Jim Hansen the Lysenko of our time

[dontgetoutmuch]

Since it is starting to become pretty obvious to John Q. Public that the world is not warming, and that a few “scientists”, Mann, Hansen, Schmit, Briffa, Jones and the other hockey team members have been instrumental in perpetuating the AGW scam that has wasted billions of dollars and will probably continue to so. One wonders if they will ever be held responsible for their crimes. Hansen has publicly stated that he feels the people responsible should be held accountable. I believe that we should give him what he wants. It is hard to charge politicians, especially from the far left as their behavior reprehensible as it is, is pretty much par for the course and, much as I and my fellow right wing conspirators would love to hold Gore and company responsible for their actions that is not going to happen. On the other hand, I think an true criminal investigation would find that the hockey team has engaged in chargeable criminal activity.

[socold]

The idea that Dr James Hansen has been fraudulently altering climate data to support man-made global warming has become a dogma among some climate skeptics. To understand how such a dogma can arise consider that over the years a drip feed of allegations against Dr James Hansen have been made through misrepresentations of valid data corrections and genuine errors. A heavy use of hearsay, assumption and outright false information does not evidence of fraud make. However these allegations have accumulated into widely spread meme.

I believe carriers of this meme don't actually remember the evidence behind their belief. Rather I suspect in their minds it's all a bit of a blur, a collection of news articles they read in the telegraph, the register, or on certain blogs.

Seeing as this thread title and subject is claiming a lack of scientific integrity by Dr James Hansen, equating him to a fraudulent Soviet scientist, this is a great place to expose the lack of evidence for Dr James Hansen committing fraud. Furthermore I will take accusations straight from this thread. I believe there are no more than perhaps a dozen types of actual allegations made against Dr Hansen and so the case against him is demonstrably depletable.

I will start by analyzing one particular allegation that I found repeated twice in the first 6 pages of this thread concerning the GISTEMP error in October 2008, but first are some general arguments I make and why these arguments weaken the case for fraud.

Insufficient Motive: With little or no motive, accusations of fraud make little sense. If the consequences of a manipulation clearly won't benefit the alledged manipulator it makes no sense why they would do so.

Better Alternative Explaination: With a better alternative explanation available than fraud, the case for fraud is weakened.

Non-factual Evidence: Evidence presented to back up the accusation of fraud is incorrect.

Fraud Allegation #1: October 2008 GISTEMP error

Raised twice between pages 1 and 6 of thread (6 was as far as I got):

So I take it from the latest news out of GISS that Hansen has faked the world October temperature using Sept data for Oct.

and

This "blunder" of utilization of Russian September temps for October, in conjunction with the deceptive headline "Hottest October on record"

Insufficient Motive

In this case there is a lack of motive for the alleged fraud. The error was so simple that it was inevitably going to be spotted and fixed quickly and was inevitably going to serve as an allegation platform by skeptics. Therefore the end result of deliberately engineering this error is incompatible with the allegation.

Non-factual Evidence

The idea that GISS published a report with the headline "Hottest October on record" crops up a lot with the inference of motive. But GISS did not publish any such report with any such headline.

Better Alternative Explaination

The GISTEMP website is updated every month with the previous month's data. In October 2008 NOAA changed part of the underlying data. This was not detected before the value was published.

There is no scientific reason to analyze the new value before publication to the website. Contrary to common assumption, new published values for any climate record are not used in scientific studies - precisely for the reason that fresh data is more preliminary and subject to errors being found. Using freshly released data comes with risk. It may be that that freshly released data changes under your feet if an error is fixed.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/ocean-heat-content-cooling-gone-today-with-new-adjustment/
wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/04/one-day-later-mauna-loa-co2-graph-changes-data-doesnt/

On the other-hand as we see here, publishing the data to a website can actually help find errors. The error was spotted by members of the public and it was fixed. This was so fast that many observers didn't get the chance to even see the incorrect values.

Ironically the only practical reason to actually check the data internally before publication to a website (unless as a mere ticking the box kind of formality), is a non-scientific one. Ie to reduce the PR hit of giving the skeptics another talking point (such as in this case www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3563532/The-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html).

Summary

Multiple weaknesses with this allegation confine it to anunsubstantiated status.

[sigurdur]

Oct 31, 2009 23:14:28 GMT socold said:

The idea that Dr James Hansen has been fraudulently altering climate data to support man-made global warming has become a dogma among some climate skeptics. To understand how such a dogma can arise consider that over the years a drip feed of allegations against Dr James Hansen have been made through misrepresentations of valid data corrections and genuine errors. A heavy use of hearsay, assumption and outright false information does not evidence of fraud make. However these allegations have accumulated into widely spread meme.

I believe carriers of this meme don't actually remember the evidence behind their belief. Rather I suspect in their minds it's all a bit of a blur, a collection of news articles they read in the telegraph, the register, or on certain blogs.

