James Hansen continues to cash in on AGW

[skierinvermont]

You have said that none of that matters for him as a scientist.

Lies lies and more lies. I have said that it reflects poorly on him dozens of times and I do not feel the need to reassure you of this conviction every time you get a fresh whiff of Hansen fart.

[tacoman25]

Lies lies and more lies. I have said that it reflects poorly on him dozens of times

So you agree that Hansen has proven himself to be a questionable scientist? And that his errors towards warmth indicate he is allowing too much bias into his science?

[Sunny and Warm]

So you agree that Hansen has proven himself to be a questionable scientist? And that his errors towards warmth indicate he is allowing too much bias into his science?

From Wikipedia:

Andrew Freedman, an environmental journalist and columnist at the Washington Post, believes the American Meteorological Society erred in giving Hansen its 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal: "By citing his 'clear communication of climate science in the public arena,' they may have actually sanctioned his political advocacy. Such advocacy... threatens to paint the AMS as having a political agenda too." ^[90] Other AMS members have also criticized the award.^[90][91]

Physicist Freeman Dyson is critical of Hansen's climate-change activism. "The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers... Hansen has turned his science into ideology.” ^[92] Dyson "doesn’t know what he’s talking about", Hansen responded. "He should first do his homework." ^[92] Dyson stated in an interview that the argument with Hansen was exaggerated by the New York Times, stating that he and Hansen are "friends, but we don't agree on everything."^[93]

After Hansen's arrest in West Virginia, New York Times columnist Andrew Revkin wrote: "Dr. Hansen has pushed far beyond the boundaries of the conventional role of scientists, particularly government scientists, in the environmental policy debate." ^[86] In 2009, Hansen advocated the participation of citizens at a March 2 protest at the Capitol Power Plant in Washington, D.C. Hansen stated, "We need to send a message to Congress and the president that we want them to take the actions that are needed to preserve climate for young people and future generations and all life on the planet".^[94]

New Yorker journalist Elizabeth Kolbert believes Hansen is "increasingly isolated among climate activists." ^[95] Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said that "I view Jim Hansen as heroic as a scientist.... But I wish he would stick to what he really knows. Because I don't think he has a realistic idea of what is politically possible..."^[95]

New York Times climate columnist Christa Marshall asks if Hansen still matters in the ongoing climate debate, noting that he "has irked many longtime supporters with his scathing attacks against President Obama's plan for a cap-and-trade system."^[96] "The right wing loves what he's doing," said Joseph Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a think tank.^[96] Hansen said that he had to speak out, since few others could explain the links between politics and the climate models. "You just have to say what you think is right," he said.^[96]

^{*****************************************************************************************************************}

... and yet he is one of the two most prominent faces of climate science. The other being Al Gore. Yet neither hold a climate science degree. Hansen has his own website and his book claims he is one of the world's LEADING CLIMATE SCIENTISTS!! People like Rusty and Skier rail against us, when they haven't the cajones to replace the faces of their beloved AGW with REAL climate scientists. Don't blame us and spew invectives at us because we speak the truth about your cause. Your failure to put better people in charge is your own fault. We're just the messengers pointing out that Caesar has no clothes.

[tacoman25]

... and yet he is one of the two most prominent faces of climate science. The other being Al Gore. Yet neither hold a climate science degree. Hansen has his own website and his book claims he is one of the world's LEADING CLIMATE SCIENTISTS!! People like Rusty and Skier rail against us, when they haven't the cajones to replace the faces of their beloved AGW with REAL climate scientists. Don't blame us and spew invectives at us because we speak the truth about your cause. Your failure to put better people in charge is your own fault. We're just the messengers pointing out that Caesar has no clothes.

That's not actually true. Al Gore is another prominent face of climate change activism, but not actual climate science. Part of the problem is that Hansen has blurred the line so much.

[skierinvermont]

So you agree that Hansen has proven himself to be a questionable scientist? And that his errors towards warmth indicate he is allowing too much bias into his science?

No.. I would say he has at times exercised poor judgment as a scientist in making forecasts in areas he is not qualified.

This has no bearing on other areas of his scientific research which have been peer-reviewed and in which he is qualified.

[Sunny and Warm]

That's not actually true. Al Gore is another prominent face of climate change activism, but not actual climate science. Part of the problem is that Hansen has blurred the line so much.

true, I meant to say AGW, which to me is a form of activism, and not a science or theory at this point.

[skierinvermont]

Your failure to put better people in charge is your own fault.

I will try to do a better job.. I'll call up their publishers and threaten to kidnap their children if they don't stop publishing them!

