pot working outside of the consensus of the accepted science community and have had to continual prove and reprove their findings until just one in the establishment, starts to change their mind. Consensus is more about politics then it is about real science. Everyday more and more scientists are starting to question the consesus, and all the climate cultist will be revealled.

[jdobbin]

Everyday more and more scientists are starting to question the consesus, and all the climate cultist will be revealled.

The denialists still cannot get it right with Theon. He is retired and was not Hansen's boss. He is not a scientist doing research now and has nothing new to offer. Right up till the time he left, he supported Hansen and the models. What has changed? Well, probably the rubber chicken circuit of speaking engagements for the Republican party.

[eyeball]

Science has never been about consesus, why do you people not get this? If it was about consensus there are great many theories that never would have been accepted. Most theories have been changed by a crack pot working outside of the consensus of the accepted science community and have had to continual prove and reprove their findings until just one in the establishment, starts to change their mind. Consensus is more about politics then it is about real science. Everyday more and more scientists are starting to question the consesus, and all the climate cultist will be revealled.

So what you're effectively saying is that our official policy should be no policy at all on the basis that a few crack-pots exist in the face of an overwhelming number of cultists?

Would it be too much to ask that we also apply this principle to some of our economic policies?

[WIP]

Sccience has never been about consesus, why do you people not get this? If it was about consensus there are great many theories that never would have been accepted.

Yes it is! And it's called the peer review process. It is an adversarial model used to discard weak theories, but if a theory is able to provide useful explanations for facts and phenomena, and more importantly, is able to make testable predictions about future behaviour, then a consensus will develop to accept the new theory.

But this isn't the type of consensus I was talking about anyway! I was referring to the dilemma the average person faces when dealing with issues today that are steeped in complex scientific data. This is true when dealing with medical issues, claims about natural history that challenge accepted theories of evolution and geology, and climate change - which feature competing websites, with competing weather data, competing computer models of future warming patterns, competing charts about historical climate conditions -- it is very difficult for someone with no prior background in statistics, computer modeling and earth sciences, to determine who's right independently; and that's why, although I don't like arguments from authority in general, I think you have to look at where most of the experts line up on this issue.

And the same thing is true of other issues as well. Recently, Larry King had Jenny McCarthy and her band of medical crackpots who blame vaccinations for autism and other childhood diseases, on the show. There are a growing number of people convinced not to vaccinate their children by the former Playboy centerfold girl's performance and are putting their children's lives in danger! They don't have to become experts on vaccine procedures and the risks of thimerasol to make an informed choice; all they have to do is look up to see if McCarthy's claims about vaccines have been independently tested and what the results of these tests are. Her medical advisers may argue about the findings, but they are too far out on a limb, to climb back down now -- but where is the majority of the medical community who deal with these issues? If in doubt, that's the side of the line you should be standing on!

Most theories have been changed by a crack pot working outside of the consensus of the accepted science community and have had to continual prove and reprove their findings until just one in the establishment, starts to change their mind. Consensus is more about politics then it is about real science. Everyday more and more scientists are starting to question the consesus, and all the climate cultist will be revealled.

No, most theories don't come from a crackpot working outside the system! They write books, start alternative healing seminars, tour the rightwing church circuit (if they are against evolution and global warming) and appear on late night radio. I've noticed that both the creationism movement and anti-global warming groups have scientists who match the description of crackpots who can't get along with or convince their colleagues to take them seriously. Some of the motivation of the small number of scientists in these movements looks revenge-motivated, judging by the vitriol they express towards their former colleagues.

In fact, most scientific fields these days are becoming dependent on consensus and group effort just to develop new theories to begin with. In theoretical physics, Albert Einstein was the last physicist to develop a revolutionary new theory on his own. Quantum Mechanics, which followed soon after, and revolutionized atomic theory, was developed by six physicists and mathematicians.

Today, the great hope for an all-encompassing theory that can harmonize Relativity and Quantum Theory is literally being developed slowly by thousands of theoretical physicists at universities all around the world. If they complete work on Supersymmetry String Theory, and it makes testable predictions, String Theory will not have one man's or one woman's stamp on it regardless of which of the multitude of variations of String Theory turns out to be the right one.