Thanks to Anthony Watts, here is another example of the BOGUS Warming perpetuated by Hansen, Schmidt and the rest of the GISS charlatans:

Anthony Watts : "I wonder, do Dr.'s Schmidt and Hansen of GISS know just how bad some of the stations in their database are? Since there has been some discussion about how well 'adjustments' take care of such problems, I thought I'd show you just how well the GISS homogeneity adjustment works with this station."

Reply: My next post will be related to this. Brett

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/14/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-51/#comments

"The effect is quite clear. The recent 'spurious' measurement remains unchanged, and the past gets colder. The result? An artificial warming trend that is created by GISS adjustments."

If a scientist working for industry decided to go directly to the press with his/her individual beliefs, they would likely be escorted out of the office that afternoon.

In government, civil service employees are prohibited from using their position or title for political purposes.

In society in general, it is in most cases illegal for anyone to yell fire in a crowded theater.

Hansen is the most vocal and unconstrained scientist in history, and uses the "victim" label to garner attention and now to sell books.

Given that his temperature numbers consistently come in much higher than everyone else's, he also appears to be biasing his data towards higher book sales.

Reply: Keep in mind, he did not actually write the book.

Imagine if every scientist who could catch the media's attention, was taking their favorite pet theory directly to the press day after day - like Hansen does. Particularly for sensitive international political issues.

How would it be possible for the executive branch to run foreign policy in an environment where a loose cannon on the government payroll feels the need to go to the press several times a day and tell them that life on the planet is headed for catastrophe unless the US ends it's evil behavior?

Then he writes a book and complains that he is being censored. It is complete madness.

Reply: Hansen did not write the book "Censoring Science", Mark Bowen did.

Oh, please. Censorship? I must hear 1000 times a day some anecdotal evidence (taken as data, of course) of this, that or some other grave consequence of global warming. It's the journalist's favorite meme these days. What's more, a grant application for studying some aspect of global warming is a fast track to funding. I wish James Hansen would peddle his government funded paranoia somewhere else (I'm sure they love him at weather.com, where some would like strip global warming apostates of their meteorological credentials...)

Comments (2)
Anonymous:
Thanks to Anthony Watts, here is another example of the BOGUS Warming perpetuated by Hansen, Schmidt and the rest of the GISS charlatans:

Anthony Watts : "I wonder, do Dr.'s Schmidt and Hansen of GISS know just how bad some of the stations in their database are? Since there has been some discussion about how well 'adjustments' take care of such problems, I thought I'd show you just how well the GISS homogeneity adjustment works with this station."

Reply: My next post will be related to this. Brett

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/14/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-51/#comments

"The effect is quite clear. The recent 'spurious' measurement remains unchanged, and the past gets colder. The result? An artificial warming trend that is created by GISS adjustments."

Posted by Anonymous | February 15, 2008 1:01 PM

Patrick Henry:
If a scientist working for industry decided to go directly to the press with his/her individual beliefs, they would likely be escorted out of the office that afternoon.

In government, civil service employees are prohibited from using their position or title for political purposes.

In society in general, it is in most cases illegal for anyone to yell fire in a crowded theater.

Hansen is the most vocal and unconstrained scientist in history, and uses the "victim" label to garner attention and now to sell books.

Given that his temperature numbers consistently come in much higher than everyone else's, he also appears to be biasing his data towards higher book sales.

REPLY: C'mon Patrick! How could say such a blastphemy against the great Dr. Hansen? How could you resort to such "swift boat" tactics? Why I for one am applled!.....;-DDDDD.....

Save the planet from hot air. MUZZLE JAMES HANSEN....YESTERDAY!!!

Patrick Henry: Your responses leave me almost speechless! But perhaps that is part of your neferious plot. So now, scientists (except for the evil one - Hansen) are OK, just unfortunately human. It is really politicians who are evil. Except there are politicians who don't believe in AGW - so they must not be evil. So it is only SOME politicians - the AGW supporting ones - who are evil and stealing large sums of money from us all. Like all those politicians who were uncovered working in cahoots with Jack Abramoff, the convicted lobbiest. Except - wait a minute. Weren't those guys all non-AGW-believing Republicans? Oh well, I guess they were just human, also. So in the end we are no closer to knowing whether AGW is true or not following your belief system, which seems to be based on "don't believe any of the bastards." Well, good luck with that. I prefer to work toward the POSITIVE goal of making my community a better ( i.e. healthier, cleaner, more equitable) place to live. OH and we will get to the nonsense about AGW belief leading to economic disaster at a later date.

