NASA Researcher crosses the line between politics and science: suggests oil chiefs should be tried for crimes against humanity.

It is one thing to have an opinion, based on science or whatever you happen to believe, but it quite another thing to call for the punishment of those who do not agree with you. 

Just because you have scientific credentials and a large microphone does not mean your “theory” is valid and you speak the truth …

From London’s Guardian …

“Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist”

James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.”

“Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech to the US Congress - in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming - to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the ‘perfect storm’ of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable.”

“Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.”

Why are there major well-respected and equally well-credentialed scientists who doubt Hansen’s theories?

“He will tell the House select committee on energy independence and global warming this afternoon that he is now 99% certain that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has already risen beyond the safe level.”

If he is 99% certain, let him release his models and his data to the rest of the world for verification as is the norm in most scientific endeavors. Let him explain how we have apparently seen signs of global cooling in the face of a rising carbon dioxide level. Let him explain why NASA was forced to correct climate data that Hansen compiled and used in his models.

And if he is 99% certain, how does he explain the ice age that never materialized and the same prescriptive remedy 30+ years ago … 

On July 9, 1971, the Washington Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels.

The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.

Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.

Before we turn our society topsy turvy and initiate measures which drastically restrict our personal freedoms, raise taxes, enlarge government and weaken our economy,  perhaps we should put James Hansen on public trial before a  jury of his scientific peers is James Hansen. A trial with evidence, proof and logical thinking without the politics and emotion. This is the way science is done.

Hansen goes political …

How can one take Hansen’s position seriously when he has allied himself with Al Gore and is being used much in the way Cindy Sheehan was used by the far-left to drive public opinion?

The current concentration is 385parts per million and is rising by 2ppm a year. Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, says 2009 will be a crucial year, with a new US president and talks on how to follow the Kyoto agreement.”

“He wants to see a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants, coupled with the creation of a huge grid of low-loss electric power lines buried under ground and spread across America, in order to give wind and solar power a chance of competing. ‘The new US president would have to take the initiative analogous to Kennedy's decision to go to the moon.’"

He is also considering personally targeting members of Congress who have a poor track record on climate change in the coming November elections. He will campaign to have several of them unseated. Hansen's speech to Congress on June 23 1988 is seen as a seminal moment in bringing the threat of global warming to the public's attention. At a time when most scientists were still hesitant to speak out, he said the evidence of the greenhouse gas effect was 99% certain, adding ‘it is time to stop waffling’".

“A group seeking to increase pressure on international leaders is launching a campaign today called It is taking out full-page adverts in papers such as the New York Times and the Swedish Falukuriren calling for the target level of CO2 to be lowered to 350ppm. The advert has been backed by 150 signatories, including Hansen.”

It is one thing to force a debate and it is quite another to force an action …

Scientists, except for those on the far-left, very rarely engage in political debate to promote their positions. Because it is a waste of time considering that it is an immutable fact is that science is not subject to public opinion or political whim.

If Hansen were truly a scientist, rather than a computationalist, he would be attempting to force a rigorous scientific debate based on his work. He would be presenting at scientific conferences, not political rallies.

And, one should remember, that a Congressional inquiry is not a scientific forum or even a place when open and honest debate takes place. It is where asshat politicians extend their fifteen minutes of media fame.

The mere thought that people like Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer and others of their ilk that can hardly understand the science or formulate a cogent question, points to the ludicrous nature of Hansen’s Congressional appearance.

Hansen, shopping for a political appointment?

It is my personal opinion that Hansen is lobbying for a major political appointment in an Obama administration.

What can YOU do?

Separate politics and science. The two are often incompatible as politicians rely on feelings and perceptions and very rarely lets facts get in the way of their positions.

Demand a full and fair hearing of Hansen’s theories in a scientific forum where competing theories and evidence can be presented … before allowing the government to take self-serving and precipitous action which will result in bigger government, higher taxes, loss of personal freedom and introduce more chaos into our economy. Not to mention weakening national defense in the face of known and traditional enemies such as Russia and China. (Perhaps that is what the far-left

Do not vote for any candidate or current politician who is willing to subvert the safety, security, sovereignty and economic strength of the United States or limit an individual's right of self-defense for their personal philosophy, power, prestige or profits.