Seeing as this thread title and subject is claiming a lack of scientific integrity by Dr James Hansen, equating him to a fraudulent Soviet scientist, this is a great place to expose the lack of evidence for Dr James Hansen committing fraud. Furthermore I will take accusations straight from this thread. I believe there are no more than perhaps a dozen types of actual allegations made against Dr Hansen and so the case against him is demonstrably depletable.

I will start by analyzing one particular allegation that I found repeated twice in the first 6 pages of this thread concerning the GISTEMP error in October 2008, but first are some general arguments I make and why these arguments weaken the case for fraud.

Insufficient Motive: With little or no motive, accusations of fraud make little sense. If the consequences of a manipulation clearly won't benefit the alledged manipulator it makes no sense why they would do so.

Better Alternative Explaination: With a better alternative explanation available than fraud, the case for fraud is weakened.

Non-factual Evidence: Evidence presented to back up the accusation of fraud is incorrect.

Fraud Allegation #1: October 2008 GISTEMP error

Raised twice between pages 1 and 6 of thread (6 was as far as I got):

So I take it from the latest news out of GISS that Hansen has faked the world October temperature using Sept data for Oct.

and

This "blunder" of utilization of Russian September temps for October, in conjunction with the deceptive headline "Hottest October on record"

Insufficient Motive

In this case there is a lack of motive for the alleged fraud. The error was so simple that it was inevitably going to be spotted and fixed quickly and was inevitably going to serve as an allegation platform by skeptics. Therefore the end result of deliberately engineering this error is incompatible with the allegation.

Non-factual Evidence

The idea that GISS published a report with the headline "Hottest October on record" crops up a lot with the inference of motive. But GISS did not publish any such report with any such headline.

Better Alternative Explaination

The GISTEMP website is updated every month with the previous month's data. In October 2008 NOAA changed part of the underlying data. This was not detected before the value was published.

There is no scientific reason to analyze the new value before publication to the website. Contrary to common assumption, new published values for any climate record are not used in scientific studies - precisely for the reason that fresh data is more preliminary and subject to errors being found. Using freshly released data comes with risk. It may be that that freshly released data changes under your feet if an error is fixed.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/ocean-heat-content-cooling-gone-today-with-new-adjustment/
wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/04/one-day-later-mauna-loa-co2-graph-changes-data-doesnt/

On the other-hand as we see here, publishing the data to a website can actually help find errors. The error was spotted by members of the public and it was fixed. This was so fast that many observers didn't get the chance to even see the incorrect values.

Ironically the only practical reason to actually check the data internally before publication to a website (unless as a mere ticking the box kind of formality), is a non-scientific one. Ie to reduce the PR hit of giving the skeptics another talking point (such as in this case www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3563532/The-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html).

Summary

Multiple weaknesses with this allegation confine it to anunsubstantiated status.

SoCold:
The reason that there was even alligation speaks volumes in itself. When you look at hard paper published temps from 6 years ago, and look at those same temps now, they have changed. And the funny thing is, I have yet to see a change to colder. That is my observation.

And by Mr. Hansen's public statements, it is very clear that he has a huge agenda. WE all know that if we believe something, we look and, at time, ignore evidence that clashes with what we believe. Mr Hansen is human, and I am sure he does the same thing. It is like Briffa.......to even represent the temps from such a small area as anything other than a local anomoly is scientifically nonsense.

It is cold in North Dakota....Oct looks like 7.5F below the 30 year average for October. Will this show up on the anomoly map as such? Our very cold spring did not.

But just because it is cold in ND does NOT mean the world is cold, altho, with the very large area of North America that has been cold, I would be very surprised to see anything but a drop in world temps for this month as there are also other large areas that are cold.

We shall see how this all plays out. Do I consider Dr. Hansen a crook?.....no. Do I consider him a scientific source of knowledge anymore?.....also no.

[trbixler]

Dynamic history its all in the adjustments,GISStemp anyone?



From WUWT
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/giss-for-june-way-out-there/#more-9349

[socold]

Nov 1, 2009 1:56:30 GMT trbixler said:

Dynamic history its all in the adjustments,GISStemp anyone?



From WUWT
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/giss-for-june-way-out-there/#more-9349

There's hardly any change there. Look at the positions of the black dots. If you are merely wondering why there is change at all then that's because if the algorithm changes in any way, it has to be reapplied to all the raw data which in turn will change all of the temperature record.

[socold]

Oct 31, 2009 23:43:29 GMT sigurdur said:

SoCold:
The reason that there was even alligation speaks volumes in itself.

I expect such allegations would be made whether true or false.

