|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 2, 2009 17:28:43 GMT
Apparently, in steve's world, a phony survey is physically documenting measurement instruments based on standards set forth by CRN. That would mean then a "real" survey is sitting in a cubicle programming models manipulating data to agree with the programmer's preordained conclusions. Have you read McIntyre's collation of how AGW hucksters like Schmidt/Hansen et al are bastardizing statistics to get the results they want? www.climateaudit.org/?p=6440Financial hucksters are in prison for violating GAAP - (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) McIntyre painted these guys with the same brush saying they follow GARP (Generally Accepted RealClimate Principles) |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 2, 2009 18:13:35 GMT
Icefisher, you obviously did not read what I said - how moronic is that?  I was taking issue with the "in a few thousand years' time, once things have settled down" qualifier. The fact is as ice retreats, CO2 increases, and the more feedback; that will result in more critters right now. You have expressed your conclusions before about extinctions and delays in evolution following the prattle of the AGW alarmists about the doomsday ahead of too fast climate change and runaway warming. I am saying there were extinctions yesterday, there are extinctions today, and there will be extinctions tomorrow no matter which way the planet goes. As its going now there are more extinctions but its not due to global warming but instead due to more important issues like water quality and non-point source pollution. If AGW is doing anything its mitigating that some. What is really scary is the idea of some idiot flying the plane, while its getting colder, the jetstreams are moving south bringing drought to the NH, people are getting hungry; and the pilot is working on making the plane dive. . . .while fudging (recalibrating) the instruments while saying the plane is gaining too much altitude. This is the perfect thread to be talking about scientists flying any plane. If you think the Industrial Revolution sprung out of nowhere in the 19th Century then your reading of history is a little lax. Who said that? I said the bulk of industrial revolution occurred in the 19th century when business was good and people were prosperous. That prosperity has increased throughout the warming period. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 4, 2009 9:59:29 GMT
If you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore the fact that most scientists think there is a risk, and come up with extremely dodgy and unsupportable arguments about how it can't possibly happe, then go ahead. Fact is, that Hansen *does* have the backing of the world's scientists for his opinion that levels of CO2 are a grave risk to our way of life. So before that pompous prat, Anthony Watts, criticises Hansen and demands Hansen's sacking for the action he is taking, he needs to do a lot more with his little photo survey. Sounds like you may be losing your cool, Steve. Don't worry about me. I mean what I say, but I say it without becoming overwrought. As Slartibartfast said, "My name's not important". Anthony Watts wants to make his name with his website. You want to make your name with your website. You both therefore have a strong interest in maintaining a particular position in the debate. For example, you appeared to brush off my recent findings about sea level changes in the Holocene because they did not accord with your semi-public position. I have a highly googleable name. I want to be able to debate and learn and be free with my thoughts and opinions without worrying about what my friends, associates and current or future employers might think of what I say. Please assume that my scientific background biases me strongly towards the scientific opinion. But please also assume that my relative anonymity allows me more freedom of expression. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 4, 2009 10:22:24 GMT
If you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore the fact that most scientists think there is a risk, and come up with extremely dodgy and unsupportable arguments about how it can't possibly happe, then go ahead. Fact is, that Hansen *does* have the backing of the world's scientists for his opinion that levels of CO2 are a grave risk to our way of life. Poppycock! Fact is most of the scientists you are talking about have a view of the world having never left the hallowed halls. They are full of theories and credentials but very short on real world hands on experience. Bottom line is who are you going to trust to bring in a field of wheat, an ecologist or a farmer? It's unscientific poppycock to suggest that you have to have ploughed a field and reaped a crop to have a view. My farming friends appreciate the help they get from the pesticides, fertilisers, tractors, seed suppliers, designers of irrigation equipment and developers of those polythene crop propagators. I think Lysenko would have been a huge supporter of co2science.org "we call it life". LOL indeed. He's advocating sacking a man for using his lawful right to protest. I look forward to your condemnation of the Boston Tea Party goers and the peaceful campaigners against the Iran election results. Hansen and Schmidt do not run world climate science. Any basic reading of the literature, including the IPCC report, will provide you with a reflection of the level of debate in many areas of the science. I myself have reflected one of these issues (sensitivity vs forcing in 20th Century hindcasts). None of it sufficiently detracts from the fact that there is a real risk, backed by observations and proxy data, of CO2 levels causing damage. And to campaign peacefully against coal-burning is an entirely rational reaction to it. Watts on the other hand is attempting to conduct a Soviet-style shoutdown. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 4, 2009 10:32:57 GMT
Icefisher, you obviously did not read what I said - how moronic is that? I was taking issue with the "in a few thousand years' time, once things have settled down" qualifier. The fact is as ice retreats, CO2 increases, and the more feedback; that will result in more critters right now. You have expressed your conclusions before about extinctions and delays in evolution following the prattle of the AGW alarmists about the doomsday ahead of too fast climate change and runaway warming. The Industrial Revolution would not have taken place without the large social changes that took place - particularly in the 17th and 18th centuries when, according to Akasofu, icebergs were floating through the straits of Gibralter. Really what we have here is you letting by without question any vague claim of prosperity due to any hint of warmth, but debating fiercely any evidence that suggests that, frankly, humans have been prosperous in almost any environment when they've put their mind to it. Altogether: Warm good. Cool bad. Two legs good. Four legs bad. |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jul 4, 2009 11:16:39 GMT
Sorry, Steve. Your fear of being known as the author of your own thoughts, while understandable, does not bolster your positions in the way that you seem to hope.