[skierinvermont]

true, I meant to say AGW, which to me is a form of activism, and not a science or theory at this point.

you are probably the most anti-science poster in the history of this board

[tacoman25]

No.. I would say he has at times exercised poor judgment as a scientist in making forecasts in areas he is not qualified.

This has no bearing on other areas of his scientific research which have been peer-reviewed and in which he is qualified.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how his decisions and his obvious bias don't comprimise his integrity as a scientist. If he is making ENSO predictions, he must feel he is qualified to do so. The results say he isn't. Or he is using his position to make judgements in areas of climate science that he knows he is not qualified to. Which is highly unscientific and demonstrates poor reasoning.

[skierinvermont]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how his decisions and his obvious bias don't comprimise his integrity as a scientist. If he is making ENSO predictions, he must feel he is qualified to do so. The results say he isn't. Or he is using his position to make judgements in areas of climate science that he knows he is not qualified to. Which is highly unscientific and demonstrates poor reasoning.

So because a scientist shows 'poor reasoning' on occassion in one aspect of their life it calls into question ALL of their scientific work, including work which has been reviewed publicly by peers?

Keep on digging... if this is the silliness you are reduced to you must really have nothing substantive to complain about.

[Sunny and Warm]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how his decisions and his obvious bias don't comprimise his integrity as a scientist. If he is making ENSO predictions, he must feel he is qualified to do so. The results say he isn't. Or he is using his position to make judgements in areas of climate science that he knows he is not qualified to. Which is highly unscientific and demonstrates poor reasoning.

like the time he predicted Manhattan would be under water soon. If you can get 1 year, 10 year, 25 year, or 40 year predictions right, why should anyone believe his 100 year predictions. The data does not support the models in temp rise, yet we should be panicked and change our economics in case that someday, it may indeed prove true. When you are 0 for 9, the bettors usually go the other way.

[tacoman25]

So because a scientist shows 'poor reasoning' on occassion in one aspect of their life it calls into question ALL of their scientific work, including work which has been reviewed publicly by peers?

Keep on digging...

You don't see other prominent scientists doing these kinds of things. Yes, the decisions Hansen has made do reflect on him as scientist (not invalidating everything he's done, I never said that of course, but keep the hyperbole coming!), to deny that is to deny reality.

And as a climate scientist, you can't separate climate predictions he has made from him as a scientist. He is obviously biased warm (why else would he always overpredict Ninos?), which makes sense considering his crusading for the AGW cause. But it reflects poorly on him as a scientist. Obviously I'm not alone in that assessment, as the wikipedia article showed.

[PhillipS]

So you agree that Hansen has proven himself to be a questionable scientist? And that his errors towards warmth indicate he is allowing too much bias into his science?

Dr Hansen has simply shown himself to be human and therefore fallible. Even Babe Ruth struck out now and then. In an op-ed peice he wrote he made a prediction that was wrong. How is that any more serious than the multitude of incorrect statements made by denialists? So grow up and get over it. Complaining that Hansen gets paid to speak and that he wins awards is just whining.

As for his credentials as a scientist - his published, peer-reviewed, work has held up very well. And that includes his reconstruction of Earth's paleoclimate. If you disagree then please provide us with evidence and links to your sources.

He is a top scientist and that, I think, is why the Denialist community hates him so. They haven't made a dent in his research findings so they repeatedly go after him as a person. Textbook ad hominem attacks.

[skierinvermont]

like the time he predicted Manhattan would be under water soon. If you can get 1 year, 10 year, 25 year, or 40 year predictions right, why should anyone believe his 100 year predictions. The data does not support the models in temp rise, yet we should be panicked and change our economics in case that someday, it may indeed prove true. When you are 0 for 9, the bettors usually go the other way.

except of course that he never predicted that. But what good are facts and truth to liars and crooks?

[Mencken_Fan]

Clearly Hansen did NOT get into this field for the money. I'm sure he firmly believed in everything he said back when he got into this. Now, fast forward to the present... Does the fact that he's getting a lot of money influence the things he says these days? No way to prove it does or doesn't. Money is a very powerful tool, but for all we know he could still really believe in what he says, in which case his science is not very good at all with respect to ENSO forecasting and he should stick to longer term stuff.

Without evidence to the contrary, honest people don't go around assuming others are dishonest. Basic psychology. You did well. Congratulations. (Can't say the same for a few others though.)

What we post reveals more about ourselves than anything else.