I don't take such allegations seriously because ultimately Hansen doesn't have any leeway to manipulate the global temperature record in a way that would make any difference. The global temperature record consists of more than just the GISTEMP record and Hansen has no influence over the other records.

When you look at hard paper published temps from 6 years ago, and look at those same temps now, they have changed. And the funny thing is, I have yet to see a change to colder. That is my observation.

I only hear about changes to warmer because that's all skeptics take issue with. If skeptics didn't look for that kind of stuff I wouldn't even hear about changes to warmer.

And by Mr. Hansen's public statements, it is very clear that he has a huge agenda. WE all know that if we believe something, we look and, at time, ignore evidence that clashes with what we believe. Mr Hansen is human, and I am sure he does the same thing. It is like Briffa.......to even represent the temps from such a small area as anything other than a local anomoly is scientifically nonsense.

There's certainly a huge agenda against Hansen, and this is precisely why I expect such accusations to exist accusing him of fraud even if he hasn't.

It is cold in North Dakota....Oct looks like 7.5F below the 30 year average for October. Will this show up on the anomoly map as such? Our very cold spring did not.

North Dakota Spring did show up as cold in in GISTEMP.

[trbixler]

More 'adjustments', funny how we know better today how much temperature went up 100 years ago when adjusted in 2000 vs 2009 adjustments. It is hard to keep a straight face when looking at these adjustments to history, let alone defend them.



From WUWT Bob Tisdale

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-adjustments-galore-rewriting-climate-history/

[socold]

Nov 1, 2009 5:41:02 GMT trbixler said:

More 'adjustments', funny how we know better today how much temperature went up 100 years ago when adjusted in 2000 vs 2009 adjustments. It is hard to keep a straight face when looking at these adjustments to history, let alone defend them.

It's the same adjustments is it not?

This particular allegation of fraud against Hansen (read some of the blog comments) will be my next debunking. In short that blog link you have posted is actually a giant indictment against the blog itself. More tomorrow.

[socold]

Fraud Allegation #2: Rewriting U.S. climate history

This allegation has a particularly good case example in the form of the following blog post, which prompted many comments to make this fraud allegation. The blog owner did little to avert the snidely implied, if not outright, accusations of fraud in the comments. If anything the blog post, by not providing any context, clearly facilitated the commenters to make the allegations they did.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-adjustments-galore-rewriting-climate-history/

This image was just about the only information provided which many commenters thought was enough to base the fraud allegations on. This fact actually amazed me, that anyone could conclude fraud (or incompetence) based off a blink comparison:


Two of the dozens of the accusations made by commenters:

Accusation #1: "These guys have been caught at this type of shenanigans over and over, by Anthony and Steve Mcintyre at CA. I know you frown on words like fraud, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, ………."

Accusation #2: "Sorry, but there simply is NO OTHER WORD … and I am quite frankly tired of the GISS and this kind of crap. Everyone in this country who “thinks” there is AGW needs to be made painfully aware of these kinds of things. Most people simply have no clue what is going on, and thus will accept anything presented to them with the NASA logo. Shame, shame, shame … it’s all going to catch up to them in the end though!"

Better Alternative Explanation

I think "better alternative explanation" is a bit of a light description in this case. The commenters alleging fraud haven't even presented a case. They don't understand the change, they simply presume the change must be fraud. That's amazing indictment of the lack of evidence these guys require to dismiss stuff. "Information refuting the ignorant assumptions of fraud" would be a better title.

The fundamental error people on that blog make (evidentially the owner included) is to think that the temperature values determined in the 1999 analysis should be fixed in stone. This betrays a complete lack of understanding of the science. The fact is that all temperature records are compiled by applying an analysis to raw temperature data. If that analysis changes then the whole temperature record can change. It would actually be surprising if the temperature record didn't change when the analysis was changed.

So why did the pre-1999 record in GISTEMP change from 1999 to 2008?

The commenters are baffled:
baffled #1: "NASA is a government funded organisation, it must have somewhere in its systems a methodology for any adjustments it has made to historical temperature records. These should be publicly available. Has NASA given any reason for the adjustments?"

baffled #2: "I have to assume that NASA has legitimate reasons, at least from their own perspective, for all their adjustments. I am a bit surprised that a description of the adjustments has not been consolidated and made readily available for scrutiny."

I don't consider myself a God, but in this case I felt very close to that when I saw hundreds of commenters before me failing to comprehend answers that not only could I forsee but I could find in google in a few minutes.