Dr. Hansen's is showing his altruism. He's obviously concerned about the 'censorship' the skeptics contend with and just trying to promote an open discussion.

...And this is the same James Hansen who calls the folks who blew the whistle on his "science" court jesters. He also appears regularly on television whereas those of a differing opinion can't get media time. I see censorship, but it doesn't seem to apply to James Hansen, except perhaps in a paranoid world of extreme AGW.

Anthony Watts : "I wonder, do Dr.'s Schmidt and Hansen of GISS know just how bad some of the stations in their database are? Since there has been some discussion about how well 'adjustments' take care of such problems, I thought I'd show you just how well the GISS homogeneity adjustment works with this station."

An excellent question! How about somebody directly asking Dr. Hansen (et. al) to explain these obvious erroneous readings and “adjustments” in simple language that we all can understand?
Katie- You have been put on the spot. Ask, then give him time to answer (even if it means postponing the interview) and don’t waste your time with any other questions until he has answered this question in a meaningful way. (that actually makes sense)
Failure to answer with specifics should be viewed with disdain and cast further doubt on ALL his adjustments as well as any adherence to scientific principles.
Enough is enough if “umpa” is so worried about his grandkids and getting the word out, this should be not big deal.

This is interesting
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.antarctic.0.html
The time lapse for 11, 12, 13 feb is static yet here
for the 15/02/05
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/antarctic.jpg
its the same!
The graph here
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
shows the SH flattening out alreaday and maybe be rising again for winter SH
Proud to be a skeptic

Check out the bar chart in a post on Roger Pielke Jr's Prometheus site. It shows in graphic fashion
the increase in the number of times James Hansen has
been covered in the media! The post is dated Feb. 11 and is called Technocracy versus Democratic Control.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/the_honest_broker/001342technocracy_versus_d.html

Here are Hansen's proposed "fixes":

(1) Public Affairs Offices should be staffed
by career professionals protected by civil service rules, not headed by political appointees,

(2) the practice of the White House OMB reviewing scientific testimony should be dropped.

I wonder if PH and Oiznop would share which of these they disagree with and why.

Patriot.
Those of you that say I am a patriot; is an inclusive remark, saying that you are a better American than the other. A patriotic American,can be a Catholic, Protestant,Jew,Islam,or Buddhist,or an Atheist. A patriotic American can
believe in fascism,Democracy,socialism,and communism. African American,white,red and yellow.The glue that binds us is our freedom, and not the religion of the politically correct,born again better than anybody else attitude. You can't handle the truth! So act,don't cry like babies. Solve the problem,don't waddle in it, or change the real topic. That's the most obvious lie. Stay off the topic. The fact that Global Warming exists
is the issue. Not that ... .... Hansen. Below is an article about, the changes in the hydrology system and a conspicuous lack of rain,and aerosols or dimming doesn't change a thing; in the BIGGER PICTURE!!Don't forget your sunglasses.
Has anyone read this board.Shameful, and soooDumb.
Kipp

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070315/

Here's some BIAS for you ! Betcha won't be hearing about this in your local AGW newscast or next AGW special on Science/Discovery Channel !

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html

Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the (Arctic) sea ice expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared to the average winter coverage in the previous three years.

"Clearly, we're seeing the (Arctic) ice coverage rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year," said Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa. The cold is also making the ice thicker in some areas, compared to recorded thicknesses last year, Lagnis added.

"The (Arctic) ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that's a significant increase," he said. If temperatures remain cold this winter, Langis said winter sea ice coverage will continue to expand.

poor Hansen

Anyone that does not fall for his line of BS, or has the nerve to ask him questions or for proof

is censoring him.

I don't think it's unreasonable for a government, any government, to ask questions or to ask for proof.
I would be more afraid if they didn't.

Censorship is a serious problem. Democrats in California are intent on making sure that one side of the debate is quashed, and that children are indoctrinated with one particular point of view. Similar to the way children were raised in the Soviet Union.

http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_8269190

A Silicon Valley lawmaker is gaining momentum with a bill that would require "climate change" to be among the science topics that all California public school students are taught.

The measure, by state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, also would mandate that future science textbooks approved for California public schools include climate change.

Thanks Brett for bringing important info to our attention. The Executive Branch's wish to force government scientists to ignore their findings and bow to political control is dangerous. And Hansen's focus in that piece is actually understated. Political control of science isn't just a threat to American democracy. It threatens mankind's health and safety now and for many generations.

Jim Hansen will win the Nobel Prize in Physics, he's that good. When he warned of global warming 20 years ago, he was roundly criticized. Many in the scientific community didn't believe him, felt he'd overstated his findings. But he was proven emphatically correct.

