Hansen's job is to measure temperatures, not be involved in politics. His "angry" response are the words of a political partisan. It is illegal for civil servants to engage in politics which stems from their work.

The Director of NASA recently said-
Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another. .... NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10571499

The fact that the 1930s was the warmest decade in the US is extremely significant. We have far superior temperature records to most of the rest of the world, and our data is at least somewhat auditable - unlike much of the data used to generate Hansen's world temperature graph.

If Hansen is to keep his job, he will likely need to release the data and methodology used to generate his graphs and conclusions. His work is taxpayer funded and we have a right to know. He has no business making money from global warming or serving special interest groups.

That is the saddest rebuttal I have ever seen. Wrong is wrong and in weather and climate accuracy is a must. He is just crying us a river.

A nerve touched perhaps?

Also maybe we should turn the record keeping over to a different organization that does not have an agenda. This would ensure records are kept correctly and if anyone questions them they can be verified. I know if my main objective was to maintain accuracy at my job and I was unable to do it I would be fired.

We know that AGW believers and deniers are at odds over whether the one degree increase in temps since the LIA is caused by CO2 or not. We know that this is an important issue to us all whether you think the importance is the future of humankind or the importance lies in not wasting money.

Reminds of one of my very first jobs. I was a cashier for a Wal-Mart and a man came in to buy a pack of gum with a $50 dollar bill. Once I gave him change he asked for the money to be broken up, so he gave me some money, I gave some back, soon many bills were exchanging hands and I got confused so I told him he would have to wait while I counted down the drawer. Later found out that this was a scheme to rob me.

Let's count down the drawer together. I will put aside my earlier beliefs that AGW'ers are simply attempting to invade my wallet over conjecture if you all will lay down your argument in a structured manner so we deniers can ask you all questions about your methods and conclusions.

Can we agree to use the Scientific Method? No politics, no name calling, no conjecture. Simple science.

Sound reasonable?

From the desk of a "Court Jester:"

Hansen a conservative????...LOL! If he is the conservative that says he is, why then did he generously donated to the Kerry/Edwards campaign in 2004. Ain't buying it, Doc. And please, spare us yet another "it's for the unborn child/children" guilt trip! Heard that one before.

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

p.s. Yes, preserve creation, as Dr. Hansen indicates via Jefferson's comments. Do any of you (especially you libbies out there) think that Jefferson meant doing so thru huge government and excessive regulations and taxation??? I think not.

The significance of changing the hottest year on record from 1998 to 1934 is enormous. We are told over and over how we only have a little time left to stop this global warming dynamo. They tell us to stop quibbling over the details because the "science is settled". When it is discovered that there are errors in the calculations we are reassured that it doesn't change anything. If that isn't a politically motivated rush to judgment then none exists.

Hansen's reaction is similar to Mann's when his hockey stick shattered into meaningless pieces. They want us to buy their hypotheses then when it turns out their work was flawed they tell us it doesn't matter. Hansen's work now must come under even greater scutiny and peer review simply because he has lost our trust. If we cannot trust him to crunch the numbers accurately then how in the world can we trust his conclusions.

The question, unanswered by Hansen remains; Why won't he release, to the scientific community, his methods, algorithms and raw data? His response reeks of the polemics of a political, not scientific position.

I see that Brett's local cohort of jesters arises to entertain, on cue. One wonders if they -- or Brett -- notice that by now they are the only audience.

The rest of the world has moved on.

Europe actually has the best weather records in the world.

NASA used to have an agenda; a mission statement that included: "To understand and protect our home planet".
This phrase was removed in 2006 by Bush.

Claiming to use science in the "debate" about the validity of Anthropogenic Global Warming is a non-starter. The science has already been in for decades.

There is no reason from an immediate self-interested net-worth perspective, to address climate change. Addressing it requires one cent (this will rise as the cheap opportunities for action are lost in the next decade) of your every dollar. Not addressing it requires zero cents of your every dollar.
But Cato Institute advocates are lying to themselves if they believe one's short-term quality-of-living is all that matters. There are reasons why we raise children, build infrastructure projects, attend schools, write wills, pay mortgages and climb career ladders. That one cent from every dollar now would save twenty cents (imagine a permanent great depression) from every dollar in a few decades time.