Hansen et al. 2001
2001: A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change
Hansen, J.E., R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence, D. Easterling, T. Peterson, and T. Karl,
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/Hansen_etal.html

We compare the United States and global surface air temperature changes of the past century using the current Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis and the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) record [Karl et al., 1990]. Changes in the GISS analysis subsequent to the documentation by Hansen et al. [1999] are as follows:
(1) incorporation of corrections for time-of-observation bias and station history adjustments in the United States based on Easterling et al. [1996a],
(2) reclassification of rural, small-town, and urban stations in the United States, southern Canada, and northern Mexico based on satellite measurements of night light intensity [Imhoff et al., 1997], and
(3) a more flexible urban adjustment than that employed by Hansen et al. [1999], including reliance on only unlit stations in the United States and rural stations in the rest of the world for determining long-term trends. We find evidence of local human effects ("urban warming") even in suburban and small-town surface air temperature records, but the effect is modest in magnitude and conceivably could be an artifact of inhomogeneities in the station records. We suggest further studies, including more complete satellite night light analyses, which may clarify the potential urban effect. There are inherent uncertainties in the long-term temperature change at least of the order of 0.1°C for both the U.S. mean and the global mean. Nevertheless, it is clear that the post-1930s cooling was much larger in the United States than in the global mean. The U.S. mean temperature has now reached a level comparable to that of the 1930s, while the global temperature is now far above the levels earlier in the century. The successive periods of global warming (1900-1940), cooling (1940-1965), and warming (1965-2000) in the 20th century show distinctive patterns of temperature change suggestive of roles for both climate forcings and dynamical variability. The U.S. was warm in 2000 but cooler than the warmest years in the 1930s and 1990s. Global temperature was moderately high in 2000 despite a lingering La Niña in the Pacific Ocean.

This paper describes the changes made. Of course I doubt many, if any, of the readers of that blog have actually looked for this. Conspiracy theorists tend not to want their questions answered I suppose. This is a prime example of a non-argument entering the collective memories of skeptics (are these people worthy of the label "skeptic"?). A baseless argument which will nevertheless be added to hundreds of other baseless arguments in their minds. The one problem I had in writing this was picking harsh enough language to convey the snide, bone-ignorant, anti-scientific attitude displayed on that blog page. I suspect I am going easy on them. I leave you with this comment from the same blog post.

The blog owner: "Never ascribe conspiracy or fraud, when simple incompetence will do nicely"

Oh the irony.

[trbixler]

For Data
Standard archiving procedures require that as changes are made the changes have their own version, why the change was made, by whom the change was made and the date and time of the change. In contrast to no notes of any change being made. Then the dog ate the data
article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=

For programming and algorithms
Standard archiving procedures require that as changes are made the changes have their own version, why the change was made, by whom the change was made and the date and time of the change. In contrast to no notes of any change being made.

I cannot imagine a defense for the not having the above in place and further as the GISS data and programs are Tax payer funded the programs and data should be available to the public in a very transparent way.

[sigurdur]

Now I am curious as I missed the changes you refer to Socold.

What did NASA do to the temp record? I have not read Hansens paper, but from what you extracted, it would seem that the temp adjustments would show an even cooler US.

The uproar was over what?

[trbixler]

The GISS datasets are large and as such require detailed notes and commentary, scope
wattsupwiththat.com/?s=surface+station+adjustments
and here
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/20/and-now-the-most-influential-station-in-the-giss-record-is/
and here
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/30/mcintyre-on-ushcn2s-warmer-trend-treatment-of-orland/
and here
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/29/mcintyre-on-the-ncdc-talking-points-memo/
and here
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/an-australian-look-at-ushcn-20th-century-trend-is-largely-if-not-entirely-an-artefact-arising-from-the-%E2%80%9Ccorrections%E2%80%9D/
and here
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/24/ncdc-writes-ghost-talking-points-rebuttal-to-surfacestations-project/
and here
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/19/comparing-the-four-global-temperature-data-sets/

Adjustments for air conditioners next to temperature sensors and justifications as to why as opposed to getting the siting right and the data correct one can just adjust away. Note the adjustments are almost always up unless one wants to make a bigger up trend.

Then there is the problem of cherry picking the sites
chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/
and here
not to be boring


chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/africa-halle-barry-hot-steady-with-variable-coverage/

[Ratty]

Nov 1, 2009 15:50:49 GMT trbixler said:

not to be boring

I've heard of cherry picking. That must be Berry picking

[kiwistonewall]

The problem with Scientists overstepping the mark is hard for governments to deal with.

If Hansen was sacked (as I'm sure NASA would have loved to do!) there would have been a huge public backlash, and Hansen would almost certainly have sued for "wrongful dismissal" etc.

NZ is dealing with just such a popularist scientist, (and sacked!) Jim Salinger (You can google his name & follow the story as you wish.)
tvnz.co.nz/national-news/salinger-seeks-niwa-compensation-3081715
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Salinger

The problem with people like Hansen (and Salinger) is that they overstep the mark once & get away with it. Soon they feel untouchable.

If no action is taken, Hansen will just get more & more extreme in his Megalomania.

[dopeydog]

More green censorship.

www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26291548-601,00.html