-- steve 

Quote of the Day: “Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.” --Edward R. Murrow

A reminder from a large improvement can result from a small change…

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

Reference Links:

Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist | Environment | The Guardian

Fudging the numbers?

There are relatively no known tests that would determine the validity of computerized climate models. In fact, the only validation seems to come from comparing the output with the historical and current weather records. Hardly a rigorous scientific approach. Especially considering that weather prediction models lose accuracy within periods of days and that while the model continues to churn out answers – they have been found to be neither relevant nor valid. 

The Mickey Mouse Problem

Well-trained observers can look at a cloud pattern and see an outline that appears to be similar to Mickey Mouse in shape. Does this mean that the data describing the phenomenon can be related to a mathematical outline of a Mickey Mouse shape?  A resounding NO! There is no such data contained within the clouds and it is not even a coincidental occurrence. It is simply an observer’s image recognition software (in the brain) which is comparing the visual input of data to pre-stored images. A match is made and an inference drawn. Which leads to junk science where mathematical models may use programmed Mickey Mouse shapes to look for patterns in the clouds. If they appear, the result is given some credence.

Forcing the numbers to agree …

Why I think global climatologists are fudging the numbers:  all computer modeling relies on assumptions and many models rely in data adjustments, which in and of themselves, do not have any basis in historical measurements or well-established theories. Thus it is possible to produce greatly exaggerated results by using so-called flux adjustments within the modeling criteria.  It has been noted that certain “outlier” results, where the data does not follow the central data trend, have been publicized without due regard for probability of statistical or methodological errors. Thus we cannot use these very same models, which purport to produce valuable information, to predict global climate  changes … only suppositional effects.

For the geeks among us …

AND FLUX ADJUSTMENTS  by S.J. Phipps, J.L. Roberts, S.B. Power , W.F. Budd and N.L. Bindoff 

Coupled climate system models play a vital role in the study of anthropogenic climate change. As well as being used to predict future changes, they are also used to simulate the natural variability that occurs within the climate system. Understanding of this variability is fundamental to the detection of anthropogenic change.

In order to properly study natural climate variability using a coupled model, millennial-scale simulations are required. However, flux adjustments are generally required in order to obtain a control climate that is both realistic and stable on such timescales. These artificial adjustments to the fluxes of heat, freshwater and momentum between the atmosphere and the ocean can be larger in magnitude than the underlying physical processes. Their effect on the simulated natural variability, and on the simulated response to external forcing, requires careful consideration.


The effect of employing flux adjustments on the climatic response of an idealized coupled model to an imposed radiative forcing is investigated with two coupled models, one of which employs flux adjustments.

A linear reduction (to the planetary longwave flux) of 4 W/m2 is applied over a 70 y period and held constant thereafter. Similar model responses are found (during the initial 70 y period) for global-scale diagnostics of hemispheric air temperature due to the nearly linear surface-air temperature response to the radiative forcing.

Significant regional scale differences do exist, however. As the perturbation away from the present climate grows, basin-scale diagnostics (such as meridional overturning rates) begin to diverge between flux adjusted and non-flux adjusted models.

Once the imposed radiative forcing is held constant, differences in global mean air temperature of up to 0.5°C are found, with large regional-scale differences in air temperature and overturning rates within the North Atlantic and Southern Ocean.

Two additional experiments with the flux adjusted model (beginning from points further along the control integration) suggest that the elimination of much of the coupling shock before the radiative forcing is applied leads to results slightly closer to the non-flux adjusted case, although large differences still persist. In particular a dipole structure indicating an enhanced warming within the Pacific sector of the Southern Ocean, and cooling within the Atlantic sector is not reproduced by the flux adjusted models.

This disparity is intimately linked to the Southern Ocean overturning cell along with the flux adjustments employed as well as the drift arising from coupling shock.

If a similar form of sensitivity exists in more realistic coupled models, our results suggest: (1) perturbation experiments should not be undertaken until after the coupled model control experiment is carried out for several hundred years (thereby minimizing the coupling shock); (2) care should be exercised in the interpretation of regional-scale results (over the ocean) in coupled models which employ flux adjustments; (3) care should also be taken in interpreting even global-scale diagnostics in flux adjusted models for large perturbations about the present climate.

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell