|
|
Post by socold on Nov 2, 2009 16:50:45 GMT
Fraud Allegation #3: US Temperature Record 1934 vs 1998Page 3: "Hansen's "mistake" of the 2000's being the hottest (later revised to have been the 1930's, never retracted in most complicit media)" Page 6: "No I don't except Hanson's numbers. If for no other reason than that since 1999, 1998 has slowly over taken 1934 as the warmest year of the last 100 years. Massaging data to fit the theory is his forte not scientific investigation." In 2007 an error was found that resulted in a downward correction to the GISTEMP record. This error got some people all in a flutter. What was the magnitude of the error? Here it is:  Virtually no change to the global temperature record. So in terms of climate change this affected nothing. A small change to recent years in the US temperature record, but again nothing to write home about. Hansen provides a detailed rebuttal of the claims: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.htmlInsufficient MotiveAs the correction caused no qualitative change in the implications of the data, there is no motive to fraudulently facilite the error. Non-factual Evidence1) Accusations that the error made the 2000s hotter are wrong. Even after the correction the 2000s are hotter than the 1930s. 2) The most oft cited claim was that the error made 1998 warmer than 1934. If you look at the graph you can see the data points for 1934 and 1998 are virtually identical, insignificantly different. A mere change in either year by a few thousandths of a degree can tip them back and forth in terms of ranking. For example Hansen et al, 2001 ( pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/Hansen_etal.html), , notes that "The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis (Plate 6)." Better Alternative ExplanationThis goes without saying that a better explanation is the one presented by Hansen that it was an error. SummaryMultiple weaknesses with this allegation confine it to myth status.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Nov 2, 2009 16:59:46 GMT
So, we're all agreed that 1934 was the warmest year to date in the United States? ;D
By the way anomaly graphs are, in their way, hilarious!
I like the McKitrick and Essex graph showing global mean temperature since the year 1000 in Kelvins, where T looks just like this:
_________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 2, 2009 17:07:39 GMT
So, we're all agreed that 1934 was the warmest year to date in the United States? ;D By the way anomaly graphs are, in their way, hilarious! I like the McKitrick and Essex graph showing global mean temperature since the year 1000 in Kelvins, where T looks just like this: _________________________________________________________________ The temperature of the planet in kelvin for the past billion years looks like this: _________________________________________________________________ What ice ages? |
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Nov 2, 2009 17:33:30 GMT
So, we're all agreed that 1934 was the warmest year to date in the United States? ;D By the way anomaly graphs are, in their way, hilarious! I like the McKitrick and Essex graph showing global mean temperature since the year 1000 in Kelvins, where T looks just like this: _________________________________________________________________ Don't you understand that all sarcastic remarks must be explicitly tagged as such or else people who believe that little old CO2 controls the world won't get the joke? |
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Nov 2, 2009 17:55:36 GMT
On the discussion of Fraud,
I very carefully did not mention the F-word (fraud) in my post. I believe I said “investigate”, and “criminal activity”. But now that the barn door is open.
Hansen appears to believe, based upon his actions, (public statements about death trains, being arrested for civil disobedience, encouraging other to engage in the same.) That the science is settled, and the time for action is upon us.
Interestingly enough, according to Hansen and his brethren the actions we most need to take resemble more than anything the actions taken in the past by socialists, dictators and despots. Not exactly a group of people guided by morals, or restrained by rule of law. Hansen has in fact advocated breaking the law if it furthers his cause.
Hansen believes that we should trust him as a scientist when he states that his temperature product proves anthropogenic global warming exists. However, no one but him and his peers are truly allowed to check his work. You can bet that when Hansen and team say “peer reviewed” what they really mean is that only people who are supporters of AGW are allowed to review their methods. Every. Single. Time that data and methods have managed to escape the clutches of the team it is EVIDENT that the purpose of the exercise is to maximize the warming signal. This includes creating a warming signal where none exists.
All the while his position as an AGW advocate is that people that support AGW need not feel bound to obey the rules of law. I have trouble believing that rational people don’t have a problem with this? I have heard the arguments of AGW supporters. I find myself unconvinced. The Hansen’s document that SoCold refered to, does not explain away the historical temperature adjustments. Instead it is clearly a transparent excuse needed by Hansen to explain away the adjustments that appear to enhance recent warming. Furthermore many of the adjustments appear to be designed to remove many of the recent negative signals in the data used by GISS while enhancing the same in the past.
The hockey team has been caught red handed:
1. Cherry picking data that supports their position.
2. Inverting data so that it supports their position.
3. Creating nonstandard methods of modifying raw data to support their position. (Adjustments.)
4. Concealing the raw data, and methods of adjustment to an extreme degree.
5. Engaging in tactics designed to conceal and protect team activities from scrutiny by non conforming scientists.
I don’t think that arguing that Hansen and company are not committing fraud, that instead they are just incompetent is going to work for very long. Is this really a viable argument? Furthermore, I find myself wondering what the people making the incompetent not fraudulent argument are thinking. Hansen himself stated that it is ok to break the law if it will further the cause. Hansen has been arrested for breaking the law. Why do people seem to think he won’t stoop to falsifying data and methods?
