"Is Dr. James Hansen being Swift-Boated?"

Sure looks like it. The IBD is a hot bed of denial which latched onto the unpublishable Schulte survey and the fabricated graphs of the Great Global Warming Swindle, so it's no real surprise.

This type of tactic is to be expected, since so-called "skeptics" have no science to speak of on their side.

"predicting the potential dangers" sounds like an oxymoron. I'd opt for "speaking out about the potential dangers" or "predicting problems related to".
Reply: you are correct, my phrasing stunk. Brett

"Hansen in his response, though, does not state what his predictions about the future climate were back in 1971. Maybe he doesn't remember."

Maybe he didn't have any predictions about the future climate back in 1971: in 1971 he was still working on Venus. As he notes in the linked response, his first paper on Earth climate was published in 1976.

Reply: could very well be, but I would think he had to have some type of opinion

Maybe you're not up to snuff about politics but Leftists will LIE to get what they want.
Not my opinion it's FACT

Reply:I am not saying that his response is the truth or not, I do not know, just linking to his response so we can compare both sides to the story.

Oooops .......me thinks people are starting to follow the money!
Many more "professionals" will be probably be identified along with their monetary affiliations ......
Once we clean out all the rift-raft maybe we can start working on REAL environmental SOLUTIONS and start cleaning the planet!

There is an interesting report on this subject at NewsBusters:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/28/nasa-s-james-hansen-claims-he-s-being-swift-boated-critics

Their focus is on the media double standard that exists since no major mainstream outlets are following up on this story. Those same outlets, however, will quickly publish Hansen's claims about AGW in the most sympathetic light.

NewsBusters also raises a number of questions that Hansen should answer. Instead, Hansen uses a "swift-boat" defense to deflect the criticism.

It should be obvious to anyone that Soros' OSI is spending large sums of money to influence the AGW debate and the science. How else would one explain the term "politicization of science" when referencing the purpose of the expenditure of $720,000, some of which apparently aided Hansen.

Hansen's comments attempting to rebut the accusations are pretty lame. As a tax-exempt fund, GAP should be required to disclose the details of where the $720,000 went. Reply: agreed. If they cooperate then we will know the level of Hansen's involvement. If they refuse then we will have to draw our own conclusions which inevitably leads to the question, "What are they hiding?"

You mean the details of his past deeds coming to light despite his denials? With documented evidence that he is guilty as charged? As well as eyewitnesses?

If that is "swift boating" then oh yeah, he is.

Brett,

It is illegal for civil servants to be involved with political activities stemming from their work. He should have been fired a long time ago, but is being protected by powerful friends.

All the while complaining about how President Bush is muzzling him. Give me a break...........

Dr. James Hansen being Swift-Boated?

Yes.

Brett, Don't jump on that Poor-John-Kerry nonsense in scientific debate using the "Swift Boating" term. Kerry asked for that response. However, "Global Warming" has been so politicized by the likes of the Gore, that It's hard to tell what's science and what's politics anymore

Hansen has obviously become a lightening rod for critics and deniers especially since he seems to have lots of legal bills. If a person is a true charlatan, then they get what they deserve.
However, Hansen is no charlatan.

Has he exaggerated potential sea level rise?

From the current eigth of an inch per year, it would seem so. But, I have not researched it enough to be sure.

BT - So, motivation should not be a factor in determining the veracity of a person's "science." Interesting. Should we apply that same level of rigor to the "scientists" who get paid by big oil? You may have a double standard working here, BT. Motivations, mostly money-based, must be examined on all sides of the argument to understand perspective.

It's pretty funny to see NewsBusters trying to push this story, even though Hansen got no money from OSI. Why? Because NewsBusters has never disclosed that they are funded by Exxon.

Hansen will be ok now with this coming out!

WASHINGTON � President Bush called on the world's worst polluters to come together to set a goal for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the climate to heat up. He didn't exempt his own country from the list.
"By setting this goal, we acknowledge there is a problem, and by setting this goal, we commit ourselves to doing something about it," Bush said in a speech that capped two days of talks at a White House-sponsored climate change conference. "We share a common responsibility: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while keeping our economies growing."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298470,00.html

kamatu,

Exactly. Thank you for clarifying that point to the dear readers of this blog. However, like bt, many have made up their minds that "swift-boating" has a negative connation to it, when in reality, the swift-boat veterans just documented the lie that Kerry was promulgating on a naive public.

Brett, you should read a bit more about the swift-boat veterans before using the term. ie, see kamatu's post.

bt,

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

NASA, which is just north of Galveston, has yet to be wiped out by another catastrophic hurricane - despite Hansen's near daily promises of Armageddon. In fact, according the Steve McIntyre, 2007 is even slower for hurricanes than 2006.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2114#comments

Some of you have been noticing a tendency for almost any gust of wind in the Atlantic to now become a named storm

Isn't this the same guy (Dr. Hansen) that was on 60 minutes last year along with evidence that a prior employee of Exxon-Mobil was working for the Bush admin doctoring reports before the public saw them? Skeptics don't have any proof? Try watching weather events around the world everyday and say that is not evidence enough. Right now we just had 93 degree days in Maine this week with well above normal average days still forecast for who knows how long, also 90 mph wind gusts(severe weather). I have worked outside for years and very aware of the weather and it is only getting more unstable every year. Wake up people.

I can't wait for his "Summer Soldier" testimony. Hungry Polar Bears acting in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan... blah blah blah.