[skierinvermont]

You don't see other prominent scientists doing these kinds of things. Yes, the decisions Hansen has made do reflect on him as scientist (not invalidating everything he's done, I never said that of course, but keep the hyperbole coming!), to deny that is to deny reality.

And as a climate scientist, you can't separate climate predictions he has made from him as a scientist. He is obviously biased warm (why else would he always overpredict Ninos?), which makes sense considering his crusading for the AGW cause. But it reflects poorly on him as a scientist. Obviously I'm not alone in that assessment, as the wikipedia article showed.

You don't see other scientists exercising poor judgment on occasion? Really? I'd like to meet these 'perfect' individuals.

All humans have flaws and biases.. it doesn't invalidate rigorous scientific peer-reviewed work because the individual that worked on it isn't perfect.

[PhillipS]

You don't see other prominent scientists doing these kinds of things. Yes, the decisions Hansen has made do reflect on him as scientist (not invalidating everything he's done, I never said that of course, but keep the hyperbole coming!), to deny that is to deny reality.

And as a climate scientist, you can't separate climate predictions he has made from him as a scientist. He is obviously biased warm (why else would he always overpredict Ninos?), which makes sense considering his crusading for the AGW cause. But it reflects poorly on him as a scientist. Obviously I'm not alone in that assessment, as the wikipedia article showed.

What kinds of things are you referring to? Speaking about ones research and winning awards? Can you mention ten "prominent scientists" who don't lecture about their work and have never won an award? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Or do you mean making incorrect predictions? Okay, give us ten "prominent scientists" who never made an error. Remember, even Einstein made mistakes.

Can you offer us anything other than stale, recycled denialist crap?

[tacoman25]

Without evidence to the contrary, honest people don't go around assuming others are dishonest. Basic psychology. You did well. Congratulations. (Can't say the same for a few others though.)

What we post reveals more about ourselves than anything else.

And yet you assume posters on here are either "religious" or "secular", without evidence.

I'm going to keep on calling you on your inconsistencies and hypocrisy, so get used to it.

[tacoman25]

Dr Hansen has simply shown himself to be human and therefore fallible. Even Babe Ruth struck out now and then. In an op-ed peice he wrote he made a prediction that was wrong. How is that any more serious than the multitude of incorrect statements made by denialists? So grow up and get over it. Complaining that Hansen gets paid to speak and that he wins awards is just whining.

As for his credentials as a scientist - his published, peer-reviewed, work has held up very well. And that includes his reconstruction of Earth's paleoclimate. If you disagree then please provide us with evidence and links to your sources.

He is a top scientist and that, I think, is why the Denialist community hates him so. They haven't made a dent in his research findings so they repeatedly go after him as a person. Textbook ad hominem attacks.

1. If the scientists are fallible, so is the science. A point that often is overlooked.

2. Dr. Hansen is held to a higher standard than these anonymous "denialists" you refer to. Comes with his position.

None of your response addresses his core failures as a scientist. As I said, sometimes it's just easier to gloss over that and repeat the mantra, isn't it?

[tacoman25]

What kinds of things are you referring to? Speaking about ones research and winning awards? Can you mention ten "prominent scientists" who don't lecture about their work and have never won an award? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Or do you mean making incorrect predictions? Okay, give us ten "prominent scientists" who never made an error. Remember, even Einstein made mistakes.

Can you offer us anything other than stale, recycled denialist crap?

1. Getting arrested for activism. As a government-employed scientist with a high ranking position.

2. Making erroneous scientific predictions apparently outside of his realm of expertise. This is embarrasing for science.

3. Your overuse of the term "denialist" is the most stale, recycled thing going on in this thread.

[skierinvermont]

1. If the scientists are fallible, so is the science. A point that often is overlooked.

I thought you just told us that no other scientists have poor judgment on occasion and that Hansen is the only one?

[tacoman25]

I thought you just told us that no other scientists have poor judgment on occasion and that Hansen is the only one?

Of course I didn't say that. But I don't know of any other scientists in his type of position that have compromised their integrity the way he has. Do you?

[skierinvermont]

Of course I didn't say that. But I don't know of any other scientists in his type of position that have compromised their integrity the way he has. Do you?

I don't think a busted ENSO forecast = compromised integrity. A little bit of an exaggeration IMO.

[PhillipS]

1. If the scientists are fallible, so is the science. A point that often is overlooked.

2. Dr. Hansen is held to a higher standard than these anonymous "denialists" you refer to. Comes with his position.

None of your response addresses his core failures as a scientist. As I said, sometimes it's just easier to gloss over that and repeat the mantra, isn't it?