The rest of the world has moved on indeed. Neo-warms should think a lot about why nobody's really buying into their stories.

Personally I'll believe in Hansen's worries about future generations only when he stops wasting time on keeping his stuff secret, releases everything he's got and finally shows all doubters wrong

Check out the truth. This website says it all! http://globalwarmingpower.angelfire.com

BT,

If there are only about five or so of us in the audience, why did Dr. Hansen feel the need to rebut so dramatically and publicly?

Obviously he is feeling the pressure from a much larger "audience" than you want to admit.

If he was confident of his position, he would release the data and methodology for general inspection. What could he possibly be afraid of, if the science is so solid?

As with most of the cult of Man Made Global Warming, when ever anyone chooses to question their methods - they need to go on a rant like children.

Here's a great movie that will be out on ABC in November I believe.

http://www.conservativethinking.com/archives/2007/08/the-great-global-warming-swindle.php

The Great Global Warming SWINDLE! Well worth the watch - and it's amazing how many scientists are in this one that say it's a fizzle.

They agreed that the climate is getting warmer, but disagree that it's man made and show evidence that it is NOT caused by anything we've done and/or are doing.

It seems Dr.Hansen is writing a lot of letters these days. Here is one called "A Light On Upstairs?" where he is apologizing (explaining) for an ad hominen attack he made on someone in another letter he wrote. I'm not sure what the original letter was but I don't think it is the one Brett linked.

http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/distro_LightUpstairs_70810.pdf

Here is a discussion of the "A Light On Upstairs?" letter by Climate Audit's Dr.McIntyre in which Dr.McIntyre exposes several discrepancies in Dr. Hansen's claims.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1891

Very interesting. And in the letter Brett linked, the tone sounds as if Dr.Hansen is desperately trying to defend his work (25 years worth ?) in the face of ever greater scrutiny, and blaming oil energy stooges for causing the scrutiny.........

Just what is going on with Dr.Hansen, and why is he still refusing requests to release the sourcecode for generating the GISS Temp Datasets ? He is keeping that information closer to his vest than Paul Newman playing poker against Robert Shaw in the Sting !

What needs to happen now is scientists need to address a letter to the president, explaining that Dr.Hansen is denying them this information and requesting the administration DIRECT Dr.Hansen to publicize the sourcecode on NASA's website along with the already public GCM sourcecode.

After all, Dr.Hansen's work should be "peer-reviewed" along with everyone elses, particularly when it is the foundation of policy decisions costing trillions of dollars and affecting billions of lives.

Hanson's response for a government employee is out of line, but I think he represents the overall problem with NASA. Facts are not important, being critical is not allowed.

I not sure I understand all of this "Global Warming" hype. It is based on a Global temperature model, correct? Well how can that be?
There is no such thing as Global Temperature. I'll explain....the earth is not a homogeneous system, It is not an evenly mixed system of physical heat. There is no equilibrium in the atmosphere, it is a non-equilibrium system that is not well understood. All the standards for global warming rely upon conventional "equilibrium" models of the atmosphere. If that is the case then they are falsely constructed models. Climate id riven by differences in heat between different regions, leading to daily weather. The right predictor for the global climate may not be an average heat density, but rather the regional differences in heat content. Weather systems flow from high to low pressure regions, which are in turn dependent upon complex heat exchange mechanisms. Using this different mathematical average could even mean a decrease in heat in the atmosphere. It all depends on which is the correct model of the atmosphere. Which ever model you use, there is still no such thing as a global temperature. Anyone who says there is should have their degree taken away.

Claiming to use science in the "debate" about the validity of Anthropogenic Global Warming is a non-starter. The science has already been in for decades.

How? If you have already proven it out, why can't you show us how and how much?

Pretend we just showed up and want to see what we are "investing" in. Reasonable? Since America is going to take the brunt of this investment do you not think that we are "entitled" to see what we are investing in and why?

what a pathetic reponse...i would say ole hansen is really rather emotional...kind of makes you wonder whether he could have an objective analysis on anything he is in charge of...kind of reeks also, of a scam unraveling and he knows it...fitting though, he was worried about heat overload, well now it seems he is experiencing it first hand... in the end, the truth will prevail and this hocus pocus AGW thingy will be exposed for what it really is, a scam to make money...just to reitirate, here comes the real science rebuttal...