I would be happy to discuss any of the items above in detail should anyone be interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 2, 2009 19:27:17 GMT
I don’t think that arguing that Hansen and company are not committing fraud, that instead they are just incompetent is going to work for very long. Is this really a viable argument? Furthermore, I find myself wondering what the people making the incompetent not fraudulent argument are thinking. Hansen himself stated that it is ok to break the law if it will further the cause. Hansen has been arrested for breaking the law. Why do people seem to think he won’t stoop to falsifying data and methods? Certainly the majority of the public is going to believe its fraud. I can't help but think that this whole story comes off as a slow speed Bronco chase. . . .and OJ Simpson is still out there driving the freeways with a cordon of police vehicle in pursuit for 2 decades. LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 2, 2009 21:25:14 GMT
Hansen believes that we should trust him as a scientist when he states that his temperature product proves anthropogenic global warming exists. However, no one but him and his peers are truly allowed to check his work. First of all a temperature product does not prove AGW exists and I am sure Hansen hasn't claimed that. Second you can check his work by constructing a temperature reconstruction of the 20th century from station data yourself. Have you even read it? It's not about adjustments, it specifically addresses (and rebuts) the 1934 vs 1998 accusations. As for adjustments check out my rebuttal of: Fraud Allegation #2: Rewriting U.S. climate historysolarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=168&page=37#33383Skeptics don't actually have evidence Hansen has committed fraud. They don't even have evidence his work is incorrect. It's just a big old smear campaign against him. They have a handful of dodgy scientifically ignorant accusations, I've documented 3 now, more will come. Yes I will be addressing this one soon too Hansen isn't part of any "hockey" team. You are confusing an instrumental climate reconstruction with paleoclimate reconstructions. Do you have any proof or even evidence that Hansen has committed fraud, or even that he's incompetent? First of all he doesn't have any ability to "further the cause" through fraud. Secondly, and this is merely pointing out a possibility you haven't - he may be so willing to protest precisely because he hasn't faked the data or any of his results and that's why he believes them enough to want to take action on it. |
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Nov 2, 2009 21:33:00 GMT
“Hansen seems more comfortable, frankly, with the role of Inquisitor than with that of humble scientist.” Good point woodstove. Lets review the facts: Al Gore has advocated “Civil Disobedience”. Do you think he and his supporters will stop with that? Jim Hansen has already supported and advocated acts that are criminal in most countries” He also has advocated persecuting energy executives that have commintted no crimes by charging them with “crimes against humanity”. Hansen’s supporters like Heidi Cullen have advocated revoking the AMS certification of Meterologists who don’t agree or are skeptical of the claims made by agw. Other prominent supporters have advocated holding “Nuremburg like trials” for scientists who question agw. That in addition to all sorts of other accounts of people concerned about their jobs and families if they speak out against agw. Then there are the legislation and pending legislation that will cost taxpayers literally trillions of dollars and continue to increase regulation of into every facet of their lives. All based on what is no more than a controversial hypothesis that has no result of failure that can be tested for. This is not a scientific debate. This is a political prosecution. Perhaps even reaching to this site. Fraud is just something that happens along the road traveled toward acheiving a more sinister agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 3, 2009 1:29:43 GMT
So, we're all agreed that 1934 was the warmest year to date in the United States? ;D Hansen isn't in some remote outback of Siberia trying to convince the Eskimos there to give up their icemobiles. . . .thus its a little easier to tinker with those numbers than the numbers from some US weatherstation manned by some retired sea captain living on the internet. |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 3, 2009 1:39:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 3, 2009 1:56:28 GMT
Jim has furthered his own cause by about $720,000 from Soros This one is false This one is true |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 3, 2009 2:20:34 GMT
Jim has furthered his own cause by about $720,000 from Soros This one is false This one is true HOld it a minute.....did Mr. Hansen get a carte blanche check for 250K? Or was it to fund a study of some type? He is a government employee.......mmmmm......mmmmmmmm.....something isn't quit right here. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 3, 2009 2:33:48 GMT
He won an award.
The untrue $720,000 claim got parroted by many sources and just goes to show that these kind of "news" articles are sometimes just flat out false.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 3, 2009 2:50:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 3, 2009 2:53:29 GMT
He won an award. The untrue $720,000 claim got parroted by many sources and just goes to show that these kind of "news" articles are sometimes just flat out false. True, the claim was only partially correct. The funding was to an organisation to enable it to defend Hansen (else he would have had to pay the legal costs etc himself, poor thing) As to how much of the 720,000 was spend on Hansen is a moot point. The OSI report may only be showing that the Hansen defense was an example of how their 720,000 was being spent. From the OSI report: "Scientist Protests NASA’s Censorship Attempts James E. Hansen, the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, protested attempts to silence him after officials at NASA ordered him to refer press inquiries to the public affairs office and required the presence of a public affairs representative at any interview. The Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower protection organization and OSI grantee, came to Hansen’s defense by providing legal and media advice. The campaign on Hansen’s behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy." Wouldn't it be nice to be able to break the law, knowing that someone else would always be willing to pay the bills. |
|