If this debate were on a stage, you would have a curtain around you, and only a first name.
Are you seeing it?
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Jul 4, 2009 14:44:37 GMT
Since James Hansen has been openly violating terms of his employment for decades, it is not unethical for any of us to demand his termination.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 4, 2009 14:54:24 GMT
Poppycock! Fact is most of the scientists you are talking about have a view of the world having never left the hallowed halls. They are full of theories and credentials but very short on real world hands on experience. Bottom line is who are you going to trust to bring in a field of wheat, an ecologist or a farmer? It's unscientific poppycock to suggest that you have to have ploughed a field and reaped a crop to have a view. My farming friends appreciate the help they get from the pesticides, fertilisers, tractors, seed suppliers, designers of irrigation equipment and developers of those polythene crop propagators. Thats their role, supporting. We have a democracy because there is no monopoly on intelligence. The common farmer or any person who works hard for a living has a better conceptual view of the world than somebody who labors in an ivory tower using only a single organ. I think Lysenko would have been a huge supporter of co2science.org "we call it life". LOL indeed. Is co2science.org suggesting science be mandated by the government? I have no idea as I have never been to the site. He's advocating sacking a man for using his lawful right to protest. I look forward to your condemnation of the Boston Tea Party goers and the peaceful campaigners against the Iran election results. I agree with Anthony on that. Protesting is for the powerless. Nothing is served by Hansen protesting except that it destroys his image as being independent. And it really doesn't matter which side of the aisle you are on when the keeper of the data appears lacking independence; all confidence is destroyed. Except of course the confidence of the eunuchs guarding the ark of the models, who accept it all as a matter of faith. Unless of course your objective is to break confidence in government and science in the first place. Indeed he should be fired. I would fire somebody advocating civil disobedience on my own positions from that perch. But the guys like Hansen and Schmidt don't want you to know they don't know. And thats true even if they are right because these people have been professionally educated in the topic of knowing and they know they don't really know. That effectively puts them in the same company as Ken Lay/Jeff Skilling, Michael Milken, Bernard Ebbers, and Bernie Madoff. Hansen and Schmidt do not run world climate science. Any basic reading of the literature, including the IPCC report, will provide you with a reflection of the level of debate in many areas of the science. I myself have reflected one of these issues (sensitivity vs forcing in 20th Century hindcasts). None of it sufficiently detracts from the fact that there is a real risk, backed by observations and proxy data, of CO2 levels causing damage. And to campaign peacefully against coal-burning is an entirely rational reaction to it. Watts on the other hand is attempting to conduct a Soviet-style shoutdown. There are so many inaccuracies in that statement its hard to know where to start. 1) What damage has CO2 caused? 2) Hansen may not run climate science, but he is the keeper of the data. . . .thats a position from which the public should expect independence. And what I mean by independence isn't that you not have an opinion, but that you respect the institutions you work for even more. 3) Its stupid for somebody in Hansen's place to sacrifice all shreds of the image of independence to add another voice to a protest line. Its my view he is doing more damage to your cause than he is helping it. His ignorance in not recognizing that well established fact brings into question his judgement on everything else. He is a stupid man. 4) I would root for Hansen to protest more if my primary interest in all this were to convince the world that its wrong for government to regulate based upon uncertain science. I think it is wrong to do that; but I think it is more wrong to not regulate on good science. And that is the principle I see Hansen destroying by his actions. 