Skip to comments.Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression (NYC Conference Report)
Posted on 03/06/2008 4:13:54 PM PST by EPW Comm Team
click here to read article
|· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·|
Whoops, and Thanks!
Well clearly Hansen has never been muzzled. The man never seems to shut up, especially about how he's being censored. Yet, as a government employee, he keeps his algorthims to himself. The following is from Steve McIntyre who exposed the Mann Hockey Stick fraud and caught Hansen making errors in temperature adjustments that inflated recent GISS reported temperatures...
There are some real and interesting statistical issues with the USHCN station history adjustment procedure and it is ridiculous that the source code for these adjustments (and the subsequent GISS adjustments - see bottom panel) is not available/
Closing the circle: my original interest in GISS adjustment procedures was not an abstract interest, but a specific interest in whether GISS adjustment procedures were equal to the challenge of fixing bad data. If one views the above assessment as a type of limited software audit (limited by lack of access to source code and operating manuals), one can say firmly that the GISS software had not only failed to pick up and correct fictitious steps of up to 1 deg C, but that GISS actually introduced this error in the course of their programming.
According to any reasonable audit standards, one would conclude that the GISS software had failed this particular test. While GISS can (and has) patched the particular error that I reported to them, their patching hardly proves the merit of the GISS (and USHCN) adjustment procedures. These need to be carefully examined. This was a crying need prior to the identification of the Hansen error and would have been a crying need even without the Hansen error.
One practical effect of the error is that it surely becomes much harder for GISS to continue the obstruction of detailed examination of their source code and methodologies after the embarrassment of this particular incident. GISS itself has no policy against placing source code online and, indeed, a huge amount of code for their climate model is online. So its hard to understand their present stubbornness.
So Hansen has a history of suppressing information while crying out that he's being suppressed.
Hansen was never muzzled. He's had over 1,400 interviews, including 15 during the month leading up to one of his claims of censorship. The fact is that Hansen doesn't think he should follow the established government procedure (i.e., the rules don't apply to Hansen. Source
Hansen is the guy who gets $250,000 from the Teresa Heinz Kerry controlled Heinz Foundation (press release on March 5, 2001). Source
Hansen then turns around a few years later and endorses Kerry for president. To me, this looks really bad (isn't it the left who is always claiming money is influenzing skeptics? - and this doesn't even get into the $720,000 of gifts from George Soros to Hansen). Source
Even without the money, I think it's unseemly for a top NASA official to endorse a political candidate. As a private citizen, Hansen can do what he wants, but when he comes out with a public endorsement he's bringing the weight of his office to bear in a political race. A government payroll scientist should be non-partisan and above politics. This guy is shameful.
Personally, Zágoni will inherently carry more credibility than Hansen with anyone who reads about the crap Hansen foists on the public from Climate Audit from time to time (remember, McIntyre's caused GISS to restate their results once and continually points out flaws in the data and adjustments). Follow some of the sordid practices of the greenies and you won't doubt the veracity of Zágoni's claims.
Er, uhm, no.
Please re-read (read for the first time ?) “The Skeptical Environmentalist” for the actual status of woodlands, “commercial” forests, rain forests, and - well, bluntly put - jungles. See also his analysis of “diversity”, the numbers of acres/hectares of each, and the re-growth of forests.
See also the Idos’ website www.co2science.org for a better (more accurate) treatment of what is actually happening with CO2 levels, and plant growth due to higher CO2.
In regards to increased production via CO2. Could be a blip and wouldnt be surprising. However you are mistaking crop productivity with photosynthesis. Crop productivity isnt really a good measure of photosynthesis potential. NAtural forest land provides the diversity that allows for different fluctuation. Ag fields and controlled commercial tree plantations are not that helpful in the long run.
Er, uhm, wrong. False. Dead wrong.
1. The biggest part of the carbon sequestering happens in the EARLY RAPID growth that IS typical of the denser, faster-growing “commercial” forest you so despise for some reason. Mature forests have very little growth overall (they are akin to deserts under the canopy - and cannot grow new trees and smaller plants UNTIL forest fires burn out the canopy), and what fewer trees are present are slow-growing older ones. The rest of the earlier trees have DIED and decomposed back - releasing their “stored” CO2 back into the air.