Your first assertion is strawman nonsense. The scientific method fully addresses human fallibility. That's the basis for peer-review and the requirement that results be repeatable.

Your second assertion is equally nonsensical. The denialists aren't anonymous - it would just take too much time to list them all. It's a lot easier to list those who still have a shred of credibility. The five least questionable denialist scientists, in my opinion, are:

1. Dr Judith Curry

2. Dr Roy Spencer - but only with regard to his UAH temperature work.

3. Steve Mcintyre - but only on statistics

4. Er , , , ,

Okay, I could come up with three off the top of my head.

[tacoman25]

I don't think a busted ENSO forecast = compromised integrity. A little bit of an exaggeration IMO.

I have clearly explained this...I'll repost what I said before.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how his decisions and his obvious bias don't comprimise his integrity as a scientist. If he is making ENSO predictions, he must feel he is qualified to do so. The results say he isn't. Or he is using his position to make judgements in areas of climate science that he knows he is not qualified to. Which is highly unscientific and demonstrates poor reasoning.

[tacoman25]

Your first assertion is strawman nonsense. The scientific method fully addresses human fallibility. That's the basis for peer-review and the requirement that results be repeatable.

Your second assertion is equally nonsensical. The denialists aren't anonymous - it would just take too much time to list them all. It's a lot easier to list those who still have a shred of credibility. The five least questionable denialist scientists, in my opinion, are:

1. Dr Judith Curry

2. Dr Roy Spencer - but only with regard to his UAH temperature work.

3. Steve Mcintyre - but only on statistics

4. Er , , , ,

Okay, I could come up with three off the top of my head.

1. Strawman: that other overly familiar term that is a big-time favorite with anti-skeptics! Instead of regurgitating these tired terms, can we please just stick to the real points?

2. The scientific method may address fallibility, but it sure as hell doesn't ensure that science is infallible. Peer review has certainly demonstrated it is fallible.

3. And what have any of those "denialists" done that equates to Hansen's actions? How have those people strayed from their realm of expertise to issue predictions which turn out to be embarrassingly wrong? How many have been arrested for activism?

[skierinvermont]

I have clearly explained this...I'll repost what I said before.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how his decisions and his obvious bias don't comprimise his integrity as a scientist. If he is making ENSO predictions, he must feel he is qualified to do so. The results say he isn't. Or he is using his position to make judgements in areas of climate science that he knows he is not qualified to. Which is highly unscientific and demonstrates poor reasoning.

All humans exercise poor judgment at times and have imperfect reasoning. It doesn't mean their 'integrity is destroyed.' And it doesn't mean that rigorous peer reviewed work is cast into doubt. Your obsession on this is small-minded and petty.

[tacoman25]

All humans exercise poor judgment at times and have imperfect reasoning. It doesn't mean their 'integrity is destroyed.' And it doesn't mean that rigorous peer reviewed work is cast into doubt. Your obsession on this is small-minded and petty.

All scientists are not in his position and have not done what he has done. I've made this clear, I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

[skierinvermont]

All scientists are not in his position and have not done what he has done. I've made this clear, I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

It doesn't matter how important or visible he is. Errors of judgment in one area do not equate to a lack of integrity or undermine rigorous peer-reviewed research.

The logical leap from Hansen making poor ENSO forecasts to Hansen having no integrity and his peer-reviewed research being flawed is absurd.

[Mencken_Fan]

And yet you assume posters on here are either "religious" or "secular", without evidence.

I'm going to keep on calling you on your inconsistencies and hypocrisy, so get used to it.

I do indeed make the assumption that some posters are secular and some religious. If there's any alternative, please fill me in. That said, in no way did I single anyone out - because that would of course be impossible for me to do. I would suggest though, that if I placed a wager on every poster in the climate section, I could win more than 50% of my bets. I haven't been an analyst much of my life for nothing.

My opening line: "Your post and the many similar to it that I come across on the internet highlight the thinking levels we humans have when it comes to what's probable, what's plausible, what's possible, what's improbable, what's implausible, and what's impossible." led into my discussion of how people think.

Perhaps you believe psychologists and neuroscientists are fools; I don't know. But in my recent studies, science today knows very well just how we think. And if you think my discussion was nonsense, then you're just revealing how little you know about the current state of human science.

My hypocrisy? I don't know where you get that, but I guess it just sounds good eh? And as for "getting used to it", spare me, I've been on internet boards since the '90s; it's why I so seldom reply. (Heck, so many boards are so predictable I doubt I read more than half the replies to my own posts.)