Mark :

We do ? Based on what ? Please provide evidence; I've always read that the data in Eurasia was terrible during WWI, WWII and the respective postwar years, and EasternEurope & Russia's went downhill following the evaporation of the USSR.

Please back up your claims with something.

More trouble in paradise for Dr.Hansen. . .

http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=1017895&srvc=home

It seems the mainstream media is now beginning to report the "Hansen-gate" and very importantly, the fact that he is refusing to allow "peer-review" of his temperature adjustments.

A short article, but here's a noteworthy excerpt :

"The data-handling error - the assumption that one set of numbers was identical to another when it was not - was discovered by Canadian researcher Steve McIntyre, who notified NASA on Aug. 4. NASA almost immediately corrected its Web site, but without any notice of the changes. You can bet that if the correction had shifted the data the other way, there would have been press releases, news conferences and lugubrious music on the TV news. As it was, it was left to the conservative blogosphere to spread the word; the mainstream media ignored the episode."

I would expect an ad hominem attack by Brookline Tom since, like his fellow liberals in Cambridge, when they cannot make their argument based on the facts, they take the low road. Maybe he could offer the good doctor some better talking points.

Heh, Hansen&Co. have been repeatedly busted lately for cooking the books on his purty pictures, including the ones in his "rebuttal" and now on more of their work. I'm sorry, without releasing data and methods, there is no idea how bad the cookery is, but the evidence is rather smelly now.

Phillip; "The science has already been in for decades."
Really! Please produce the proof that has settled the issue. I will take it right over to Junkscience.com and claim the $100,000. I will even share it with you.
Really.... It is still waiting there for the first person to prove the A in AGW.

Still waiting....

Europe actually has the best weather records in the world.

Interesting concept Mark. How do you reckon they kept these great records during the last few centuries while they were continually busy fighting wars, plagues, smallpox and rebuilding their cities from the destruction of the last war?

London wasn't completely rebuilt from WWII until the mid-1980s. Most of eastern Europe is still recovering from Stalin. When Dresden was being firebombed in 1945, do you think it might have affected the temperatures?

BTW- Have you figured out yet that that the EU is a capitalist organization?

Below are two interesting papers worth reading regarding the sun's potential role in climate. The first is quite brief and in laymans language; here is a short excerpt :

"... I have referred before to the confirmed slowdown of the Gulf Stream, the effect of major endothermic polar ice melt and forecast reduction in solar activity after 70 years of extreme activity not seen for 8000 years before. The Stratosphere is cooling and ice is building on the South Pole. Most of these major natural processes that we are witnessing now are interdependent and occur at the end of each interglacial period, ultimately causing sudden long term cooling."

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Probability_of_Sudden_Global_Cooling.pdf

Here is the second which is much more lengthy :

http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

Because it is so long here are a couple of relevant excerpts :

"A direct measure of the strength of the solar polar fields will be possible during 2007-2008, when Ulysses makes another pass over the solar poles. A finding by Ulysses that the sun's polar fields had significantly weakened would support the hypothesis that solar activity is declining. It would also tend to support the prediction that solar maximum of Sunspot Cycle No 25 would be much smaller than has been observed during the last 150 years or so. It would be a strong indicator of a very cold global climate ahead."

"According to sim hypothesis, Sunspot Cycles No 25 and 26 will be smaller and weaker than Sunspot Cycle No 24, which will be smaller and weaker that Sunspot Cycle No 23, and the earth will
enter a little ice age. According to this analysis, as the sun enters Sunspot Cycle No 26, the earth's climate is expected to be much the same as it was during the Dalton Minimum cold period from the 1790s to the 1820s."

"It is to be hoped that in its next series of publications, the IPCC includes in its modelling of climate change the consequences of reductions in solar activity expected during Sunspot Cycles No 24, 25 and 26."

Quite a "chilling" thought, don't you think ?

Note the jab at the IPCC; just because Hansen and his fellow AGWer's claim the sun has no role in the current climate warming, does not mean there is a concensus among solar scientists, that that is the case.