Commercial forests, and regrowing natural forests after clearing-cutting for wood fires - STORE CO2 from the air into the wood fibers, and ONLY IF those wood fibers are REMOVED from the forest into wood products and houses after 12-18 years growth, ONLY THEN is the CO2 removed from the air for long periods. (Eventually, of course, even wood houses are recycled, but that too is ignored by the enviros’ who are typically careless with their “facts”.)
Otherwise, commercial forests re-grow faster and denser than natural forests. They have comparable insect and small animal populations - a clear cut area is essentially identical to a forest fire cleared area. Except that commercial forest ARE REPLANTED with year-old healthy seedlings and so grow FASTER than natural pollen scattering.
2. Wood burning is the main cause of loss of forests, trees, woodlands, and individual trees and sticks and brush in Africa, SE Asia, and elsewhere. ONLY where commercial harvesting can move the wood to sawmills is it a factor, and then - most of the time, they cut the larger more valuable trees.
3. Coal is by far the biggest contributor to CO2 production. One unit of coal (atomic weight = 12) burns to produce 44 units of CO2 (atomic weight 44 = 12 + 16 + 16) The billions of tons of coal burned each year do directly add to the natural CO2 present in the atmosphere - about 1/3 of ONE percent of all greenhouse gasses are from man-made sources of ALL kinds.
The rest (99.97 percent) of the greenhouses gasses ARE ALL NATURAL, and CANNOT be decreased by controlling, then destroying the world's economy. Though that is what the enviro’s want. 4. I would NOT call a 27% increase in plant production a "blip" due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere - that "blip" is feeding billions of people. Steadily and constantly. Every day. It (photosynthesis IS how plants grow!) also affects plankton and trees and algea and coral and grass and moss and ....
Let's clarify that. They are closely correlated (to judge from the ice core sampling)...
But the Gore-ons have it backwards. Temperature changes are a LEADING indicator of what CO2 concentrations will be: the libs have it backwards.
You certainly identified the many flaws in Hansen's pronouncements. Hansen's unscientific behavior has been a deep embarrassment to many scientists in NASA and in GISS. I agree that Hansen has never been muzzled, but just threw out the allegations because he knew he had willing accomplices in the MSM.
I also agree that Zágoni's claims have substance. That is why it is puzzling that he would be muzzled. I have (or had) a deep respect for the scientific integrity of the NASA team in general, but have been somewhat concerned about the possible political-motivated origination and, more recently, the politically-motived direction of the Earth Science program, especially in light of the lack of discipline in Hansen's case.
The scientific oppression revealed in this article is a repetition of the scientific oppression that occurred in the areas of geology and evolution. One side takes over control of the science and suppresses all evidence contrary to their viewpoints.
NASA's always kept a good eye towards funding, but that's any bureaucracy. Bureacracies can be remarkably Darwinian when it concerns their institutional survival.
However, to your point, I don't know that "NASA" as a whole is suspect. GISS is another story. Spend some time at Climate Audit and you'll be amazed that someone doesn't simply shut down or clean house at GISS.
In all fairnss, I should have noted that Hansen did ultimately release the source code, though grudgingly.
Might want to look at Mars again.
I think you skipped over it....
BTW, FWIW, Venus is 50 million miles closer to the Sun than we are....
However, you may have stumbled on the "research" the "climate change scientists" used to determine your hypothesis....
Google Search Results:
Results 1 - 10 of about 213,000 for Dr. James Hansen, NASA.
Results 1 - 10 of about 336 for Dr. Miklós Zágoni, NASA
Now make your guess which is being muzzled? And the really sad part is that while Hansen has never once in his long career been credited with any significant scientific achievements, Zágoni proved that an 80 year old equation thought to be correct was actually wrong, (very wrong) and he developed a corrected equation. NASA spiked the discovery!
Hansen is a media whore.
Only in James Hansen's magic computer model. I think you would be better off if you understood that according to physics, increased CO2 does does not, and can not lead to runaway warming.
Click the link to see the peer reviewed paper that demonstrates that the AWG crowd has been using a flawed models, and they damn well know it's flawed.
I don’t find it terrible either. But I don’t believe the earth is 6000 years old like creationists do.
One wonders whether their lefty friends who rule Congress now may have second thoughts about ramming through foolish legislation, such as "cap and trade," that is allegedly "necessary" to combat purported "man-made global warming."
Two things — the ‘Rats always are first to leave a sinking ship, and guess who’ll be targeted next for contributing to the depletion of resources such as paper, fuel, electricity...?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.