My local library has a copy of the book mentioned -
Censoring Science by Mark Bowen.

In typical Hansen modest form, he omits the full title:

http://www.amazon.com/Censoring-Science-Inside-Political-Warming/dp/0525950141/ref=pd_sim_b_title_8

Hansen's suggestion to staff the Public Affairs Offices of govt agencies with professionals rather than political appointees is worth considering. It would be a one much needed step toward regaining the public's trust.

The censored vs. the nonsense.

Unique marine life in Antarctica will be at risk from an invasion of sharks, crabs and other predators if global warming continues, scientists warn. In the last 50 years, sea surface temperatures around Antarctica have risen by 1 to 2C, which is more than twice the global average.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7248025.stm

That explains why Antarctic sea ice is increasing and SSTs around Antarctica are persistently blow normal.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ani-weekly.html

Any scientist can fabricate a ridiculous and baseless global warming story, and make the front page of the BBC - whereas serious scientists are censored because they present a politically incorrect view.

Taxpayers don't want civil servants pushing political agendas they don't agree with. By law NASA cannot promote political views; only scientifically verified data.

Hansen's way around this has been to have a sycophant create Realclimate. Judging from the time of Realclimate postings, this fellow often does Realclimate work when, if not actually at NASA, he should be at NASA. In essense the taxpayers are paying for illegal propaganda. Much of what Realclimate posts bashes other scientists, and would be illegal to post on the NASA site.

Add to this the fact Hansen directly and indirectly recieves funding from non-public sources, (including George Soros,) (Reply: Hansen denies that by the way.) and one can safely conclude the public has every right to question whether Hansen truely is a civil servant, or is just serving himself.

Civil Servants are suppose to be less opinionated than congressmen, yet if any congressman behaved in Hansen's manner there would be cries for a congressional investigation. Hansen has been treated with a great deal of tolerance, considering the stuff he does, the people he has bashed, the political power he has wielded, and the panic he has generated. If he sees the shadow of oppression, very likely it is his own shadow.

Global warming hits always cold and snowy San Diego

The mountains of San Diego County got between 6 and 12 inches of snow with snow falling and accumulating down to around 2,000 feet.

http://www.accuweather.com/news-blogs.asp?partner=forecastfox&blog=clark

Cryosphere Today is broken. The Arctic images have not been updated since February 11, so the graphs are likely to flat line in a couple of days.

I have alerted the person at UIUC in charge.

BT,

Consider the analogy vs. private industry. If a company allowed their engineers and scientists to speak freely to the press about their product, they would go out of business in a very short time. It is essential that external communications are somewhat controlled. The agenda of individual scientists and engineers tends to be very focused on their tiny view of the world.

AGW is big time global politics. It won't be long before the US is getting sued over every bad weather event that occurs in the world. It is essential that the government has control over communications.

Hansen wants a civil servant in control of AGW communications - i.e himself, or a person of his choice. Ultimately, the choice of the person in control is going to be a political decision. I doubt that either party would want a self-promoting loose cannon like Hansen in that role, and Hansen's article would seem to back that up.

Anyway, the biggest problem with censorship right now is that the press generally refuses to print the viewpoints of skeptics. Everyone in the world who pays attention to this issue knows Hansen's viewpoint ad nauseum. His complaints about censorship appear to be little more than paranoid delusions.

One more time, with feeling this time.

Two propositions:

(1) Public Affairs Offices should be staffed by career professionals protected by civil service rules, not headed by political appointees,

(2) the practice of the White House OMB reviewing scientific testimony should be dropped.

What's your answer, folks, and why?

Hi kevinag,

Corruption and incompetence is a serious problem in government, yet we generally choose it over anarchy for good reason (most of the time.)

As flawed as the political process is, we engage in it and hold elections to try to get the people in charge who will best take care of our interests. Once again, your desire to view the world in black and white terms clouds your judgment.

I wonder if Hansen is confusing censorship with setting policy. After all, the policy of the Executive Branch is the prerogative of the President, whoever is in power.

As for censorship, I can't help but find this is a bunch of bunk. As a general matter, Hansen has had no problem getting his message out. Secondly, if the executive branch was censoring him, you would think that you could not find his writings on Government sponsored sites. But wait, go to his NASA sponsored website. See the history of his publications:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html

There is zero credibility to the argument that he has been muzzled. In my opinion, this is purely a publicity stunt and politically motivated sham.

As for policy on testimony, maybe BT and I could agree on this point when it comes to pure scientific testimony. But never on policy matters, that is the prerogative of the President. What about congressional censorship and character assassination? I would suspect that is more of an issue than the executive Branch.