Some people at NASA seem to have lost any interest in telling the truth. Check out this press release-

"He found that in high altitude areas over 1.2 miles above sea level, the melting index -- an indicator of where melting is occurring and for how long - was significantly higher than average. Melting over those areas occurred 25-30 days longer this year than the observed average in the previous 19 years."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2007/2007092525664.html

But if you go to the actual paper being referenced by the news story, they show zero melting at that altitude.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/178064main_Tedesco1_lg.jpg

In fact the majority of Greenland never has any melting, which means that the majority of Greenland is accumulating ice and snow. The Greenland ice sheet averages about 1m of snowfall per year.

Dr. James Hansen being Swift-Boated?

The Swift Boaters exposed Kerry as an individual with a political agenda and a hypocrite while pretending to be a public servant. So yes, from what I am reading here, I would have to agree.

1. P. Henry: Since when has Climate Science become politics? Because the conclusions of the vast majority of the climate science community are inconvenient for a thin slice of the American political landscape, does not mean that anyone who talks about Global Warming is a politician.

2. What does it change if he got funding from Soros? The right just LOVES to make the guy into some kind of monster, even claiming that he collaborated with the Nazis AT AGE EIGHT for crying out loud, but Soros' track record is far better than that, say, of the Coors foundation or Scaife, who paid so-called "witnesses" to try and destroy Clinton.

3. The day Newsbusters is considered a viable news source is the day I refuse to ever enter or do business with the U.S.; because that will be the day the U.S. becomes a closed dictatorship. Newsbusters has no credibility. They are quite well known for their complete fabrications. So please....

4. More to the point, there are in fact VERY few Climate scientists who doubt that Climate change is, in fact, happening, AND that a large part of it is man-made. There ARE a few Climate Scientists that question specific predictions here and there (like Dr Gray, who because he simply cannot accept numerical modeling refuses to accept a link between Global Warming, WHICH HE HAS ACCEPTED AS FACT, and the recent upswing in Atlantic activity). Most skeptics are NOT Climate Scientists; there are a few weathermen who took undergrad Meteorology, and quite a few Geologists (a field infested with crackpots of all kinds, including people who believe the Great Pyramid is 40000 years old, and others who believe the Grand Canyon was created by the Great Flood, 4 to 5 thousand years ago).

5. Follow the money? If you do precisely that about the vast majority of "skeptics", you'll quickly find out why they say what they say: The vast majority of them get direct funding from Exxon...

But if you go to the actual paper being referenced by the news story, they show zero melting at that altitude.

Patrick,

If you had read the caption accompanying the article, you'd have noticed that the melting days map you referenced was from 2006, not 2007.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/snowmelt_greenland.html

The map Brett posted on the thread having to do with this year's melting days is the correct map for 2007. It does in fact show not only higher-altitude melting than in 2006, but more of it.

Also, the article you referenced was from May. How could they have known about this year's melt before the ice even started melting? You might want to think that one through. Yes, it was what was linked to EO's press release; no, it was not the right map. Someone at EO screwed up. This version of the press release has the correct link at the end. In fact, it was the link that Brett provided on his original post.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/nsfc-nfg092507.php

The actual NASA article referring to this year's melt is linked here:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/greenland_recordhigh.html

You might want to check your sources before you announce any grand conclusions. Looks like no one at NASA was fibbing after all.

PH,

I read that post on RealClimate

"Some of you have been noticing a tendency for almost any gust of wind in the Atlantic to now become a named storm"

and I'm a little skeptical. Isn't naming a storm a pretty objective process? If the storm has sustained winds over a certain mark, then its named. I know that better observation technology has probably resulted in increased totals of named storms, because of the ability to see storms that would have gone unnoticed in earlier eras. But I don't think that that is the observor's fault. Now please remember, I'm neitehr a meterologist, or climatologist, and I'm strictly an amateur, so please tell me if I'm makling wrong assumptions. (And that's not sarcastic, I really want to know it if I'm wrong.)

Reply: if there is a certain amount of wind calculated or observed at the surface within a storm and the storm has a closed circulation and at aleast some sense of a warm inner core then most times it will be named, but there are always exceptions for unknown reasons occasionally. Brett

Since when has Climate Science become politics?

DR,

That is probably the most naive question I've seen yet on this thread. Hansen is deeply involved in AGW politics at many different levels, outside of his job function at NASA. AGW is the most politicized science in the past century, largely due to Dr. Hansen's narcissistic belief that he is saving the world.

Here are a couple of good links for starters. First is from science officer at the National Hurricane Center who quit the IPCC due to pressure to falsify the science.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

Second is from an IPCC expert reviewer detailing how political and scientifically corrupt the IPCC process is.
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/gray%20ipcc%20spin.pdf

Most skeptics are NOT Climate Scientists; there are a few weathermen who took undergrad Meteorology, and quite a few Geologists (a field infested with crackpots of all kinds, including people who believe the Great Pyramid is 40000 years old, and others who believe the Grand Canyon was created by the Great Flood, 4 to 5 thousand years ago).

A bit arrogant perhaps? Roger Pielke says that the vast majority of the IPCC technical staff are not climate scientists. From what I have seen, the level of science in geology is vastly higher than the complete garbage coming out of the AGW world. Most of the mainstream AGW papers we have seen on this thread recently have been either complete nonsense or cynical manipulations of data.

And unlike climate modelers, weather forecasters are right most of the time.

Speaking of crackpots. It has been a little over one month since Hansen forecast a sea level rise of 25 meters this century.
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/news_repository/will-oceans-surge-59-centimetres-this-century-or-25-metres

If he is correct, sea level should have risen about one inch during the last month. I don't live near the beach and can't verify the good Doctor's prediction. Bangladesh and London should be underwater before the next US presidential election, which would guarantee a Democrat in the White House.

No wonder Soros is backing him. Soros made his money off shorting currencies in collapse (UK 1992, Malaysia 1997, among others) and insider trading, and he probably sees Hansen as a key player in bringing down the US economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros