Jim Hansen the Lysenko of our time

[socold]

Jan 20, 2009 23:33:03 GMT tacoman25 said:

Jan 20, 2009 23:29:58 GMT socold said:

The 1980-present period it's UAH which is the outsider. HadCrut, GISS and RSS show about the same amount of warming over that period.

See above...again. UAH simply had a higher starting point in 1980, but overall trends are a very good match to the others.

Well there we go then. If only Watt's had noticed that UAH is in error in 1980 before he compared it to GISS and concluded GISS was wrong rather than UAH.

[tacoman25]

Jan 20, 2009 23:32:05 GMT socold said:

Jan 20, 2009 23:26:53 GMT tacoman25 said:

We have covered this point before, socold, yet you still like to come back to it. The only reason UAH is an "outlier" is because of their starting point. Overall trend-wise, they match very well with the other temp metrics.

Watt's article compared the linear trend of GISS 1980-present with the linear trend of UAH 1980-present and concluded (or snidely implied) that GISS was wrong.

The flaw with his argument is that over that period all the other records agree with GISS, not UAH. So if anything Watt's argument should be that UAH has been "suspiciously" adjusted.

The actual trend divergence of GISS since 2003 is not the same as the UAH divergence you speak of. Look at it this way: can you find another 5 year period in the record where UAH diverges from the other sources like GISS has the past 5 years? And remember, the 2003 starting point was pretty similar for all of the temp sources (they did not have a lot of divergence at that point)...so any UAH comparison would also need a similar starting point.

[dopeydog]

Just to keep all the evidence on Trofim tied together:

solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=384&page=1#9193

[jorgekafkazar]

Off-topic but strangely fascinating:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex_(self-concept)

"Messiah complex is a state in which the individual believes themselves to be, or destined to become, the saviour of...a time period, or in an extreme scenario, the world. This could also be the state in which a group views an individual as a messiah, such as followers of a cult leader. The cult leader doesn't have to claim to be a messiah, but if he is treated as such by his followers, it can also be classified as such...."

[dopeydog]

I'd laugh at this if the author wasn't so serious:

www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/jan/17/its-time-to-get-past-urgency-denial/opinion/

and of course this:

www.alternet.org/environment/118458/join_wendell_berry_and_bill_mckibben_in_civil_disobedience_against_coal-fired_power_plants/

Have to monitor this to see how non-violent it actual will be.

[Acolyte]

So... le sigh... I guess that means there are no examples of times when the atrocious errors of past temperature monitors led to an alteration in making the past temps warmer & the modern ones cooler?

Sort of implies something basic wrong with the sceince doesn't it - I mean if all those different methods of trying to do real science were so wrong and ALL in the same direction, maybe there's a basic flaw in the whole temperature measurement process. If it was merely something personal to humans involved or maybe faulty quality control of instrumentation then you'd expect that at least sometimes the error would be the other way.

Or maybe it's as most of us think - the bias is human - the process involves deliberately deconstructing carefully measured data sets to ensure a pre-decided result in order to pursue an agenda & the urge simply to keep the billions flowing with a blatant disregard for the reputation of Science itself.

[SDJ]

When this whole global warming thing got started and the models were being thrown about, I always wondered about the accuracy of the thermometers they were using 10,000 years ago.

[magellan]

Scientist Behaving Strangely? The Case of James Hansen

masterresource.org/?p=408

[SDJ]

I never trust scientists who lack the cojones to boldly split an infinitive:

"ten years to alter fundamentally"

[icefisher]

Jan 22, 2009 3:31:41 GMT Acolyte said:

So... le sigh... I guess that means there are no examples of times when the atrocious errors of past temperature monitors led to an alteration in making the past temps warmer & the modern ones cooler?

Sort of implies something basic wrong with the sceince doesn't it - I mean if all those different methods of trying to do real science were so wrong and ALL in the same direction, maybe there's a basic flaw in the whole temperature measurement process. If it was merely something personal to humans involved or maybe faulty quality control of instrumentation then you'd expect that at least sometimes the error would be the other way.

Or maybe it's as most of us think - the bias is human - the process involves deliberately deconstructing carefully measured data sets to ensure a pre-decided result in order to pursue an agenda & the urge simply to keep the billions flowing with a blatant disregard for the reputation of Science itself.

I have been doing modeling for 30 years. Big models are like a siren. They keep beckoning you towards the rocks.

Either you get up and go look outside or you are doomed to land on the rocks. When the model is big enough and has enough assumptions you can justify anything and do it with a clear conscience.

Hansen at GISS seems to like to indiscrimately just throw out sources he doesn't like. Since the guy advocates and is supportive of violent civil disobedience to achieve the aim of alerting the world about CO2 he shouldn't be in charge of anything doing with our data records.

But now that he has the dream boss in Jane Lubchenko (eerily rhymes with Lysenko), the queen of manufactured science to support policy. . . .nothing is going to change in the near future. . . .more than likely it is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

[Acolyte]

Jan 22, 2009 5:39:27 GMT icefisher said:

I have been doing modeling for 30 years. Big models are like a siren. They keep beckoning you towards the rocks.

Either you get up and go look outside or you are doomed to land on the rocks. When the model is big enough and has enough assumptions you can justify anything and do it with a clear conscience.

Hansen at GISS seems to like to indiscriminately just throw out sources he doesn't like. Since the guy advocates and is supportive of violent civil disobedience to achieve the aim of alerting the world about CO2 he shouldn't be in charge of anything doing with our data records.

But now that he has the dream boss in Jane Lubchenko (eerily rhymes with Lysenko), the queen of manufactured science to support policy. . . .nothing is going to change in the near future. . . .more than likely it is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Yes I know - you'd think people could look at Windows & realise just how easy it is for programming to be farcical. Yet no matter how much we point out the strange rituals they perfom in their congregational meetings & how little it has to do with science, they persist in believing.

And worse, those who dare question the dogma get labelled with various supposed opinions & ideologies even when all we say is 'check the facts.'

One day, assuming survival through the ice, we might actually grow up past the need to 'believe' without evidence. One day we may learn that belief should always be subject to reality, not the other way around.

Fortunately, Nature (or God Kiwi, or Goddess for others) doesn't seem to understand S/He was meant to wait until the powers behind the puppets, the figures casting the shadows, could get their invidious taxes in place.

There's a chance - when average joe can't get his newspaper off the porch because the ice has stuck it down, he may learn to ignore the whole 'it's getting warmer' spiel & look up at the sky.

With the massive increases in performance, complexity & power, computers can now deliver, faster than ever before, answers as wrong as the original assumptions. With the right simplifications, they can be wronger, faster.

[kiwistonewall]

Acolyte, yes, I do believe in God, but I am also a strong skeptic, and like to see the evidence.

(Give me an opening, and I'll drive a truck through it!)

I simply cannot accept that this incredible world we live in, with all its complexity, rose entirely by chance. I don't try to define God, I just accept & worship. Of course, I could be wrong & the whole thing is just a great big throw of the dice, with no meaning. I prefer the former! ;D

I can see that WHAT IS is so finely balanced that there is no absolute proof of the existence (or non-existence) of God. So no one is compelled to believe, while at the same time, everyone is without excuse for not believing. Faith, as the good book says, is a gift of God, that no man may boast, yet, no one, seeking God, will be rejected.

I do take Christianity as a working Hypothesis, but also totally understand that it is internally consistent & non falsifiable. I also take the Bible as my absolute authority for all matters of faith & doctrine, but understand that it is God communicating to mankind in the words of the writers in their language, and in the context of their understanding at the time they wrote it. Unlike some fundamentalists (Creationists etc) who take an extreme literal view of scripture, and try and reconcile the world to 4000BC science.

AGW tries to be internally consistent & non falsifiable, but fails miserably. I can see how AGW proponents function as a religion in this way. The central idea is non-negotiable, and whatever happens just gets interpreted inside their framework, which is adjusted to "explain" the new facts.

Of course, as a Christian, I have a dualistic view of climate change.
From one perspective, I have trust in God's providence that He will take care of His Creation, and from another, I believe that man is to be a steward of Creation, and will be held responsible.

Still, if the world wasn't planned, has no purpose, then it matters not a whit if we warm or freeze, since there is no absolute meaning, and all that lies ahead is the heat death of the Universe.

I affirm meaning! ;D

[dopeydog]

Most of this deals with "expert elicitaion" (educated guessing).

www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap5-2/sap5-2-final-report-all.pdf


Here's the thing about "expert elicitation". If you had asked economists and real estate agents about the the price of homes a year ago. Nearly 100% would have claimed they would continue to increase.

Also one should read "Incredible popular delusions and the madness of the crowds"

[Acolyte]

Jan 22, 2009 11:32:01 GMT kiwistonewall said:

Acolyte, yes, I do believe in God, but I am also a strong skeptic, and like to see the evidence.

(Give me an opening, and I'll drive a truck through it!) /snip

...I affirm meaning! ;D

that's a mighty big truck through a tiny opening that was, after all, a nod in the direction of not causing offence. *grins* Maybe Bondi needs a better fence?

And personally, I lean towards meaning as well - just not at all certain of the format of it all. Too many little coincidences going on.

For mine, agw is just another religion, man-made, with control of the masses as a end goal & using a good purpose to crass ends. (good purpose as in looking after this world)

[dopeydog]

Thanks to our new President, we now can add John Holdren, Jane Lubchenko, and Carol Browner to our subject on this thread. These people are not interested in science, they are interested in reducing the human population of this planet..particularly Holdren and Browner. Corrupting science is just another method for them to achieve their aim.