5) I think a Soviet-style shutdown is where you send in force to stop the powerless from protesting. Firing somebody from a position of responsibility because he is destroying his own image of independence is the right thing to do. Now let me be clear here. I think its fine if Hansen gets up and in the mold of the Surgeon General on smoking and pronounce his opinion, right or wrong. Thats not what I am objecting to. What I am objecting to is civil disobedience and his defense of violent acts in advancing the cause. To hold the position he holds he should act responsibly in his role as a believer in the system. If you think the system sucks then get out of the system, resign, and then go protest. Now to take it a step further. It would not have necessarily helped Bush to have fired Hansen, as that would also appear to lack independence. But the smart thing for Obama to do would be to ask Hansen to resign and if he did not then fire him and if Hansen refused to resign, then Obama being a supporter of the CO2 theory could credibly stand up and say honestly why he fired the guy (namely for the reasons I outlined) and have it come off as credible. And credible of a reason it is. Bottom line is Hansen should find employment in his pursuit of civil disobedience. Take a job with NRDC or something like that and play the role straight up. |
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Jul 4, 2009 15:05:30 GMT
Roy Spenser was in the same position as Hansen during the Clinton/Gore administration. He kept his mouth shut for a year as directed by Al Gore and then decided to leave NASA for UAH, before speaking out.
Hansen should not only be terminated but he should lose his pension.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 4, 2009 16:41:43 GMT
It's mock outrage. The skeptics have been accusing him of fraud for years. Am I to believe that a mere protest is the "final straw"? Worse than the acts of scientific fraud which they accuse him of?
No, I think this is just about latching onto something new by which they hope they can get him fired with.
I think the last people to be "independent" to judge if Hansen has brought his employer into disrepute are the tabloid skeptic blogs. I suspect he won't be fired because apart from a minority of skeptic blog readers, noone else gets the fuss they are making.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 4, 2009 17:35:59 GMT
SoCold:
It is about honor. When you become a Fed Employee you give up the right to protest. That is part of being a Federal Employee of the USA.
IF you have no more honor than to break that pledge that you give......what validity do you have in anything? You have proven that you are a man/woman without honor.
That is the plain simple truth. Out here in the heartland of the USA, we still think of honor as one of the highest obligations we have.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 4, 2009 18:14:08 GMT
Sorry, Steve. Your fear of being known as the author of your own thoughts, while understandable, does not bolster your positions in the way that you seem to hope. If this debate were on a stage, you would have a curtain around you, and only a first name. Like most people on most forums then. That's fine by me. It's nice to be normal sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Jul 5, 2009 0:41:07 GMT
Would our respective positions in relation to Hansen's conduct be the same were Adolf Eichmann, rather than honourably complying, to instead, have protested against government, its institutions and conduct? Would Eichmann not now be a hero had he protested, perhaps even violently, rather than be the embodiment of evil? Let's concentrate on the issue, not the person. Unless, of course, Hansen actually causes global warming or cooling. And, if he can do that - well then he would be a hero and saviour and all that.
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Jul 5, 2009 1:54:12 GMT
The point of this thread IS the person, namely James Hansen. He is advocating a political agenda just like Trofim Denisovich Lysenko and Stalin did some 70 years ago did in the USSR. Neither he nor others like Paul Ehrlick, Al Gore, John Holdren and Carol Browner have any interest in scientific truth. They only want fewer people on this planet or in the case of Gore simply a thief wanting money. We are the vermin they want to eradicate or steal from.
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 5, 2009 4:35:59 GMT
Would our respective positions in relation to Hansen's conduct be the same were Adolf Eichmann, rather than honourably complying, to instead, have protested against government, its institutions and conduct? Would Eichmann not now be a hero had he protested, perhaps even violently, rather than be the embodiment of evil? Let's concentrate on the issue, not the person. Unless, of course, Hansen actually causes global warming or cooling. And, if he can do that - well then he would be a hero and saviour and all that. He makes the "trains of death" comparison. While there are also sociopolitical issues holding back the developing nations...if they had such "trains of death" as a part their societies...life expectancy would be greatly increased and their ability to combat any "climate change" would be similar to that of the industrial world (trivial). The policies he endorses lead to near 100% premature death in the developing nations while leaving them defenseless against the very thing he claims to be trying to save them from. In my opinion it is indeed a fairly good comparison...Lysenko and Hansen |
|
